Quote:
Originally posted by chyperhondriac
Stuff and nonsense
Of course you wouldn't ever get sacked for not meeting board expectations. More than 50% of Premiership-level clubs would not be meeting these targets, by definition. Not every club can be improving. Board rating doesn't have to suddenly mean something- I was just suggesting some very small but meaningful changes that could be (hopefully) coded quickly without introducing any bugs, if Ron wanted to make the board actually mean something.
If there was time (and inclination) to introduce an incentive for having a board rating above 50% or a penalty for having one below 50%, I'd suggest that it modifies your available funds vs your bank balance. At the moment, you can spend all but the last 500k of your bank balance, right? Well, if the board trusts you completely, maybe you can spend all of it. If they don't, maybe they keep back more of your bank balance "in case of unforeseen circumstances due to poor management" or something similar. Nothing crippling, maybe the 500k is increased to 2M if you have a board rating of zero even after the changes I suggested.
It should be entirely possible for most competently managed clubs to have a board rating of over 50%. The fact that literally everyone is at 0% makes a mockery of it, and makes it completely ignored by anyone that isn't new, which is a shame.