The Managerial Sacking Debate

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.

LikeLike

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!

LikeLike

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.

LikeLike