BuzzerBeater Forums

Allthough teams going into the red are given proper warning about going bankrupt (and it's consequences) I believe one could take a different approach to it all. Given this could happen when away for an extended period for some reason (holiday, illness, and so on) BB would ultimately risk losing dedicated users.

One of the veteran teams in my league just ended up in this situation and his entire squad was listed. Obviously, since this game is alot about building a team (and spending alot of time doing so), this is very, uhm, uninspiring. Again one could argue it's his own fault - which is true - however I suggest a different way to handle this.

1) When a team goes into the red, people obviously don't get payed.
2) When this goes on for 2 weeks, the superstars of the team (with their expensive lifestyles and high-maintainance girlfriends) grow restless and utilize an (until know unknown) contract clause allowing them to find a new team, that is:
3) When the 2 weeks have passed the highest payed player will be released to the transfer market at 0$
4) The following week, the next player goes, and so on..

A bi-effect of this slow descent would be that the team would stay competitive a bit longer, not having the negative impact on the league as seen today (where some of your competition gets a WO and you not)

The effect would be serious enough (losing your superstars), but you would probably manage to keep your young talent and recuperate, ultimately preventing good people from leaving the game!

I agree that there could be something in case of illness holiday and so on. I personally play this game second time over again just because I was out of civilisation for a 6 months. Perhaps this is very long time for any kind of solution, but I wonder if wouldnt be great to thinkout something like you do.

I spoke of the effect on the league merely as a bi-effect. It is not important. The important issue is to prevent people from leaving the game. If people are inactive they are kicked anyway (and you get a similar effect on the league). My suggestion is to keep a possibility to get back into the game, rather than cutting the cord completely after 2 weeks. It would prevent the total destruction of the team, which seems to be the case now.

I still dont see the point. Before the -500k mark, there is time to make some moves.

It just seems ridiculous that the 500k mark is the same for a DIV I powerhouse and a DIV V team full of scrubs.

In my opinion there should be some relation to the value of a team, 500k debt to a team stacked with players worth a few dozen millions is loughable - the same amount of debt would be a disaster for a team in the minor leagues.

It just seems ridiculous that the 500k mark is the same for a DIV I powerhouse and a DIV V team full of scrubs.

In my opinion there should be some relation to the value of a team, 500k debt to a team stacked with players worth a few dozen millions is loughable - the same amount of debt would be a disaster for a team in the minor leagues.

True, that's another dimension to it. However, a minor league team would not that easily go into 500k debt though, while it's quite the oposite for a team with a large payroll.

Again, my main point is to avoid people leaving the game because of this. I don't have any data of how big of a problem that is (people leaving after bankrupcy), however the BBs surely must have.

If we except the famous ill-case, is bankruptcy not a sign of mismanaging ?

I think there could occur situations where going into debt might even be the best possible move a manager can do - going over the cap/into debt to get a championship team, or to reach promotion, for examle.

Finally, I don't think yours situations are the same like Borislav's situations

Borislav's team is not the team on the line. He just hate to lose a fellow BB player. Just pointing out that he is not crying for his own sick mother.

In competitive leagues you often have to balance around the 0$ mark to stay in division. Some time it could happen that the circumstances makes a team go into bankruptcy even if the manager tries to avoid it (but also trying to evade relegation). If the manager does not take action in due time, (because of commitment to the players, league, whatever), he should still not be sent packing. It is disheartening at the very least to get all of your players listed at the same time, on top of that in a low market would be the utter destruction of a team and the managers spirits. You could argue that he buy and sells in the same market, but his players listed at 0$ probably goes below their value, and the correct concoction of players takes a lot of time to put together. Also, the right player only comes along every now and then.

Perhaps an option could be to give teams more time with age. For instance (starting with the best paid players)
1. season - all the team listed
2. season - 3/4 the team listed
3. season - half the team listed
4. season - 1/3 the team listed
5-7. seasons - 2 players listed
8+ seasons - 1 player listed

This would reflect their die hard fan base developed over years and years with blood sweat and tears, and the enterprises credibility with the bank. Thinking that managers are unable to change is an adamant approach. Perhaps they have been in an economical unbalance, but they may actually have attained enough experience to prevent it happening again.

If they go bancrupt again they are treated as the step above, increasing the consequences if they don't take action.