Do You Want to Be Sacked? – Chairman Expectations on the Scramble
August 7th, 2008 by SoccerPro
How about this: you work hard and build a team but finish worse than expected, should the Chairman sack you? Is this something just for custom setups or every setup?
Listen to the newest episode of the Goalmouth Scramble Podcast as Curtis, Big Red and Yonk entertain the idea of different Chairman expectations in Soccer Manager setups. Also, your emails and forum postings are read on the air!
Make sure your voice is heard on the idea of Chairman expectations and everything else Manager! Email the show at: GoalmouthScramble [at] Soccerpro.com
Del.icio.us 
digg 
reddit 
Facebook 
Technorati 
Stumble Upon Translate into:
Posted in: World Soccer News
Related Articles
- Ideas & Suggested Improvements: Chairman Expectations
- SM Exclusive - Co-Owner Stevie G
- SM Exclusive - Transfers, Tactics, and More
- Goalmouth Scramble SM Exclusive: Who’s in your three?
- SM Exclusive - Match Day Improvements
- Goalmouth Scramble SM Exclusive: Pick-a-Player
- New Improvements/Features: Transfer Details
- Goalmouth Scramble Talks About International Management
- SM Exclusive - Friendly Tournaments
- New Improvements/Features: Player Profile
87 Comments Add your own
1. ryan | August 7th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
im not realy sure i wouldnt mind it but i dont want it but it should be if you consistantly miss your targets
2. qamar | August 7th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
no thatb is just dumb
3. Joe M | August 7th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I think it would be a cool idea for custom setups, but it would really suck if it was introduced across the whole game. Maybe if you got relegated with a good team you should be sacked but not if you finish 10th when you have the 3rd best team or whatever
4. Andrew B | August 7th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
great idea it means rubbish managers can’t have good teams!
5. daniel | August 7th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
i think this is a really bad idea, as you build up a team, lose a few games (which is sort of out of your hands) and get sacked.
VERY BAD IDEA!!!!
6. irulenot! | August 7th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
i think this is not a gd idea because you can start off with a gd well known team lots of money but a pants side near to the end of the season and get fierd just after getting gd players and turning things around not gd
7. sonofpluto | August 7th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I like this idea always have done. Particulary in Gold setups, where to be fair the compertition should be harder and Chairmen should have expectations, it would bring another element to the game.
However I would also put into place at the sametime that the sacked manager gets a chance to take over the club from the manager that replaces him.
For example someone is managing Man Utd and somehow manages to get them relegated (far fetched I know) where as someone excedes expectations with a Championship club or mid table prem club then they are offered a club swap, so the rubbish manager dosn’t have to leave the setup (that would be harsh in GC’s) but the good manager gets rewarded (if they want to take the offer up) with a so called bigger and better club. A kind of extention to whats already in place with the job offer system, but only happens in pre or end of seasons, unless the manager is so rubbish they manage to get a big 8 club relegated with games to go.
8. adzs | August 7th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
totally agree wit comment 4 (Andrew b) sick of getting teams like zenit st Petersburg (their good but not as good as Barcelona), and working hard to get promoted, then seeing that i wont be playing barcelona because there rubbish manager got them relegated…..and it could have been me in charge of Barcelona not the bad manager
9. Luke Sefton (forum) | August 7th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Poor, poor idea. You shouldn’t get sacked if you’re not a good manager, otherwise how’re you meant to learn? It would just ruin the game for loads of people if they kept on losing teams that they’d been building, due to inexperience or one unlucky season.
10. ..::noob::.. | August 7th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
poor idea, some people just carnt crasp the game
if people are fed up of never gettin a good team, buy the gold membership n create your own setup, problem sorted
11. lol | August 7th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
great idea,makes things much more realistic and despite some of the comments made above poor managers will learn by thier past mistakes.
12. Jamie Lock | August 7th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I think it’s a great idea. All the unlucky managers can join a protest group with Sven G E and Avram Grant
13. Gokcan Ilbay | August 7th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Makes sense and I voted yes on the poll…
But this should be remembered that, which team is playing on which division and what are the expectations of the chair according to the recent squad and the current balance(financially) and I agree with people who thinks that this idea will make the game be more realistic, yes it will be.
I dont want to see X Manager takes control of X Team . The chairman and fans expect a long and successful era under your guidance.
This message should change in every team that we choose…
14. dave m | August 7th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
excellent idea,a little bit of realism
15. Liam | August 7th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Good idea, but i think you will have to set expectations not too high, because for example Arsenal in an English Championship, their expectation should be say above 6th or 7th.
However if you sign say, Messi, Ramos & Xavi, then your expectation should go up to Above 4th etc, the expectations should adjust depending on your signings.
A problem to all this however, how do you judge expectations in a World Championship? If Arsenal finished 10th in the first division, does the manager deserve to be sacked? You will have to think about it carefully.
Maybe expectations should be decided based on your average rating?
16. Nick Justice(forum) | August 7th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
NO! stupid idea you could just pick up a few bad results and end up being sacked after a good rest of season stupid idea !
17. Nick Justice(forum) | August 7th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
ok it has realism but say your Southend and youve been there for 5 years and your in the Prem from DIV 4 and your teams great and you exspected 4th and finish 5 or 6th by a point and get sacked and all your work will of gone down the drain ? you really want that to happen okay its real but i don’t think the idea should be added ! lol
Nick Justice(121)
18. roach | August 7th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I don’t like it. Mainly because I get attached with a team, especially if it’s a “small” one. I get it, for example, from Division 4, I make it to Division 1 after 3, 4, 5 seasons of hard work. In the 1st year, the chairman expects us to avoid relegation, let’s say. But you have there all the best teams, rich teams that can afford almost any player. I can only buy 85-90 rated young players who will get over 90 in a year or 2 (in real life). I really can’t compete with those teams. So my chairman sacks me when I get relegated. Which is very sad, if you ask me, mainly because I am already “emotionally” attached to the team and the players, I have rejected all the offers from better teams, so what do I do? I pick an even worse team and start over? For what? Please, use your judgment, not your envy cause you can’t manage Barcelona… This is a GAME. What other game you know in which the MACHINE fires you for not having the results IT randomly picks??
19. Jake | August 7th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
NOO!, people aren’t seeing the idea. i Think its a great idea but should only be inrotduced if you consistantly don’t achieve your targets.
20. roach | August 7th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
PS:
Realism? Avram Grant?? Sven Goran?? WTF? I’m not Sven, I’m not Avram. If I were, I WOULD be a pro manager and I wouldn’t play this game. I’m a simple guy who plays this GAME for FUN. Don’t ruin it for me just cause you have hard feelings for not being able to get your hands on Barcelona. BTW, news flash: it’s not REALLY Barcelona.
21. Ellwood | August 7th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
No. The Game involves an amount of luck. People get unlucky, Teams get relegated, which shouldn’t when looking at average ratings, you get sacked, kind of pointless. In 2 seasons i’ve gotten a Carlilse team promoted twice. Now in season 3, i’m 19th, if the chairman expects me to avoid relegation, i would most likely fail it and be sacked. All the hard work has gone to waste.
22. adzs | August 7th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
u going on bout realism….yh its called fc Barcelona….aint u saying ‘news flash: it’s not REALLY Barcelona’. trying to add realism to Barcelonas name lol…u = confused hypocrite
23. Romanian MIR | August 7th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
no way , cos as long as i won 3 div 1 in a row i think that in one season i’ll have some problems cos sometimes the things are changing and i don’t wanna lose my team because of a stupid rule
24. roach | August 7th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
@adzs
I guess I didn’t make myself clear. Or it’s you who didn’t get my point, which means you’re the confuse one. The point was that I WASN’T going on about realism. On the contrary. I said it was a GAME. And I don’t really understand how being manager of Barcelona in an online manager game could make someone, anyone, feel good about himself as a person… (PS: I’m manager of Palermo - the one I’m most attached to, Boca Juniors and Lyon).
25. ryan j | August 7th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
nah, its nt gud. its a game n y wud u try n stop peopl frm playin even if dey r crap.da hole point is bout fun init. but, im da best manager eva , top of my league n i dnt give a damn wat u do m8
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.
26. Clive | August 7th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
This is a terrible idea because in my first season with m barcelona i won the league and cup however the next season with the same tactics i got relegated (not even mid table) the next season so sometimes it’s not ur fault.
27. adzs | August 7th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
ROACH…..
i guess i didnt make MYSELF clear……..i used Barcelona as an EXAMPLE…im in charge of atletico Madrid, Lyon, been looking after my cousins account while hes on holiday (hes in charge of the 2 Milans) and managing crewe…..and im most enjoying the crewe one………u go on about its a game….so y u getting ‘attached’ lol
28. ZT | August 7th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
this idea will ruin the game and most people play for fun, most of these new ideas are complicated and ruining SM.
29. wag1 | August 7th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
i fink dis is great idea coz u gunna do evry fink it takes not 2 lose plus da game will be very challenging GREAT IDEA
30. booooooooooo | August 7th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
booooooooooooo !
31. gAv GaV | August 7th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
i love it. people who are worried are obviously not great at the game. joking, but it should be looked at but something that should only happen rarely not all the time it should depend on how long you’ve managed the club and past achievements or something. you could make warnings and if you get 3 warnings in a season then you get sacked or if you have lost 10 on the trot then a message could appear saying you have to get a point in the next game. well something like that not my idea exactly but something similar.
32. JG | August 7th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
“NO! stupid idea you could just pick up a few bad results and end up being sacked after a good rest of season stupid idea !”
Look at the EPL last season, now look at that comment again
Rather realistic isnt it
33. guest | August 8th, 2008 at 1:12 am
great idea it means rubbish managers can’t have good teams!
34. guest | August 8th, 2008 at 4:28 am
great idea it means lousy managers who play the same players even they have 1% fitness out of 100% can be sack after they lose 38 games
35. sorano inzaghi | August 8th, 2008 at 5:34 am
no i dont want that …makes it so tough …with all these injuries that im getting ..almost one in every game ! and if that would happened in real soccer there was no player to play and as matter of the fact no soccer anymore …any how no bcoz there are things that missing here
36. Jinky | August 8th, 2008 at 5:41 am
Up there with the best idea’s to ever be introduced plus you all boast that your winning this and that all the time so it shouldn’t be a problem ?
It’s the only thing that will make me enter a Gold setup again and the thing i’ve been waiting for for ages.
Chairman expectations shouldn’t always be based on one season it should be based on a contract over a period of time and the bigger the club the more extreame the conditions of the contract.
37. me | August 8th, 2008 at 5:42 am
no i dissagree with chairman expectation ..bcoz that might destroy a team … if the manager of the team like arsenal or milan get sacked… all other teams would buy arsenal players and ..1 team is gone for good …and imagine that happens to 3 main team in the leage … setup will get borring and useless…
so its not me being scared of getting sacked ..its not a good idea
38. Jamie Todoroski (Chatroom) | August 8th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Its a great idea,
But I think the match engine needs some
Improvement for this to really work.
39. Smaia Arab | August 8th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Well ,its a good Idea if we reduce the chances of being sacked, for example if you have a really good team with good money you should finish in top 10, but if you have a poor team it should say avoid relegation, but, The managers became emotionally connected to their teams and players so its hard for someone to be sacked, I don’t know what should i say yes or no both are hard choices
40. weee | August 8th, 2008 at 9:10 am
for 2 or 3 seasons being relegated or having a bad record this will be the time that the chairman can kick you out
41. tyrone pace | August 8th, 2008 at 9:17 am
i think it a good idea but i prefer that if you fail to do the expactations you will have 3 chances before being sacked cause it may be that you have injured players or something else it is not your fault.
42. weee | August 8th, 2008 at 9:20 am
or maybe with not so harsh expectations
43. James | August 8th, 2008 at 9:33 am
I think it could be introduced, but on the side of caution. You could use the SM Rep to determine the severity of the chairman e.g. If you have a rating of 40-60, the chairman isnt very strict and will not sack you ever, 60-80, the chairman will only sack you if you take a highly rated team down two leagues, say, Man Utd to Div 3, and 80-100, the chairman is more stricter, he will sack you if you get relegated with a top flight team. 100+ and you could get sacked during a season. Under 100 and you can only get sacked at the end of the season.
44. vinesh | August 8th, 2008 at 9:48 am
this is a real dumb and stupid thing
45. toro loco | August 8th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Hi!
It’s a great idea…and it makes the game more realistic what I belive is the main goal for all of us…
regrads,
V
46. Rowgy | August 8th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Great idea but im not sure it would be for the good of all managers in the long run if the expectations are high
47. Mythic-Dunk | August 8th, 2008 at 10:13 am
I don’t see why Soccer Manager managers should be exempt from the threat of the sack. We all strive to make this game as realistic as possible, well, sackings are a reality in football and I say that if you don’t perform then let another manager have a go with the squad.
I’ve seen some great squads wrecked by some Individuals and I’ve seen some tiny clubs thrive under others. It’s a fact of life that the strong rise to the top and the not so strong…get sacked!!!
I say keep the sackings!!!
48. Ollie Henchman | August 8th, 2008 at 10:48 am
i think there should not be sackings as people will not like it so they may leave the game if they lose all of their clubs.
49. David Rusli | August 8th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
no this idea is stupid.
we worked so hard building such a good team and get sacked?
so much for buying and transfering..
afterall, we have feelings towards the club.
don’t you find it mean enough to just take it away just because we fail to meet the target? come on, this is just a game.
too realistic may not be the best ..
you will only make people hate the game after getting sack from the club you’ve put so much effort in, then making the person not wanting to play this game any more.
we couldn’t meet targets probably we don’t really have the all the time to always log in and check. people are busy.
moreover, when the next manager steps in and get the club, isn’t it too unfair to just give a club that meant so much to ourselves to other newbies which will probably screw it up?
spot on eh?
50. ben | August 8th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
i thimk its ok but wot if u hav 1 unlucky season do u really deserve to be sacked? look at ferguson for example. he didnt win anything at man u for 6 years or something but look how good they r now! im an arsenal fan and even i think what hes done at man u is amazing
51. rose | August 8th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I want realism. But I know I can’t have everything. I mean, it’s nice to ask for realism when you manage Motherwell and want to get your hands on Man United, but it’s also hypocritical to NOT want realism when, for example you’d be asked to resign your other 2 (9) clubs, just because in real life you can only manage 1 team.
I think there should be a balance between realism (strictness, boring and absurd rules) and fun. And imho, this thing would only keep us from having fun. I mean, I think it’s enough that I have objectives at work and at home with my family, the last thing I want is to play an online game that sets objectives as well. I’d be like : “OK, cya later… I mean never” and quit, looking for something more entertaining.
52. guest | August 8th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
flexibility is need for this new feature
example:
Manager A quit AC Milan at games 20, and he is doing really bad, sitting at 16th place out of 20
then Manager B take over the AC Milan, and finish the season at middle table, 8th place
and the AC Milan chairman expectations is finishing the season at 5th place… this Manager B will be sack?
53. liam | August 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
good idea unless you buy a standard set up then get sacked
54. dave | August 8th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
well, i think you should be sacked if ur barcelona is in 20th place but not 6th place in the first season.
however if you keep finishing 10th or 11th for a couple of seasons then you should be sacked.
you should be sacked in one season if you have done hopelessly like getting barca religated
if the new manager comes, then ofcourse he shouldnt be sacked
55. arvam grant | August 8th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
you should have a chairman tolerance count. for example, if ur chelsea then if you dont win anything for one season you get kicked out but if you manu you can manage the team for 22 years and never get kicked out
56. SoccerPro | August 8th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I think it’s a great idea but it needs limitations. I think to start with there should be a number of goals, some of which are a easier to obtain. You should be required to achieve a certain percentage of these goals to keep your team. Simple things such a s picking up a few new palyers, or picking up a player of x rating for smaller clubs. Or picking up youth players on a bigger club. How about a certain number of players on your youth squad? If there are quite a few expectaions, but not all are required to stay with the club, then this can work. Also setup owners should be able to choose these options. The Gold Chamionships should always have these as it will make it that much more competitive.
57. AbCdEfGhIjKlMnOpQrStUvWxYz | August 8th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Bad idea, enough said.
58. ryan | August 8th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
im undecided with it but, all these people saying you shouldnt do it because its only a game. well if its only a game why would you care wether they add it or not?
59. mondo | August 8th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I think it’s a great idea and that a lot of people are overly worried that if they lose a game, they’re immediately out. I feel really confident that SM wouldn’t put anything in place without thinking it through, and making it fair to all players, the last thing they want to do is make people quit their game.
most of the discussion has been hanging on being sacked for raw results on the field and success in the table. This should only be ONE FACTOR in the decision to sack a manager. Everything must be taken into account (and i think it will, if done correctly) over the entire time that you’ve been with a club. This includes: looking to the future by bringing in youth players (post 56), better finances, improved attendance, player injuries, smart business moves, where the club was before you joined it, and even strength of competition. I also don’t want to be sacked from my “lower” clubs, but i don’t think that will happen if you play smart and don’t destroy the club.
60. adzs | August 8th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
just thought id get the 60th comment in and say - GREAT IDEA!
61. Anestis | August 8th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
it’s not fair enough something like that because it will not be someones fault if he has a good team but not the best results cause its a virtual game not real life, we can’t control a players actions during a game and also he are not doing any real practise to the team.
It’s based on real facts and stats but it’s not real life, don’t forget that!
62. Thomas Williams | August 8th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
good idea but wouldn’t be fair really as there is 20 teams in every setup, and most managers trying to do their best to keep going up and playing well.
they can’t help it if they keep losing or so, its because some teams are lucky to win, or the game was just lucky or something.
no need to sacked the managers at all.
sacked the managers if they keep getting relegated on more than once occasion!!!
63. paul | August 8th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
no. its not a good idea. i agree that this game should try to be realistic in as many ways as possible . But lets not forget this is only a game and managers getting sacked would be a step too far.
64. john | August 8th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
brilliant idea just means its more life like because if a bad manager got chelsea 7th they should be sacked
65. Sharul Khan | August 8th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Just have Chairman/club targets. New ones each season
66. Rodpot | August 8th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Lovin Ryan’s comment at the top of page
Quote: ” i wouldnt mind it but don’t want it.”
GENIUS!!!
67. Alex bardsley | August 9th, 2008 at 9:35 am
i dont think u should get sacked if you take a team like WBA down to division 2. But if you get a team like Villa down to division 3 then u should get sacked
68. PSVBoeren | August 9th, 2008 at 10:49 am
I agree with Jinky above me, #36 comment for those who want reference
Sacking? I agree with this idea, but after reading everyone’s comments I’ve had a change in heart. Yes, to people who pick up small clubs from division 4 and lift them up to top divisions (I’m with Club America in division 2 after 2 successive division promotions), we are emotionally attached to the club, cause it’s like a baby to us.
But then after thinking, I still agree with sacking. I guess why so many people are against sacking is because SoccerManager admin staff forgot to specifically define what the sacking is. Everyone’s got their own interpretation of what the sacking would be. Some think that you’d get sacked after a few bad games (which is harsh), some think its getting sacked by the end of the season.
The reason why I support Jinky is because I agree with his definition of sacking. He pointed out “Chairman expectations shouldn’t always be based on one season it should be based on a contract over a period of time and the bigger the club the more extreame the conditions of the contract.” I agree that chairman expectations should be over a longer period of time, like maybe 2 seasons? Maybe even more depending on teams.
In real life, take Arsenal as an example. They’ve got 4 trophyless seasons but Arsene Wenger’s still the hero in the Gooner’s life. Will the adminstration fire Wenger? No way! Compared to other clubs, Wenger has been bringing profit to the club, and built a top 4 club with minimum amount of money. The chairman tolerates Wenger because of the amount of resources he has in his hands.
Take a look at Barcelona, Frank Rijkaard with no trophy in 1 or 2 seasons for Barcelona (correct me if i’m wrong), and out of the window he goes.
So I agree that sacking should be implemented, but the chairmen expectations vary with length for each club judging by the squad quality, stadium size and cash in hand, not by the names.
69. lyon | August 9th, 2008 at 11:50 am
that is a brilliant comment #68 but i think it should change the game where you have a contract where if you dont do 60% of the contracts expectations then you get sacked and you have to earn your new contract.
Also they should change the game so you have a cv where it shows what youve done so chairmans can look at it and say hes a good/bad manager
70. timmy c | August 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
not a gd idea 4 example ur barca in ur m8s league u finish 5th and u cant get barca again in ur bst m8s league.FLY lol
71. Dustay | August 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Great Idea, but there should be a choice of expectations at the start and middle of the season, and if both are not met then you should be shown the door.
Other managers seem to be scared of this idea, is that becuase you are not good enough.
I say do it any way, people go on about making it more realistic but dont want this to change, Hipocrits.
Contraversial desicions are sometimes the best ones and are needed to put things forward.
72. stanzy | August 9th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Great idea if your completely useless and just get given a team full of stars, you should be able to get a star rating for your managerial career, then certain clubs require a certain star rating for you to able to manage them…
73. stanzy | August 9th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
THEN if you dont meet there expectations for say a 5 star team you get sacked straight away, I.E Avram Grant with Chelsea.
But if your a 1~3 star, the chairman is a little more leniant, unless, of course you get relegated.
**
74. Gokcan Ilbay | August 9th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
What about creating a Beta-Setup with these rules and see if it works?
75. amadeo | August 9th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I think this is not a good idea.
Since January 2007 I have build a team with FC Copenhagen - from Division 4 to Division 2 (where I am close to promote to Division 1). I have now a great team, and I would almost cry if I got sacked after nearly TWO HUMAN YEARS(!)…
76. Michael DeMaria | August 10th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
77. matthew | August 10th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year, that could be based on any number of things (attendence, league performance, cup performance, performance against rivals, financial balance, etc), and then should continue to communicate throughout the season.
If the Chairman doesn’t like a player and wants you to sell, or wants you to buy a new position player, you would have to take it under advisement but wouldn’t necessarily have to follow through. But that would weaken your standing with your Chairman. So the manager would, essentially, have to pick and choose his battles.
I feel like the Chairman should play a bigger role. The Chairman should lay out expectations at the beginning of the year