Admin
Manager Reappointments: Key Decisions for Each Division
Division One
Schalke: promoted last season against the odds, this season was always going to be a struggle. Jay has begun a radical rebuild and he deserves a chance to see it through.
Benfica: it's been a steady decline resulting in relegation under Gregg, but he has been rebuilding. Not as active as I would like, but there are similarities with Atletico's situation last season. Gregg will stay this time and is expected to do better on and off the pitch.
Leverkusen: Marco has done well to keep Leverkusen in D1 in the previous couple of seasons, but couldn't quite repeat the feat this time around. He's got some good assets which I'm sure a number of managers are hoping to get their hands on with a change of manager. In the interests of the club, Marco stays to realise them.
Division Two
Anderlecht: According to the stats, Walter was expected to be relegated and he duly delivered, finishing bottom to boot. When he took over from Neil, Anderlecht were comfortably mid-table as predicted, so something happened in the week or so between Walter's appointment and when Malcolm produced his stats for the season. All that said, Walt is super-active, and still has some good assets some of whom could well still find their way to sunny Spain. Walter stays.
Liverpool: Chris has tried hard to improve his team, and was successful last season finishing in the playoffs. This season he was predicted to repeat that performance, but his transfer strategy has come at the cost of an ageing and rapidly declining team. Performance has dropped accordingly, and we feel it's time for a new manager to rebuild while trying to remain competitive in D3. Chris will not be reappointed.
Division Three
Monaco: Toze hasn't been very active, but it was always going to be a tough task in his first season in Top 100 after promotion last time. Toze reappointed.
Celta Vigo: Murilo took over midway through the season so he is reappointed.
Celtic: a double relegation for Hugo. Hard to justify his reappointment on that basis alone, although others have suffered double relegations in the past and survived, albeit under different circumstances. Hugo's active, tried to improve his team and arguably done so, but results have just not happened for him this season. He took Celtic up from D4 to D2 against the odds, so he deserves a chance to repeat that trick or decide his own fate when he chooses. Hugo reappointed.
Division Four
Atalanta: Chris has struggled in D4 after promotion and being nominated for Manager of the Season last time out. Reappointed.
Bordeaux: Another team promoted last season. Cameron is inactive and didn't respond to repeated requests on the newsfeed for managers to lt me know if they wanted to stay or not. Not reappointed.
Santos: Paulo looked like he might avoid the bottom three for much of the season, is active and tried to improve his team. Reappointed.
Division Five
Chievo: Carlos hasn't been able to improve results for Chievo and we did think a change of manager/club might be in order. Our Manager Assistant Decision-making system (MAD) decrees that not reappointing Carlos at this time would be a clear and obvious error, so he is reappointed.
PSV: a similar story at PSV, MAD decision: Chris reappointed.
Lazio: Nuno has been active and improved his team, and even looked like he was going to escape the bottom three, but got dragged back in. Nuno reappointed.
Vote: External Transfer Rule
Last night I did a couple of polls on WhatsApp and Facebook to confirm what I thought we already knew: that we want to keep the new player rule, and change the temporary external player rule.
This was confirmed.
So now we will vote here for a new external player rule.
S23 Sackings and Re-appointments
After the manager turnover following the SM worlds 2.0 updates in August, this end of season was always going to be a little different to our usual end of season chum. With such a big movement of managers in and out we've got fewer managers looking for a move, and fewer managers lined up to replace any that quit or who are not reappointed or who don't take another club.
In many ways, that makes the Admin Team's job a lot easier. In the end, I think there was only one manager we didn't reappoint. In the interests of transparency, here's how it went.
D5
Athletic Club: Wayne reappointed. Predicted to finish in last place and failed to improve, but he's active and clearly building. Another decent run in the Youth Cup.
Chievo Verona: Carlos re appointed. Started mid-season.
Villarreal: Rob reappointed. Closest to the boot as he didn't ask to be reappointed until after he was sacked, but no one was asking me for his job.
D4
Napoli: Mattia reappointed. Poor season after a couple of decent seasons, Mattia asked to stay.
Olympiacos: Ricardo reappointed. Started mid- season.
Rubin Kazan. Frank re-appointed. Promoted last season.
D3
Crystal Palace: Ricardo reappointed. Very poor Just season, but no one else wanted them when he got the job, and I couldn't see that being any different now.
Werder Bremen: Kristaps only just joined so he wasn't even sacked.
Lille: Ross reappointed after promotion last season.
D2
Valencia: Giuseppe reappointed. Started mid- season. Double relegation for Valencia, so hopefully Beppe has a plan to prevent an unwanted treble.
Celtic: Hugo reappointed. Made a good effort to stay up and avoid the sack, just failed on the last day of the season.
Udinese: Mark NOT reappointed. Poor season, zero activity seen, and Mark is the only manager who didn't ask to be reappointed.
D1
Hertha Berlin: Regan reappointed. Promotion last season, but third relegation in seven seasons. No signings that could have helped to stay up or avoid the bottom three. I have to say I was in two minds about this one, and as an Admin Team it took us nearly two days to come to a decision. That was no fun for anyone involved, least of all Regan. So apologies for that. Maybe we need a VAR for these decisions - reappoint unless there is a clear and obvious error.
Atletico Madrid: Gav reappointed following his Youth Shield triumph. Gav's doing a rebuild after too many seasons propping up mid-table. He possibly should have done it sooner and more gradually, as the rebuild is almost certainly what got him relegated. But Gav is hyper-active in Top 100 and the life and soul of the party, even if he isn't everyone's Cup of tea. I'm sure he is keen to avoid a double relegation.
Genoa. Frank reappointed. for those of you who don't know, Frank founded Top 100 and ran it for nine seasons. When he handed over to me we agreed he has a job for life.
Available Clubs
That all means that just Udinese became available as a result of sackings. Neil won that job.
Andrew quit Milan as he's quitting SM, so they were available, too. Simon go that one.
And Monaco are available after Jena left to take PSG, along with (as I write) Fenerbahce and Anderlecht.
Selection Criteria for Jobs
Following on from yesterday's post about the turnover in managers in Top 100 since the SM Worlds 2.0 update, I want to address the criteria we use to select managers to replace those that leave their clubs.
Firstly, unmanaged are offered out to any interested managers already in Top 100 primarily via the newsfeed. If it's a big job, which we think a lot of managers will be interested in applying for, we sometimes advertise in the WhatsApp and FB groups, too.
Interested managers are asked to send me a private message stating their interest. If you want to add a few lines about why you would make the best choice, that's up to you and certainly can't hurt your chances, especially if you haven't won anything recently, or you're not particularly active on the newsfeed or in the transfer market with other managers.
For example, you might be focussed on building a team for the future, so tell me what you have done to show this. It's also worth posting occasional updates here on the blog, FB or on the newsfeed to the same effect. It helps to get your work noticed, or at least so that it doesn't get missed.
We like to give enough time for everyone to login and see any vacancies available, especially for a big job, but there are time constraints. In-game, unmanaged clubs sooner or later start buying and selling players from and to external clubs, which is annoying and often puts clubs over the 50 player squad limit.
Usually, we put caretaker managers in to avoid this scenario, but after the SM Worlds 2.0 update this wasn't a practical option due to the login/logout problems, and the number of managers quitting in a relatively short space of time.
However, I personally feel strongly that Top 100 is such a competitive and active game world that the better and bigger clubs need managers who login most days, and who make a point to read the newsfeed to keep up to date with what's happening in the game world, and who check and respond to messages in a timely and helpful manner.
It's a bit of self-selection - the managers most likely to be a good appointment to a better job will be active enough to see jobs advertised even if it's only for a day.
I also try to make a point of asking managers who have previously applied for other clubs unsuccessfully if they are interested in any new vacancies, and sometimes message managers who I think would be a good fit for a move, although I have to say this very rarely results in any interest.
The reality is that most managers who quit Top 100 leave clubs who no one else in Top 100 is interested in managing.
Of the eleven clubs vacated, just three garnered any serious interest from managers already in Top 100. Eight clubs, no one had any interest in.
In which case, they are offered to managers waiting to join Top 100. Usually this means managers in our feeder game world Top 120. Alternatively, it could be a manager we know very well (e.g., a former Top 100 manager who wants to return), or who comes highly recommended by other Top 100 managers from other game worlds.
Once we have a list of managers interested in a job, we shortlist (assuming there's more than one applicant). It's usually pretty obvious that there are two, three or four managers who a clearly more experienced, better qualified and more deserving of a move to a better club than others.
By more experienced, I mean number of seasons in Top 100 (this doesn't always mean that the longer you have been in Top 100 the more likely you are to get a job, but it helps to establish a manager's other credentials below).
By qualified, I mean a proven track record of success on the pitch, particularly with current club (improvement in league position over seasons, promotions, trophies, youth scouting and development), and activity off it (transfer market, newsfeed, blog, WhatsApp, FB, responding to private messages, login frequency).
By deserving, I mean how long have they been at their current club? How many clubs have they had in Top 100 already? How many top clubs have they had, if any (this can be a positive or a negative)? Are they troublemakers? On a transfer ban? Regularly fail to set teams for the Youth Cup, or the League after a Youth Cup game?
Generally, we don't shortlist managers who haven't been at their current club for more than one full season.
All of the above is not an exact science - we don't monitor or track managers' activity on a spreadsheet, but we do keep a record of managers' success, club record and in-season development.
Ultimately the final choice is a subjective one made by the admin team. It's not always unanimous, and sometimes there can be very strong disagreements.
But the criteria above are the same criteria we have used in Top 100 since the beginning.
if you don't believe me, head over to the old Top 100 blog.
As for recent job changes, for the sake of openness and transparency, here's a summary of how the selection process worked:
Valencia: Two candidates. Only one manager had been at his current club for more than one full season, and was appointed.
Manchester United: Two candidates. One had already had several clubs, including big clubs, in Top 100. Although a strong candidate, we felt the other manager was clearly stronger all round and a better fit for United at this time, and that's who we appointed.
Stoke City: Eight candidates. Four shortlisted. Non-shortlisted managers had been at their current clubs for fewer seasons and/or been less successful. Of the four shortlisted, three had had several clubs in Top 100 previously. All three are very strong managers, but we appointed the manager who had the most success with his current club (two divisional titles), whose club was currently in the best position in the league, and who we felt was most deserving (only two clubs in Top 100, no big clubs, and the longest time at his current club).
Updated below (forgot to add City, Schalke and Olympiacos jobs):
Manchester City: Similar to Stoke, six applicants, four shortlisted, appointed manager who had achieved most at his current club, been there longest and not had other clubs.
Schalke: Three candidates, one then non-Gold, one not at his current club for more than one full season.
Olympiacos: One applicant who had been at his current club for several seasons.
I think that's a reasonably realistic way to do things, and it's the way we've always tried to do it in Top 100.
How Top 100 Survived a Mass Extinction Event
We knew the SM Worlds asteroidupdate was coming since June and we were expecting it to hit Top 100 in September. We'd prepared the ground in Top 100, as much as possible. We had 48 Gold managers, and after messaging all non-Gold managers we knew that we would lose five and probably a few more who were undecided about whether they would pay to play or not.
Somewhat out of the blue, the update was launched on the evening of Friday 24 August, the start of a Bank Holiday three day weekend in the UK. I won't go into the details of the update or the chaos that ensued in logging into the game, playing the game, etc. That's for another post.
What I want to focus on here is the impact on Top 100.
Of the five managers who told me they would leave when the update arrived, three weeks on and all five have now left. Two of the undecideds quit.
We also lost four managers who I had expected to stay. They all saw the changes the update brought and decided they didn't like it enough to quit SM.
So we lost eleven managers in total.
We brought back five former Top 100 managers, and promoted six Top 120 managers new to Top 100.
Of the eleven clubs vacated, just three garnered any serious interest from managers already in Top 100. Eight clubs, no one had any interest in.
Not related to the SM update, we had three managers quit just prior for other reasons. That brought in another three Top 120 managers (including one returning former Top 100 manager).
So in the last month or so we've had fourteen clubs lose their managers, and replaced them with six returning former Top 100 managers, and eight Top 120 managers new to Top 100.
It's been a hectic and chaotic few weeks, but the most important thing is that Top 100 is full, as always, and we're all Gold except for one* renegade (who just happens to eleven points clear in D1...)
*Well, two, but the other has told me he paid for Gold but as happened to many of us it wasn't added yet.
IMPORTANT: Change to Transfer Limits in Top 100
SM Worlds 2.0
SM introduced - and almost immediately rolled back due to so many bugs - their much vaunted SM Worlds 2.0 yesterday evening.
I guess we can expect to see it again maybe late next week, unless the Gores like paying overtime to their developers to work on the Bank Holiday Weekend.
Implications for Top 100
A couple of immediate ramifications for Top 100 - firstly, one of our longstanding managers Mark Deadman quit Valencia, and I expect a few more to follow suit once the new update is live and the 7 days free Gold membership expires, if not before.
Secondly, the update includes a new £1 billion upper transfer fee limit, as opposed to the old limit which was two times the minimum player value (except for free agents, which was higher).
New Player Rule and Player Concerns Rule
Yesterday, I agreed with the admin team to introduce an immediate temporary change to our rules for signing new players added to the database, and players who were sold due to Level Three concerns.
Previously, the rule stated that managers can only bid the no higher than the first maximum bid for new players, and bids on players sold as a result of concerns have the same in-game limit.
The new rules are that managers can only bid the MINIMUM value, and not higher.
What are Other Game Worlds Doing?
It's my understanding that this rule already works fine in other game worlds, and that the reason we brought in the maximum bid rule for new players - that some players' values increased overnight putting managers in different timezones at a total disadvantage when it came to adjusting their bids - no longer applies (bids made before any value change are accepted and completed and/or values no longer change).
Fair Play
Changing from maximum to minimum bids, therefore, retains the fairness of bidding for everyone, and in a game world where cash has always been worthless, makes no material difference to clubs' finances or competitiveness.
Landucci at Lokomotiv Moskva asked if we can also have a cap on transfer fees for all external players (i.e., including players who are not newly added, not sold as a result of the concerns rule).
Newsfeed Discussion on £1bn Upper Transfer Limit
This provoked a long discussion on the newsfeed. The main point being that some clubs have billions in the bank while most have only a few hundred million, putting them at a distinct disadvantage when bidding on external players with a new £1 billion offer limit. The new £1 billion limit is obviously much, much higher than the previous two times value limit, which kept everything fair in a game world where cash has never had any value.
The other side of the argument is that 1) there are very few players at external clubs who are not newly added, or who are not sold as a result of the concerns rule that anyone wants to buy - they are at external clubs for a reason! There are, of course, occasional exceptions - Samuel Mbangula being one very recent exception. 2) Having a new £1 billion upper limit on transfer bids for all players could enliven the market and create new strategy options for managers.
The counter-argument being that its possible (if not likely) that this scenario would firstly give the rich clubs an immediate unfair advantage, and secondly in the longer term perhaps create a situation too realistic where all the wealth and talent is owned by a few super rich clubs.
New Rule for Offers on ALL External and Free Agent Players
I think, therefore, that at least until the end of this season, we will adopt the precautionary principle approach whereby we keep the transfer limits in Top 100 as they always have been (or as close to), in order to minimise any perceived unfairness and to limit any further disruption midway through the season.
So, from today, ALL TRANSFER OFFERS FOR EXTERNAL OR FREE AGENT PLAYERS must be at the MINIMUM value allowed and no higher, and disclosed (i.e, public so we everyone can see the bid).
This change keeps things pretty much as they were and makes no material difference to anyone because cash has no value in Top 100.
Whether we want to change that in the future will depend on further discussion and/or a vote at the end of this season or later.
SM Worlds 2.0 Announced
SM have announced the launch of SM Worlds 2.0 next month (September). This follows on from previous announcements in May and June.
In short, what this means is that you will have to upgrade to Gold membership in order to continue to play SM Worlds as you do now - and with the promise of new features and improvements in the months and years to come (assuming the transition is successful financially for SM).
SM announced some incentives to do so (although I don't yet see the new features, and the announcement isn't yet linked on the SM Worlds main page when you login, so presumably this isn't live, but soon will be):
Everyone who logs in throughout August, will receive 7 days free Gold Management (existing GM as well) to try the new features – mainly around transfers. We are also giving a 25% discount to all members on the 12 month Gold Management option for a limited period, bringing the cost down to just over £1/$1.50 a month.
A few weeks ago I messaged all non-Gold managers in Top 100 asking what they planned to do when the updates kick in.
30 said they would definitely upgrade top Gold membership.
8 said they would probably upgrade.
5 were undecided.
5 said they will quit Top 100 and/or SM.
1 said he couldn't afford to buy more than 1 month per year.
1 didn't respond and has since quit Top 100 (replaced by a Gold manager).
The bottom line is that if you don't upgrade to Gold you will not be able to conduct any transfers, effectively becoming a zombie manager.
S21 Manager Sackings and New Jobs
Thursday (tomorrow) night sees the final round of matches in another exciting season in Top 100. Shortly after 8:00pm UK time, we will know for sure (barring any River Plate/Dinamo Zagreb level on points, goal difference and goals scored shenanigans) who has won and lost, and who will be automatically sacked within the next few hours or days.
When Frank founded Top 100, and as far as I know, he made decisions about who got reappointed, who got offered a new club, and who stayed sacked. Later, if there was lots of interest in a club, he asked a secret panel of trusted managers to decide who got the job. When I took over ownership of Top 100 from Frank in S9, I inherited his secret panel, and we've used it more and more ever since, including in recent seasons under Beddows' stewardship, to decide who should be reappointed or not.
There are some known problems with using a secret panel of managers.
- It's a LOT of extra work - something that Beddows was particularly good at, I have to say.
- It takes a lot longer to do.
- While we always tried to select managers based on their perceived trustworthiness, impartiality and wisdom, it's arguable that it just comes down to being a popularity contest.
- Less popular, but arguably more deserving managers often get repeatedly overlooked.
- People always complain about the panel decisions, particularly when it comes to taking into account managers' achievements and activity.
I'm always interested in doing less work, quicker, and in making decisions that are provably fair and justified, and based on our Top 100 Rules that have been (mostly) unchanged and on the blog since S1.
This season, we're going to decide who stays sacked, who gets reappointed, and who gets offered a new club using the following criteria (from the Top 100 Rules on Manager Sackings, and Malcolm's Stats - which show where a club was expected to finish at the start of the season):
- Has the manager indicated that they wish to stay?
- Were they appointed mid-season?
- Was the club promoted last season?
- Was the team expected to finish in the relegation places?
- Is the manager a real life fan of the club?
- Are they active in the game world (newsfeed, transfers, responding to messages, socials, blog)?
We'll also check the manager's individual record of achievement in the game world, whether there is interest in their job from other managers, and any other mitigating factors (e.g., personal issues, managers on waiting list, etc.).
Hopefully, this will make a simpler, quicker and fairer decision making process, although at the end of the day it will still come down to the decision of the Admin Team.
Two things I would say about this seasons sackings - we've had quite a few managerial changes during the season already, and not many managers waiting or ready to join now from Top 120 or elsewhere, so don't expect a bloodbath. And as this is a new way of doing it (even if it's based on the rules that have been there since the beginning), I think it's only fair to go a little easier on managers this time around. Next season could be different!
For any big new jobs, and/or jobs where there is a lot of interest, I do intend to consult the Managers' Panel (so sign up, if you haven't already, if you want to be part of that), but the final decision will still be made by the Admin Team.
Admin Diary 3
Firstly, an apology from me. I've not been as active in the last couple of months as I am normally, or as I intended to be. Most obviously (to me), I stopped doing the Back Page headlines after each matchday. I went away for a week at half-term in October, and just couldn't get back into it. I'm not sure why, exactly. It was quite a bit of extra work to do, maybe too much. But I think it's more than that.
A few managers have contacted me privately to apologise for their own lack of activity. And some mentioned that, like me, they have been affected by the horrific events unfolding in Israel and Palestine. So, just to say, it's ok, I understand. And if anyone has personal issues, or anything else that's affecting their activity (and you're worried about getting sacked at the end of the season), let me know.
Tharani joins Admin Team
In other news, I should also have said earlier that Tharani has replaced Beddows on the Admin Team. He's been doing a great job with the World Club Shield, and I'm hoping he may be willing to take on the World Club Cup as well next season, as Gav is taking a break after the culmination of this season's competition.
End of season
The season is drawing to an exciting end for many of us fighting for cups, league titles, promotion, playoffs, survival, or to avoid the sack.
Congratulations already to Andrew at Milan on their Top 100 Cup victory last night against hot favourites and two time winners Juventus. Last season, Milan won the Top 100 Shield and the World Club Cup, so are becoming the cup specialists Juve under DP 91 used to be.
Juve's title push this season has long faded, and their fans will be forgiven for wondering if they were better off winning an occasional cup here and there....
Only Hellas, again, can stop Chelsea it seems. James has turned around his season after a slow start, as has Andre in Verona. On current form, you wouldn't bet against Porto finishing third, another Andre, and another top team finishing strongly after a poor start.
At the bottom of D1, Southampton and Everton look doomed to return to D2, while West Brom will be favourites to join them, although they have found some good form recently. Leicester are in the quick sand currently, while Manchester City, Valencia and Aston Villa will all be looking over their shoulders over the next few games at least.
In D2, it's been a tough old battle at the top, with current leaders Espanyol and second placed Sao Paulo pulling away slightly, leaving Levante, Internacional, Liverpool, Celtic, Manchester United and Udinese fighting for the final promotion and playoff places.
It's squeaky bum time at the bottom, with six points separating Celta Vigo, Hoffenheim, Fenerbahce, Sporting, my Hamburger, Liege and Spurs.
It doesn't look like anyone can stop Koln (also in the Top 100 Shield Final next week) winning D3, although all of the top 3 are currently in poor form. The chasing pack down to 10th place, are all in great form, so there might still be a surprise or two.
Zenit, undergoing a rebuild, look doomed, while Gladbach, Wolfsburg, Ajax, Sampdoria and Swansea all look to be fighting for the other three relegation places.
Flamengo continue to dominate D4, pursued by Malaga, Augsburg and Stuttgart. There's a seven point gap between 7th and 8th place, so it already looks like Montpellier, Dnipro and Fiorentina may already be feeling confident of playoff places.
Things look fairly cut and dried at the other end of D4, too, with AZ looking out of it all together, and Feyenoord (another rebuild) looking too far gone at this stage. That said, all the teams from Torino in 12th down are in poor shape from-wise, so if one of Dynamo or Bordeaux can put a run of results together they could still save themselves.
Santos have pegged back PSV at the top of D5, while Brugge, Napoli, Newcastle and Boca will all fancy grabbing the final promotion place. Marseille, Athletic Club, Chievo and Rubin look set to battle it out for the final playoff place.
Shakhtar are rock bottom with Lyon not far above them trying to replicate their real life league position. Basel, Lazio and Besiktas are all hoping to avoid the final sack spot. A poor league season for Independiente in 15th, but they have a Top 100 Shield Final to look forward to next week.
In the World Club Cup and Shield, and the Youth Cup and Shield, we have semi-finals starting this week. Hats off to Glen at Espanyol, who, as well as leading D2, is in the semis of both the WCC and YC (again).
Good luck to all for the run-in!
New rules next season
Finally, a reminder that from the start of next season, we have two new rules coming into play:
- Player Concerns: all players on Level Three (or higher) concerns must be sold immediately to an external club. No bidding by the selling club on the player when he becomes available.
- No loans in the Youth Cup.
Player Loans Vote Results
Player loans vote results (see explainer and my maths at the bottom):
A clear majority (44 - 5) voted TO BAN NEW LOANS for the PLAYOFFS.
A majority (29 - 20) voted to BAN ALL LOANS for the YOUTH CUP AND SHIELD.
The smallest possible majority (25 - 24) voted AGAINST banning ALL loans (i.e., including loans for the first team for the regular league season).
40 managers signed up to be part of the Managers' Panel.
I had another 29 email addresses from blog author/subscription sign-ups, or other personal correspondence, which I also (somewhat presumptuously) included.
The vote was sent, therefore to a total of 69 out of 100 managers.
Response rate is 49 out of 69. I don't know how many responded from the Panel as I didn't collect emails on this occasion (which ensures a private, anonymous, but still "one manager, one vote".
I could ask for and collect emails in future votes, but then managers' votes would be visible to me (and anyone else with vote form editor permissions).
Anyway, these are the results.
Adding in the 24 who voted to ban ALL loans:
24 + 5 = 29 managers voted to ban ALL Youth Cup and Shield loans, against 20 who voted to keep loans for the Youth Cup and Shield.
24 + 20 = 44 managers voted to ban NEW playoff loans, against 5 who voted to keep them.