When taking over a team mid-season the board cares more about league position than form

[stealingsilver]

When taking over a struggling team (well in the relegation zone during a mid season sacking) after about 10 games my job seems to be "very insecure" even though I have turned their fortunes around. This has now happened to me twice (both times in China). The first time I just assumed it was an impatient board as I had not yet got out of the relegation zone after 10 games even though I was 4 wins 1 draw and 5 losses. However, now I have taken over a team 2/3rds of the way through the season who have not had a win all season. After 10 games I am 5 wins and 5 losses and my job is very insecure because I am still in the relegation zone. Frustrating

Has anyone else had this?

[CityAndColour]

Yep. Took over a team rock bottom after 10 games on FM13 (previous manager sacked due to being meant to challenge for the title), started with seven wins from 10 to get us to mid table and still had my job status as "very insecure".

Problem is when I was offered the job, I was still given a mandate of challenging for the title, which suggests as you say that the current situation isn't properly taken into account.

[MichaelBrown]

Yep. Took over a team rock bottom after 10 games on FM13 (previous manager sacked due to being meant to challenge for the title), started with seven wins from 10 to get us to mid table and still had my job status as "very insecure".

Problem is when I was offered the job, I was still given a mandate of challenging for the title, which suggests as you say that the current situation isn't properly taken into account.

This.

I once took over West Brom who were bottom (with a poor, ageing squad) around December/January time IIRC. They had just been relegated from the Prem so the board wanted promotion. I managed to get them to 14th before the board promptly sacked me.

I thought this was absurd if I'm honest.