Jump to content

CHAIRMAN INTERFERANCE/CONTROL


CHAIRMAN CONTROL  

27 members have voted

  1. 1. SHOULD CHAIRMAN INTERFERANCE BE SCALED RIGHT BACK OR STOPED



Recommended Posts

Over the last several years the managers have less and less control over the team daily management. I would love to see the following changes.

 

1) Stop chairman interference with player contracts. I haven't done a player contract for a few years now as the owners, Chairman takes everything over.

 

2) The manager gets to decide who goes out on loan and not the chairman. I have players I need out on loan as I already have the players in a given position at a rating level I need. This constant interference is severely irritating and the manager should get to decide how his team is run any not everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soccer manager admin has voted no, lol. Proof they care not what the Users want.

 

It's posts like this that always make me chuckle to myself as i've being playing the game since day one and am a manager just like you and everyone else on the game. So because I don't agree with your suggestion "it proves I don't care what the users want"? Really? It's called a difference of opinion on how as a manager i'd like to see the game develop. I understand why some managers want less interference as i've discussed this with numerous people in the past and i'll continue to do so going forward. However, the Chairman is in place so that some clubs don't go to ruin and that would happen if there wasn't one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there should be more chairman interference.

1. Chairman sells player automatically as soon as the club runs into a deficit. (Definitely realistic)

2. Chairman signs a player without consultation with manager (ask any Newcastle manager)

3. Chairman accepts a bid for a player, without managers approval, because the chairman views the offer as "too good to refuse"

4. Chairman blocks a transfer because the player is too old, too expensive, too young, too Unknown.

5. Chairman interference with team selection

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there should be more chairman interference.

1. Chairman sells player automatically as soon as the club runs into a deficit. (Definitely realistic)

2. Chairman signs a player without consultation with manager (ask any Newcastle manager)

3. Chairman accepts a bid for a player, without managers approval, because the chairman views the offer as "too good to refuse"

4. Chairman blocks a transfer because the player is too old, too expensive, too young, too Unknown.

5. Chairman interference with team selection

That would definitely see the end of SM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Au contraire, Blackadder......

It might just be the spark to make the game more interesting.

SM, like any game, should be a challenge. Not just take over a club, buy as many high rated players as possible and then hog them.

The game should challenge people, throw in obstacles, make managers work at making their club successful.

How can anyone object to legitimate improvements? Why shouldn't a chairman flog your best player to get the club out of debt caused by mismanagement.

Someone posted in another thread that they would never ever sell Thomas Muller. How can that possibly make for a decent game. That sort of attitude needs to be eradicated. That manager needs to log in one day and find the chairman has sold Muller, albeit for a massive fee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why shouldn't a chairman flog your best player to get the club out of debt caused by mismanagement.

 

It's trying to get a fine line between play-ability and realism but managers should be punished harsher for continued mismanagement. If you club tips it's toes into the red before going back into the black I don't see any harm into that. However, if it stays in the red and the debt continues to increase then that is when the Chairman should step in. If anything it'd encourage managers to be more sensible with their finances if they knew there were consequences other than being unable to transfer players in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SM, like any game, should be a challenge. Not just take over a club, buy as many high rated players as possible and then hog them.

The game should challenge people, throw in obstacles, make managers work at making their club successful.

 

 

I completely agree with this.  The game should continue to re-invent itself to ensure it doesn't become predictable and boring.

 

Perhaps there should be more chairman interference.

1. Chairman sells player automatically as soon as the club runs into a deficit. (Definitely realistic) - 100% agree with this too.  It is part of the Manager's responsibility to manage his club within the constraints of a budget and so it is quite reasonable for a Chairman to step in if the Manager is driving the club into debt.

 

2. Chairman signs a player without consultation with manager (ask any Newcastle manager) - Not so sure about this.  I know that in real life this does happen but the Manager always has the option of resigning and joining a club that doesn't interfere.  However, it would be unrealistic for SM to give ALL clubs an interfering Chairman and, if it chose to just make some clubs interfere, then those clubs would quickly become permanently unmanaged.

 

3. Chairman accepts a bid for a player, without managers approval, because the chairman views the offer as "too good to refuse" - I agree to a certain extent.  If a player wasn't playing regularly & had developed concerns then I think this could work.  It would need some careful consideration though because it would be unfair for a Manager to invest heavily in a good player only for him to be sold against his wishes a little later on.

 

4. Chairman blocks a transfer because the player is too old, too expensive, too young, too Unknown. - I disagree I'm afraid.  The Chairman already has control over how much he will pay for a player and already refuses to sign players if the club is in debt.  Regarding age, etc, the Chairman employs the Assistant Manager & Scout to provide advice and/or recommendations whether they believe a player is worth signing or not.

 

5. Chairman interference with team selection - I disagree with this too.  I would go as far as allowing the Chairman to express his concern that a particular player isn't getting regular game time (especially if he has just shelled out a small fortune for him!) but I would dislike working for a Chairman that insists a player has to play regardless of what tactics/formation I intend to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there should be more chairman interference.

1. Chairman sells player automatically as soon as the club runs into a deficit. (Definitely realistic)

2. Chairman signs a player without consultation with manager (ask any Newcastle manager)

3. Chairman accepts a bid for a player, without managers approval, because the chairman views the offer as "too good to refuse"

4. Chairman blocks a transfer because the player is too old, too expensive, too young, too Unknown.

5. Chairman interference with team selection

1. Partially agree. If the club goes in debt and the situation keeps going on like that over a certain period of time, only then the chairman should step in like Steven said. There is difference between a slight red balance and a club in increasing debt.

2. Disagree. Ferguson at United was both manager and ds, as it should always be.

3. Disagree. A club has full powers on their own players, as long as they're in active financial status they decide who is or is not for sale. You can see often IRL clubs rejecting offers for their star players, stating them unavailable: Messi in Barca, Müller in Bayern Munchen etc. While for quality players that don't play the minimum required by SM regulations, concerns will force in 1.5 season a player hogger to sell them. Also your proposal would favour hogging as big clubs could strip any good player from mid-low clubs so very bad idea: leading to emptier GW, less gold management renewals and potentially the end of SM.

4 and 5) Disagree. A chairman only manages the financial aspect of the club. Many chairman IRL don't understand football, so they will not interfere at all in market and team selection and give full trust to the appointed staff. Only if the clubs goes in an increasing debt status, they will step in on market decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there should be more chairman interference.

1. Chairman sells player automatically as soon as the club runs into a deficit. (Definitely realistic)

2. Chairman signs a player without consultation with manager (ask any Newcastle manager)

3. Chairman accepts a bid for a player, without managers approval, because the chairman views the offer as "too good to refuse"

4. Chairman blocks a transfer because the player is too old, too expensive, too young, too Unknown.

5. Chairman interference with team selection

 

I think people want this to be football manager (PC) sometimes and not soccer manager. None of these suggestions would improve SM in its current state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people want this to be football manager (PC) sometimes and not soccer manager. None of these suggestions would improve SM in its current state.

Going to have to dismiss your view out of hand.

My suggestions would improve SM beyond recognition, albeit with some caveats other people suggested.

You don't even state "why"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there should be more chairman interference.

1. Chairman sells player automatically as soon as the club runs into a deficit. (Definitely realistic)

2. Chairman signs a player without consultation with manager (ask any Newcastle manager)

3. Chairman accepts a bid for a player, without managers approval, because the chairman views the offer as "too good to refuse"

4. Chairman blocks a transfer because the player is too old, too expensive, too young, too Unknown.

5. Chairman interference with team selection

The day this is brought in I leave the site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's posts like this that always make me chuckle to myself as i've being playing the game since day one and am a manager just like you and everyone else on the game. So because I don't agree with your suggestion "it proves I don't care what the users want"? Really? It's called a difference of opinion on how as a manager i'd like to see the game develop. I understand why some managers want less interference as i've discussed this with numerous people in the past and i'll continue to do so going forward. However, the Chairman is in place so that some clubs don't go to ruin and that would happen if there wasn't one.

With all due respect its down to the manager to run its club and finances in the proper manner or what's the point. I keep an eye on my finances and act accordingly if I feel I am losing to much. I like my finances on an even playing field as much as I can while having players good enough to challenge. I do like to buy youth but not for fun, I buy for future potential for my clubs future. If people run the club they manager into the ground its not everyone elses problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going to have to dismiss your view out of hand.

My suggestions would improve SM beyond recognition, albeit with some caveats other people suggested.

You don't even state "why"

 

Because this is a game designed for people to log in a few times a week, not every day and have to deal with random factors such as surprise purchases etc. All of these suggestions would and probably do work well in football manager where nothing happens until you load up and play the game but this isn't that game.

 

The chairman AI is too basic to implement any of these features without completely messing a team up and ruining the fun that SM already offers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because this is a game designed for people to log in a few times a week, not every day and have to deal with random factors such as surprise purchases etc. All of these suggestions would and probably do work well in football manager where nothing happens until you load up and play the game but this isn't that game.

 

The chairman AI is too basic to implement any of these features without completely messing a team up and ruining the fun that SM already offers.

Thank you for offering some feedback.

But I have to disagree.

The chairman selling players if you go into the red is definitely a good move

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because this is a game designed for people to log in a few times a week, not every day and have to deal with random factors such as surprise purchases etc. All of these suggestions would and probably do work well in football manager where nothing happens until you load up and play the game but this isn't that game.

 

The chairman AI is too basic to implement any of these features without completely messing a team up and ruining the fun that SM already offers.

Thank you for offering some feedback.

But I have to disagree.

The chairman selling players if you go into the red is definitely a good move

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chairman selling players if you go into the red is definitely a good move

 

Makes no sense as its very possible some well run clubs will operate in the red throughout the season but make a profit each year when you get the domestic cup money, league position money, promotion money, qualification for the European competitions ect. Just like how clubs run in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there should be more chairman interference.

1. Chairman sells player automatically as soon as the club runs into a deficit. (Definitely realistic)

2. Chairman signs a player without consultation with manager (ask any Newcastle manager)

3. Chairman accepts a bid for a player, without managers approval, because the chairman views the offer as "too good to refuse"

4. Chairman blocks a transfer because the player is too old, too expensive, too young, too Unknown.

5. Chairman interference with team selection

This would be the final nail in the coffin for SM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be the final nail in the coffin for SM

No, it would improve SM beyond all recognition by forcing managers to manage in a more challenging environment.

I could have addressed your concerns if you had expressed them, instead you just made a negative comment without supporting material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes no sense as its very possible some well run clubs will operate in the red throughout the season but make a profit each year when you get the domestic cup money, league position money, promotion money, qualification for the European competitions ect. Just like how clubs run in real life.

It makes perfect sense because it would force managers to manage their finances property. The simple example is that many clubs exist in the red, without any in game sanction, knowing they can probably a player at some point. In sum, doing this is part of the the player hogging problem.

However, if the game sold your best player as soon as you had a deficit, it would force managers to be proactive in selling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...