I'm sorry, but this is the most appalling BS!

[milnerpoint]

Yeah i'd agree that would work much better, i dont think its a bug as such, more a feature that could be designed better to provide better information to the user.

[BiggusD]

We could be asked in the beginning of the savegame, upon creation, whether or not we want to play in career mode or in club mode. In the latter case being fired as the result of a board takeover is simply removed as an outcome.

[Gee_Simpson]

You forgot Hearts of Lithuania, utter basket case of a club.

Someone has a chip on their shoulder. Hibs fan?

[Guest]

Not even close , Colchester United fan.

[milnerpoint]

Someone has a chip on their shoulder. Hibs fan?

He has a point tho

[efreet]

One could argue the new board were too demanding and did not think what the OP had achieved was good enough for them, and as such fired him, one could argue that.......

One would have know absolutely nothing about football then.

In those four years I've won 1 League Cup, 1 FA Cup, 1 Community Shield, 2 Euro Super Cups, and 2 Champion's League.

Two CL in four years is not good enough?Bug, and should be fixed.

[efreet]

The board simply makes its decision based on the number of "performance" points the manager has accrued relative to the board's requirements.

Could be or could be just random.Which is a shame cuz more active chairman with stats will make the game much more enjoyable and alive.

[Gee_Simpson]

Not even close , Colchester United fan.

So you don't really know what your talking about then. Hearts of Lithuania? that's so old now. We only have 2 Lithuanian players in our whole squad.

He has a point tho

Not really as he said that we were a basket case of a club. It's our owner who's a basket case, not the club itself.

[Guest]

Going off topic but are you suggesting that Hearts are not a basket case? Where's that chip at?

[Gee_Simpson]

Going off topic but are you suggesting that Hearts are not a basket case? Where's that chip at?

I'm not suggesting that Hearts are not a basket case, I'm telling you we aren't.

[Sayengwar]

Rather than having an "unsackable" option, I would prefer it if there was the option to impress or plead with the guys who have took over the club to give you a chance, listing all the achievements you've done previously and stating how much of an impact you've brought to the club. In the OP's case, you could state that you've:

*Brought European success to the club, twice, in the 4 years you've been there.

*Brought numerous other Cup trophies and success to the club in that space of time.

*Been battling relentlessly to capture the League title,

*Implemented a more well-structured youth regime that's already reaping the rewards.

*Ensured the club stays afloat by the shrewd financial knowledge that you've brought in from the very start of your reign at the club.

Just something that makes you change their mind or, atleast, give you a chance for a few (5?) games. An unsackable option feels too much like cheating to me, but I would be annoyed if the same thing happened to me tbh. I'd have liked to have known that I could've at least fought for my position and show them how much the job means to me and how much i've brought to the club.

[CityAndColour]

Which brings us back to Barside's point earlier, would this be acceptable if everything happened in the same way except the news message says "you have been sacked because of your lack of domestic league success" ??

You would have the reasoning right there and then, and would know exactly why you were replaced.

I think it would be acceptable if the takeover was met with the message "we acknowledge your success in Europe, however we place a priority on the league. If you are unable to deliver this at the earliest opportunity, then we will review your position". Easy. It acknowledges his success, however also details the expectations of the new board and what he needs to do to keep his job. Just sacking him with no reasoning or ability to keep his job is a game-breaker.

[Some Guy!]

Hmmm... I don't usually say this, but I think the original poster has a good point. The whole 'insta-sacking' thing is something that should be avoided, at least in the case of a manager doing so well. Why do I say this? Because in a game that aspires to realism they allow a board to sack a manager who is doing about a great job, a manager that other clubs likely want. Sure, it happens sometimes, but in much less ridiculous cases. Even then this inspires supporters to protest in many cases. Unless they want to have supporter protests and massive drops in season ticket sales based on this sort of thing, then I think they should at the minimum tone it down a bit.

[TwinsFan86]

I personally don't see a problem with what happened to the OP. It's pretty standard operating procedure for new ownership to bring in their own front office staff and their own manager, regardless of how successful the previous manager was. Is the previous manager sometimes given a chance to prove himself? Yes they are, but sometimes the new board has already decided to bring in their own manager.

Does it suck for the OP? Sure, but it isn't the end of the world. As others have stated there are a couple workarounds that could be done. You could also go coach somewhere else and watch for the Arsenal job to open back up and apply for it again.

[TSH]

I personally don't see a problem with what happened to the OP. It's pretty standard operating procedure for new ownership to bring in their own front office staff and their own manager, regardless of how successful the previous manager was.

Standard operating procedure? Regardless of how successful the previous manager was? Regardless of the fact that he has won 2 CL and has a team running like clockwork?

In what planet is this standard operating procedure?

[JAStewart]

There are plenty of examples of good managers getting sacked. Mourinho and Ancelotti are two examples. A few bad results and boom. Stupid decisions exist and the game tries to replicate that.

[x42bn6]

There are plenty of examples of good managers getting sacked. Mourinho and Ancelotti are two examples. A few bad results and boom. Stupid decisions exist and the game tries to replicate that.

Again: Mourinho fell out personally with Abramovich, and Ancelotti was tasked with winning the Champions League while sustaining success.

Arsenal, on the other hand, have had little success in modern times under Wenger (unlike Ancelotti's Chelsea), and the OP has changed all of that for the better.

A blind man could see that the OP's Arsenal is clearly going in the right direction, so why fix what's not broken?

[SuperMeppen]

Del Bosque is a SIMILAR example, was a club legend, brough super stars and global icons to the club and won loads with Real Madrid to then be sacked. Its a Similar scenario, but is still as frustrating as the OP's events.

Del Bosque wasn't sacked, his contract wasn't renewed. There is a massive difference, unless you think any player leaving on a free is also being sacked? And it wasn't due to a board takeover, making it even less valid a comparison.

As for your other examples, Big Sam was struggling with the team at the time. QPR have been in terrible form and Warnock allegedly had lost the dressing room (who were moaning to the board). Mourinho fell out with the big boss man, but also failed to deliver the Champions League, which is what he wants. Ancelotti, likewise, didn't deliver a solid Champions League challenge.

Now whether people think this is a logical or reasonable decision or not, I think we could all agree that it would be nice if the manager had some interaction with the new board coming in to discuss aims and such - as would happen in the real world. A compromise could be as suggested up thread - the board outlining some objectives (either short-term or longer term); at least give the manager the chance to win the board over, which would be more realistic.

Another point would be that if the club were publically traded in real life, the stock market value would plunge (over the short-term, at least) on such an occurance. Not that such things are modelled in-game, but Arsenal is publically-traded in real life.

[milnerpoint]

A blind man could see Ancelotti was doing a good job, a blind man could see Del Bosque was doing a good job, a blind man could see Jimmy Calderwood was doing a good job up here in Aberdeen, sadly this blind man doesnt save jobs, he isnt part of the board.

[x42bn6]

A blind man could see Ancelotti was doing a good job

In his last season with Chelsea, Ancelotti won nothing and went on that legendary run (2 league wins in November and December), which threw their title challenge off balance. He couldn't get Torres firing properly and when the season was over, Chelsea had been left with an aging squad that needed dire replacements. Ancelotti, quite frankly, was not doing a good job.

a blind man could see Del Bosque was doing a good job

When Valdano is involved, you can bet there's political things behind the scenes. Many things at Real Madrid are political - just like Mourinho and Abramovich.

a blind man could see Jimmy Calderwood was doing a good job up here in Aberdeen, sadly this blind man doesnt save jobs, he isnt part of the board.

Jimmy Calderwood's record towards the end of the season didn't look like a good job. A run of 3 wins in 16 according to Wikipedia - sounds like a fantastic job well done.

[milnerpoint]

Hahahahaha yes use Wiki to judge the job a manager did in a league you dont watch. Ill leave it there i think

[MeesterCat]

If I was the OP, I would continue with the save but direct his ire at the game instead of the forums - take the job at another team and make it your goal to prove to the new Arsenal baord that removing you was the biggest mistake they could have made. Build a second empire at a different club; even Ferguson hasn't done that.

[Jamman]

Should be an option at very least.

This is a random event that kills your game with no input from you. Yes it happens in real life, but its detrimental to gameplay.

It reminds me of the the old role playing game books you used to get.

"You are in a room there are two doors which do you take ? Left door turn to page 33, right door page 45"

Turne to page 45

"Theres a trap, YOU ARE DEAD"

Oh great. Ta.

[x42bn6]

Hahahahaha yes use Wiki to judge the job a manager did in a league you dont watch. Ill leave it there i think

Nope, I don't follow the SPL - but I don't think I need to to see that his record wasn't great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9309_Aberdeen_F.C._season#Scottish_Premier_League

Besides, Aberdeen did better in 2007-08 and better in 2006-07 - it was a slow, gentle, downward slide. The OP, on the other hand, shows an upward trend.

[milnerpoint]

Again you dont watch the league and you clearly have very little knowledge of what went on up here. Like i said, ill leave it there.

[Reccy]

Nope, I don't follow the SPL - but I don't think I need to to see that his record wasn't great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9309_Aberdeen_F.C._season#Scottish_Premier_League

Besides, Aberdeen did better in 2007-08 and better in 2006-07 - it was a slow, gentle, downward slide. The OP, on the other hand, shows an upward trend.

Just realised that the OP didn't win the league, maybe the new chairman seen this and thought he wasn't the right man for the job as his failure to secure the EPL on 4 tries was a significant warrant to bring in a new manager.

Most will think the Champs League is "harder" but that doesn't necessary mean its "better to win" than the domestic title.

[x42bn6]

Again you dont watch the league and you clearly have very little knowledge of what went on up here. Like i said, ill leave it there.

How about this thread, which shows that a lot of Aberdeen fans wanted him to be gone in 2009?

http://www.afc-chat.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=5414&st=2490

This linked a commentary news item: http://talentspotter.fourfourtwo.com/blogs/thesouthstandseagull/istimeupforthetangoman.aspx

It certainly doesn't look like a good job. It looks, at best, to be a mixed job.

I don't need a PhD. in SPL Studies to comment on downward trends. "One does not need cancer to analyse its symptoms."

Tell me - what was so good about Calderwood's reign?

[SuperMeppen]

A blind man could see Ancelotti was doing a good job, a blind man could see Del Bosque was doing a good job, a blind man could see Jimmy Calderwood was doing a good job up here in Aberdeen, sadly this blind man doesnt save jobs, he isnt part of the board.

But Ancelotti didn't deliver the Champions League or even get close, which is what Abramovich wants. Plus from the high of his first season, his second was a disappointment and he arguably didn't do much to improve the long-term health of the squad or finances.

And again, Del Bosque wasn't sacked and nor was it due to a takeover, so that goes down as an unfortunate sacking (which in-game could be a bug unless the board confidence had been dropping over a period of time). But isn't relevant to this thread, which is specifically due to a board takeover the game seeming to just flip a coin. At the very least it is worthy of investigation. A logical conclusion shouldn't be overruled by a roll of a die (and again, 'it could happen in the real-world' doesn't cut it because Arsenal are a publically traded company, and such a situation would severely impact share price in the short-term).

[CityAndColour]

I think soon people will be using Roy Hodgson's sacking at Liverpool as justification for the OP.

[x42bn6]

Just realised that the OP didn't win the league, maybe the new chairman seen this and thought he wasn't the right man for the job as his failure to secure the EPL on 4 tries was a significant warrant to bring in a new manager.

Most will think the Champs League is "harder" but that doesn't necessary mean its "better to win" than the domestic title.

If the OP won the Champions League multiple times, surely league success is inevitable? Especially seeing as how the OP has built for the future? Look at Milan.

I think it's more likely that the new chairman will question why the manager hasn't been able to win the league yet, then make his decision. It's possible that the OP has built a squad like Arsenal - it can't sustain a title push, but is more than capable of beating top teams on their day. Maybe the youth team investment will build the "squad" in the future, allowing them to sustain title pushes in the future with a bulkier squad without needing heavy investment. Maybe "that future" is "this season" when the youngsters make their first-team pushes.

A chairman that wants the league and fires the manager straight away would be thinking that the OP has no chance of winning the title. I don't think this is the case - the OP has a perhaps-flawed title haul, but a title haul nevertheless and things are looking up, with the youth investment. Grassroots success and organic growth are always better than artificial "chuck money at the wall" growth, as organic growth often leads to more sustainable success and better long-term investment growth.

Besides, as City showed, chucking millions doesn't guarantee success immediately. It's taken 3-4 years for City to get to where they are today since Abu Dhabi moved in. If you gave the OP 3-4 years, surely the position would be at worst the same (given the upward trajectory of the OP factoring in Wenger), but having spent less (as the OP has invested in the youth team)? Alternatively, if the new owners had money to burn, why not just give it to the OP, who knows the team already?

I just think it's silly to assume that the OP has no chance of winning the league, assuming the new owners want to win the league. A new manager will take the squad in a new direction which could prove detrimental and counterproductive. It is more likely that the squad needs a few nuts and bolts before it becomes a title challenger, rather than a radical overhaul.

When a new business plan is considered, one of the options always considered is "do nothing". In the OP's case, "do nothing" is a very tempting strategy.

[Reccy]

If the OP won the Champions League multiple times, surely league success is inevitable? Especially seeing as how the OP has built for the future? Look at Milan.

I think it's more likely that the new chairman will question why the manager hasn't been able to win the league yet, then make his decision. It's possible that the OP has built a squad like Arsenal - it can't sustain a title push, but is more than capable of beating top teams on their day. Maybe the youth team investment will build the "squad" in the future, allowing them to sustain title pushes in the future with a bulkier squad without needing heavy investment. Maybe "that future" is "this season" when the youngsters make their first-team pushes.

A chairman that wants the league and fires the manager straight away would be thinking that the OP has no chance of winning the title. I don't think this is the case - the OP has a perhaps-flawed title haul, but a title haul nevertheless and things are looking up, with the youth investment. Grassroots success and organic growth are always better than artificial "chuck money at the wall" growth, as organic growth often leads to more sustainable success and better long-term investment growth.

Besides, as City showed, chucking millions doesn't guarantee success immediately. It's taken 3-4 years for City to get to where they are today since Abu Dhabi moved in. If you gave the OP 3-4 years, surely the position would be at worst the same (given the upward trajectory of the OP factoring in Wenger), but having spent less (as the OP has invested in the youth team)? Alternatively, if the new owners had money to burn, why not just give it to the OP, who knows the team already?

I just think it's silly to assume that the OP has no chance of winning the league, assuming the new owners want to win the league. A new manager will take the squad in a new direction which could prove detrimental and counterproductive. It is more likely that the squad needs a few nuts and bolts before it becomes a title challenger, rather than a radical overhaul.

When a new business plan is considered, one of the options always considered is "do nothing". In the OP's case, "do nothing" is a very tempting strategy.

Absolutely means nothing. Speculate all you want, common sense hasn't prevailed here agreed, but this virtual chairman had his own vision and ideas and the OP wasn't included. Only SI will be able to explain the behaviour in this scenario. I don't see a problem at all, "Good/Great" managers have been sacked/let go/not renewed for one reason or another, this is one of those cases. Its not the rule but is an exception.

I would presume that no chairman in the world would think the EPL is the main target over Champs League when they are competing in both. The OP failed to achieve success in the EPL but did have a 50% win ratio in the Champs League over 4 years.

I cannot explain why the chairman sacked the OP straight away without reason and I do agree with some posts here that more detail is needed, or better wording as to why, or even one better and that the new board stipulate there requirements for you to keep your job. But I still maintain this isn't a bug, but just "50/50 chance" with the roll of the dice situation.

[Vicente14]

It could easily be re-coded to be less cut-throat.

The examples here are a bit rubbish tbh. Warnock was not doing great at the time, not sack worthy to me but... it's plausable. Del Bosque was complicated; political machinations, Perez being Perez and a bit of a tool basically, and a rumoured schism in the lockerroom... if all this stuff can happen in the game then fine but... Also Allardyce's sacking... he wasn't hitting his usualy height so... it's a reach but yeah...

OP is doing better than Allardyce, hasn't split the changing room in half and isn't on a bad run of form and a middling manager. He's elite. Would anyone in thier right mind sack Guardiola? No. Also, this is a game.... you can't have "realism" like this and say it's possible a complete mental defective could theoretically take over your side but be okay with the craziness that exists like the budgets and the fact you can have a rocketpowered revolving door and do all manner of ridiculous thing and it not really damage you.

[x42bn6]

Absolutely means nothing. Speculate all you want, common sense hasn't prevailed here agreed, but this virtual chairman had his own vision and ideas and the OP wasn't included. Only SI will be able to explain the behaviour in this scenario. I don't see a problem at all, "Good/Great" managers have been sacked/let go/not renewed for one reason or another, this is one of those cases. Its not the rule but is an exception.

I would presume that no chairman in the world would think the EPL is the main target over Champs League when they are competing in both. The OP failed to achieve success in the EPL but did have a 50% win ratio in the Champs League over 4 years.

I cannot explain why the chairman sacked the OP straight away without reason and I do agree with some posts here that more detail is needed, or better wording as to why, or even one better and that the new board stipulate there requirements for you to keep your job. But I still maintain this isn't a bug, but just "50/50 chance" with the roll of the dice situation.

Business decisions don't come down to coin flips. There are basically two decisions - keep the current manager, or get a new one. Both have pros and cons, but one will be better than the other, and the better one will be chosen 100% of the time.

Imagine you have to go to the shops. There are two paths - one is longer and more dangerous, and one is shorter and safer as it passes by the police station. You don't flip a (biased) coin to see which path you take - you will always take the shorter and safer route. The overall benefits taken by taking the longer and more dangerous route are outclassed by the shorter and safer route.

The same applies here - the best business plan will be chosen. The board does not flip a coin.

By firing the manager, they are saying that the best business plan is to get a new manager. And I am struggling to see why this is the case, given the risks involved in hiring a new manager (fan mutiny, they might not get their first preference, compensation and hiring costs, the new manager might be Scolari undoing Mourinho's work, etc.). Businesses are naturally risk-averse - a manager who is quite frankly doing little wrong and has built for the future deserves, at the very least, to see that future take place.

None of this can really be done without proper board interaction. I'd go one further and state that this sort of thing cannot happen without being able to interact with the board, from a pure gameplay perspective.

[Ackter]

Why are people even bringing real life examples in to this? They don't matter.

This is basically game-ending for a lot of people, and if they're fired for no good reason then it shouldn't be happening. "Realism" can take a running jump when it interferes so severely with a person's capability to play the game.

If it happened in my Newcastle save, the only save I actually play, a save that has reached 60+ seasons in each of the last three versions, I would turn the game off and not play it for along time.

[jimbobBRFC]

Blackburn and good ol' venky's?

dont start

[The Welsh Lad]

Ackter I agree with you. Sometimes this game doesn't feel like a game, it feels like work. The idea of a game is to relieve the stresses of work and add to them.

[CityAndColour]

Why are people even bringing real life examples in to this? They don't matter.

This is basically game-ending for a lot of people, and if they're fired for no good reason then it shouldn't be happening. "Realism" can take a running jump when it interferes so severely with a person's capability to play the game.

If it happened in my Newcastle save, the only save I actually play, a save that has reached 60+ seasons in each of the last three versions, I would turn the game off and not play it for along time.

Refer to posts #3 and #6 in this thread. You probably could have closed it then.

[Keyzer Soze]

looking at this situation in an abstract way, it makes the same sense a manager being sacked following a takeover, as it does a manager being fired in the wake of poor results.

As someone as point out, this is a simulation game!

If FM was a "normal" game, you could manage Man Utd, lost every single game in one season, get relegated... and still be in charge!

In a simulation, you get 5 or 6 losses in a row and get fired!

If people find this situation normal, why the "takeover situation" makes such a fuss? It's the same principal!

[marty78]

I'd like to see a feature where if a new owner takes over or even just if you are under performing you get messages that allow you to manage your situation. Basically a message could go like this "Following our/my recent takeover of the club we/I have held a board meeting to discuss your position as manager. After much deliberation we/I have decided to set you the following target-" or "Following unsatisfactory form in recent matches the board have met to discuss your position as manager. After much deliberation we/I have decided to set you the following target-"

In this part of the message expectations would be laid out. It could be a number of points from a number of games and perhaps they might expect these points to come with a certain style of football and/or formation. If these expectations are met then the user will certainly keep their job but fail and they will be sacked.

I believe with a system such as this the warnings are there for you to heed and therefore gives you the option to respond. Would you still give that raw young centre back a starting berth in your next match if you knew a loss would cost you your job?

I'm sure people will say that it isn't realistic as this rarely happens outside of FM but it could be a compromise between those that want a simulation and those just want to have fun with the club they support.

Thoughts please

[Apos]

I'm approaching the end of my 4th season as Manager of Arsenal. In those four years I've won 1 League Cup, 1 FA Cup, 1 Community Shield, 2 Euro Super Cups, and 2 Champion's League.

My team is rock solid, my coaches are all 4.5 stars and above, and my youth system is starting to yield some top quality fruit. I've also kept the club solidly in the black with a very sensible wage structure.

So, all of a sudden I get a message saying that there is a takeover pending and then I get the sack.

I really think this is a feature that should just be removed from the game. Just like the way that you can't ever die (which, let's be honest, really buries any argument that this is some kind of hardcore simulator), I don't think you should be arbitrarily removed from your chosen job based on anything other than your own merits and performance. I would never have been let go were I in really the manager of Arsenal and had delivered two Champion's League titles in 4 years. Regardless of that, this is a video game. I'll stop playing when I want to stop playing, thank you very much.

OP's logic: Not dieing is not realistic

Being fired after a takeover is not realistic.

So if the first buries any argument that this is a simulator,let's include the first. But we both know that you'd be here creating a thread to complain about it after you got a message saying "Manager of X dies from heart attack just before the biggest match of his career!".

[Gee_Simpson]

How about this thread, which shows that a lot of Aberdeen fans wanted him to be gone in 2009?

http://www.afc-chat.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=5414&st=2490

This linked a commentary news item: http://talentspotter.fourfourtwo.com/blogs/thesouthstandseagull/istimeupforthetangoman.aspx

It certainly doesn't look like a good job. It looks, at best, to be a mixed job.

I don't need a PhD. in SPL Studies to comment on downward trends. "One does not need cancer to analyse its symptoms."

Tell me - what was so good about Calderwood's reign?

You don't have a clue. I'm a Hearts fan and I can tell you that Jimmy Calderwood done a good job at Aberdeen regardless of the stats you found on wikipedia. Judging by your multiple replies to people in this thread, you come across as someone who thinks they know everything about the goings on in football.

[KronikAlkoholik]

*Cites obscure, vaguely similar real life example in an attempt to justify a clearly ridiculous sacking*

Carlo Ancoletti Won the Premier League first time around and then got second place, FIRED!

[scott MUFC]

that was because the chairman is an idiot

he sacked the special one for little reason lol

[x42bn6]

You don't have a clue. I'm a Hearts fan and I can tell you that Jimmy Calderwood done a good job at Aberdeen regardless of the stats you found on wikipedia. Judging by your multiple replies to people in this thread, you come across as someone who thinks they know everything about the goings on in football.

That's fine. Statistics and several other fans' opinions on an Aberdeen forum can't trump your assertion that "I can tell you that Jimmy Calderwood done a good job". Screw evidence.

I don't know everything that goes on in football. I'm just giggling at the lengths at which a fan will try to defend the game, comparing an Aberdeen manager whose fans all wanted him out to a user in FM who has won the Champions League twice in 4 years with an Arsenal side that haven't won anything before him...

You know, at some point, you are actually allowed to point at a bug and call it a bug.

Carlo Ancoletti Won the Premier League first time around and then got second place, FIRED!

Won nothing in his final season (and did terrible in the Cups), went on that terrible winless streak halfway through the season, couldn't get a £50m striker firing properly, and left the squad in dire shape, needing a revamp that Villas-Boas is now struggling through... Ancelotti's last season at Chelsea was a catastrophe. A deserved sacking.

[Guest]

You know, at some point, you are actually allowed to point at a bug and call it a bug.

The sacking certainly deserved being look at but as no post has been made in the bugs forum detailing this or any similar situation how do you propose the matter is investigated?

Too many folk moan about all manner of gripes in GD but never give SI the chance to look into what went on.

[x42bn6]

The sacking certainly deserved being look at but as no post has been made in the bugs forum detailing this or any similar situation how do you propose the matter is investigated?

Too many folk moan about all manner of gripes in GD but never give SI the chance to look into what went on.

SI staff read this forum, no? Not everything goes into the bugs forum. The difficulty issue before the last patch - I don't think that ever went into the bugs forum, but was discussed and implemented anyway.

[Guest]

That was a very different subject & was about making changes to one of the core mechanics in the game rather than the community identifying a bug.

A fair amount of data & evidence provided the the SI dev team for them to work with whereas in this case we've had half a story, I was sacked even though I was good, no information about the new owners declared intent before the takeover, which there would have been & no information about the replacement so it is too early to call this situation a bug, potential problem? maybe, confirmed bug/flaw? Not based on what we know.

As for SI trying to replicate the situation the fact that I do not recall a similar incident being talked about on the boards would indicate that it is a very rare occurrence, this discussion has centred on the fairness of the outcome rather than numerous folk sticking their hand up saying the same thing happened to them, therefore if I was running the testing team it is not something that I'd be asking anyone to spend time trying to replicate when they have any number of known issues to resolve.

[scott MUFC]

there should just be an option for 1 team only management, you cant be fired (unless you make a mess of course) no offers come and takeovers cant sack you

[milnerpoint]

That's fine. Statistics and several other fans' opinions on an Aberdeen forum can't trump your assertion that "I can tell you that Jimmy Calderwood done a good job". Screw evidence.

I don't know everything that goes on in football. I'm just giggling at the lengths at which a fan will try to defend the game, comparing an Aberdeen manager whose fans all wanted him out to a user in FM who has won the Champions League twice in 4 years with an Arsenal side that haven't won anything before him...

You know, at some point, you are actually allowed to point at a bug and call it a bug.

I could show you Man United fan sites that say Fergie is ruining their club and if United dont sack him right away they will become a mid table club by next year, does that mean they are correct? Not all Aberdeen fans wanted JC sacked, not even close, like i said before, you clearly have no clue about what happened up here.

Its actually a very good example in this case, JC was sacked because he could not deliver domestic cup success, the board knew he could deliver good european success at our level, which is getting into the group stages of the euro cup, they knew he could deliver top 6 finishes in the league, up here thats as much as we can aim for, but he never won a cup, so he was sacked, to the disgust of 90% of us up here.

You know at somepoint you are allowed to step back and say "ok i was wrong on that one"

[Reccy]

That's fine. Statistics and several other fans' opinions on an Aberdeen forum can't trump your assertion that "I can tell you that Jimmy Calderwood done a good job". Screw evidence.

I don't know everything that goes on in football. I'm just giggling at the lengths at which a fan will try to defend the game, comparing an Aberdeen manager whose fans all wanted him out to a user in FM who has won the Champions League twice in 4 years with an Arsenal side that haven't won anything before him...

You know, at some point, you are actually allowed to point at a bug and call it a bug.

Won nothing in his final season (and did terrible in the Cups), went on that terrible winless streak halfway through the season, couldn't get a £50m striker firing properly, and left the squad in dire shape, needing a revamp that Villas-Boas is now struggling through... Ancelotti's last season at Chelsea was a catastrophe. A deserved sacking.

But the OP situation CAN be justified. It may be completely wrong and a very bad decision by the board, but that doesn't make it a bug, and I still protest that it isn't!

The OP didn't deliver the EPL title in 4 seasons, thus the board decided that this wasn't good enough and took it upon themselves to establish the sacking. It may be the worst footballing decision in the world, but hey, this is football and doesn't make sense, but hey!