The Managerial Sacking Debate

Top 100 maintains various codes of conduct & sporting managers willing to risk it all in fairness to the game world. Current rules of the game world state that managers / clubs who finish in the bottom 2 places of a division (19th & 20th) will part ways in keeping things realistic to the point that the manager has not delivered what a club would aim for over the course of a season.

There are 3 current proposals in regards to the sackings of managers to discuss.

1: Managerial Sackings with Self-Imposed Stipulations

No criteria for keeping your job whatsoever. Upon taking a club you know the risks & must evaluate the clubs stance within the league & agree that in taking the club on you are doing so knowing that if you finish 19th or 20th you will be sacked. Should you join in game week 1 or 36 you do so knowing that finishing 19th or 20th will see your time at the club ended. A no ifs, no buts, ruling. We have managerial sackings in Top 100 & therefore they should be imposed no matter what.

Avoids any grey areas in why some managers receive more ‘leeway’ in keeping their job at a club compared to another.

It could also be proposed that managers wishing to seek a real challenge & also apply sporting / gentlemanly conduct could impose their own manager stipulations as an act of realism & also granting a fair & realistic opportunity to managers in Top 100 whom would revell at the chance to take on a club which without such stipulations could happily be managed continually without the worry of ever being in a sackable position. 

An example;

Juventus under DP91 proposes that in an introduction of managerial stipulations he would ‘hand in his resignation’ should Juventus fail to achieve any of the following conditions in one season;
  • Juventus finish below 7th in Division 1
  • Juventus do not make a final in any of the cup competitions
In the scenario that Juventus finish in 8th-20th position in any seasonal campaign & also fail to make it to the final of any of Top 100’s cup competitions DP91 would resign with immediate effect & seek employment at another club within Top 100.

It is key to note that self-imposed stipulations are completely voluntary & no manager within Top 100 is asked to apply such criteria to their management of a club. These stipulations are proposed as a means of keeping the game world forward thinking, competitive, realistic & fair to all within Top 100 & are the basis of sporting / gentlemanly conduct in keeping to any proposed stipulations which cannot be enforced by Frank Hirst / any of the Top 100 community.

2: Criteria Based Managerial Sackings & Stipulations

Various criteria can however count in a managers favour when underachieving;

  • Time in Charge – A manager’s total number of games with a club will be considered if they are in a position to warrant being sacked. Should a manager have had half a season or less in control of a club (>20 games) they may be granted extra time with the club in the following season.
  • Managerial History – Should a manager have won promotion to a higher division the previous season to the one they find themselves in a position to warrant being sacked this will be considered.
  • Club Achievements – If a manager has won a trophy during the season they find themselves in a position to warrant being sacked this will benefit their chances of maintaining their job.
  • GameWorld Contributions – A mixture of contributions to the blog, news feed & general social scene within Top 100 could count as a positive in a managers favour should they see themselves in a position that would warrant being sacked.
Manager Stipulations have been proposed which would see managers whom, for whatever reasons avoided being sacked, would have to meet in the following season in order to keep their job in the following season. These stipulations would be agreed upon by a contingency of managers chosen from within the Top 100 community & would then be applied. These stipulations would be the basis of sporting / gentlemanly conduct due to restrains to apply such criteria within SM itself & would be the basis of the manager resigning themselves if they failed to meet the set targets.
These stipulations are proposed on the basis of positioning Top 100 as one of the most forward thinking custom game worlds in SM as well as being sporting & more than anything the most competitive & realistic. 

Some example stipulations based on the current Season 2 campaign in Top 100.

Division 1

Olympique Lyon appointed Warren Livesey midway through the season & upon finishing the season will have completed 13 games as Lyon manager. Should Lyon finish 19th he will be sacked however due to completing >20 games as manager will be offered the chance to take control of Lyon for the following season. 
The proposal is now to introduce stipulations as a measure of the manager for the following campaign due to allowing said manager to continue further despite being sacked. 

A proposed stipulation in this case would be that Olympique Lyon under Warren Livesey must finish in the top 7 (Playoffs or better) the following season or achieve a cup final or a trophy to keep his job past that forthcoming season, in this case it would be season 4.
  • Olympique Lyon must finish 7th or better in season 3.
  • Olympique Lyon can additionally achieve a cup final for Warren Livesey to maintain his job at the club.

An additional example from Division 1 is that of the potential season outcome that AC Milan under Stephen Beddows finish in 19th position which would warrant his sacking from Milan. 

Stephen will have been in charge at Milan for a total of 74 games after the end of the season 2 campaign meaning he is illegible to keep his job on the basis of ‘Time in Charge’ coupled with ‘Managerial History’ & ‘Club Achievements’ however as the most influential in creating competitive competitions, as well as maintaining & promoting said competitions he could be granted managerial stipulations should he finish in 19th but want to continue as manager of AC Milan. 

A proposed stipulation in this case would be that AC Milan under Stephen Beddows must finish in the top 7 (Playoffs or better) the following season only, in order to keep his job past that forthcoming season, in this case it would be season 4.
Due to Stephen’s failure to attain positive ‘Managerial History’ or ‘Club Achievements’ in his 74 games as Milan manager he would not have the chance to save his job by achieving such successes in the forthcoming season in comparison to Warren Livesey who is granted additional opportunities to save his job.
  • AC Milan must finish in 7th or better in season 3 for Stephen Beddows to maintain his job at the club.
3: No Manager Sackings

Of course there is also an option to remove managerial sackings all together however that would take away from the competitive nature of Top 100 whilst also allowing managers who are in the bottom positions of each division to not fight to survive or even finish in 17th or 18th rather than 19th or 20th. An option all the same.

Due to the current standings & timings that Top 100 is in (Season 2, Game Week 37) the rule decided (1, 2, 3) would be enforced as of Season 3 onwards unless agreed upon otherwise. 

I must add these are my personal / briefly discussed & concluded ideas or takes on the system currently in place & attempts to remove any grey areas on the subject.


  1. I think your ideas on self-imposed stipulations are good – and the sort of challenge any self-respecting manager of a top side should think about. Also I think the idea of having following season stipulations for managers who avoid sacking after relegation is a good idea – with making the playoffs being a minimum requirement. Good article!


  2. To freshen things up periodically T100 and to avoid managers potentially running a club into oblivion I agree with the concept of managerial sackings and in fact would extend it to the bottom four.Other than resignations there are no opportunities for managers to apply for a move to a new club, sackings create such openings. Whilst I’m sure a large number of managers are happy at their current clubs there may be some who are itching for a new challenge and creating that opportunity would help eliminate potential stagnation of a manager and ultimately losing them from the league all together.As Jefferson said, “A little rebellion every now and then, is a good”.I agree fully that managers taking on a job should be mindful of the clubs position and accept the consequences of failing to avoid the sacking positions. To avoid the potentially un-realistic scenario of a manager being sacked after only a handful of games in charge I would additionally put in place that vacant managerial posts are not filled within say 6 games from the end of the season, clubs are left to AI to manage.I’m not a big fan of applying criteria bases to avoid sackings.Time in Charge – As said above a manager should be fully aware of the potential of being sacked when taking on a job and accept the consequences, as such I don’t think this criteria should apply. Managerial History – This has some merit as newly promoted clubs in the RW are invariably expected to struggle and relegation is often an accepted part of the building process, this with the stipulation that the club MUST get promoted again next season would be a workable criteria.Would achieving play-off be acceptable? Probably not as if they failed to win through does the manager then carry the stipulation on into the next season, ad infinitum?One loop hole I would close though if a manger gets Club A promoted then moves to Club B who get relegated in a sacking position the previous promotion becomes irrelevant.Club Achievements – I wouldn’t personally apply winning a cup as a criteria on the following basis.Most managers play weakened teams in the 2 SM domestic cups limiting the merit in winning them, the 2 SM European cups managers are up against AI managed clubs or cannot manage due to non-gold status, again limiting the achievement in winning them. The T100 World Club Cup sees managers generally fielding their strongest teams but is not entered by all clubs.Game World Contribution – Too subjective and immeasurable and above all I don’t feel is relevant. We are part of this GW and contribute because we love it regardless of what club we are managing and if promoting activity on the Blog and News Feed to avoid relegation becomes a factor then how do you then measure the quality of a managers contribution?“Manager A posted more articles on the Blog than Manager B”, “but Manager B’s were better and overall had more hits”, “that’s your opinion, I thought Manager C’s were better & B only gets more hits because he reads his own over and over gain”Personally I am in favour of sackings and in keeping it as black and white as possible so would go with Option 1 with the addition a stipulation for managers relegated after a previous promotion with the same club.


  3. A great article from DP and feedback from David. My view is that we all knew the rules when we joined and i think sacking is a good idea. I would also add that managers should consider their position if they do not achive objectives. In my case finishing in bottom 3 2seasons running is a gailure. I know what my decision will be!Having said all that it is hard for people who have put so much effort into ensuring that this league is the best. I do not have an easy answer, but know that once you have exceptions then you cause more issues. Also i would say if you get sacked from a lower division side i cannot see or expect to be in the future a team from an higher division.


  4. A really interesting read.I'm in favour of the sackings because it freshens the game world up but I also like the idea of managers who keep their job due to joining mid season or the other criteria needed get the chance the following season to \” wrong the right\” so to speak.The game needs to be as realistic as possible I think and not every club that gets relegated sacks their manager.Another thought regarding sackings is what if a club such as Barcelona or another absolutely massive club were to be relegated and then finish lower mid table the next season and the season after despite having one of the best squads in the game world?In my eyes their managers position should be under threat so I don't think it should be only relegated teams who sack managers.A suggestion I have is maybe have a panel of 4 or 5 people who review every club and come to a decision regarding the future of their manager with everything taken into account.Obviously this is very time consuming but throughout a season it can be talked about privately and all those on the panel can keep an eye out of what's going on.Anyway to all those concerned keep up the good work!


  5. I think that managerial sacking is a good idea and should apply to the lowest team in each division at the midway point in each season and the lowest 3 at the end of each season. I don't think that opinion should come into it , as it avoids possible personality issues.Immunity from sacking should only occur for the following reasons.1) Any manager taking over a club in the last 4 games orwhere a club is already relegated.2) Any manager who has won any kind of official SM Cup in that season.Keeping it simple is best.


  6. My own thoughts are that ALL managers of relegated teams be sacked. End of.If you take over a team in or near relegation you know what you are signing up for. There ought to be no shortage of managers willing to take over these clubs as the battle to avoid the drop can be a thrilling and rewarding experience.I see the whole ethos of TOP 100 as about genuine competition to find the absolute best managers in SM.Sackings allow new managers in and allow sacked managers redemption by taking over smaller clubs in lower divisions at best, and total exclusion at worst.In addition (if not already proposed or reality) the two clubs finishing bottom of Div 5 should be replaced by other clubs. This has the benefit of introducing new clubs into the game world and provides an opportunity for previously sacked managers to really show some worth in trying to do something with a club filled with low rated and incomplete squads. (obviously I want to see Rangers in!), or for new managers with a 'Billy Big Bollocks' rep to likewise 'bring it'.This GW is the most realistic and competitive GW out there It is filled with highs and lows as a manager which is how it should be. To maintain this level we must avoid concessions at all cost when it comes to sackings. You get relegated, you get sacked.I do feel that their ought to be a rule other than relegation for a sacking offence. That is, if you deliberately and malevolently destroy a team in anticipation of relegation you should be sacked immediately.Sacked managers, as previous, should be given the opportunity to manage clubs lower down.Thank you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s