BuzzerBeater Forums

As I would like to think I played a small role in causing the "Törööö tax" (I really had no idea that I made $8.2 million this year), I think this solution may be too harsh on the middle and lower DI teams. Using economic theory, it is always best to follow the less intrusive manner - which in this case, may very well be to impose a graduated tax on profits. With the big concern being the large increase in money supply through excess income, it's clear incomes need to be reduced. However, the implementation of a flat tax is quite inequitable (though I suppose more equitable than a head tax). Targeting the big gainers will not stifle the lower and middle DI teams (nor dissuade lower divisions teams from wanting to promote), and teams like mine could put up with it for the short term. Otherwise, unless I experience an unexpected loss (or a tough draw like the Drunkers, Sculpins or KDB) early in the cup or BB3, these changes will not effect my team nearly as much as most of my competitors - assuming that the compensation for cup and BB3 games is comparable to last season.

Obviously, this would be much less advantageous for my team, but I would like to see the game continue to grow.

Economics major?

This is exactly what I see as the main potential problem. The changes seem to primarily affect the middle to lower end division I teams. Top teams will not feel it as much, and lower division teams might barely feel a pinch at all.

What about the top teams that don't hoard money? Those not in mature leagues with big arenas? I guess those countries will just have to suck it up and not be able to compete for however long it is until you decide to end the communist regime and "... the gate money will return to being 100% given to the clubs."

i'd like to know how it's possible that a D.I team from a not mature league is NOT making money... you have the same income of the italian (just to make an example) D.I teams and way lower wages0
seriously, i'm a D.IV team and my economy is ok. and my wages are only15k/week lower than yours

i think the real problem with the amount of money currently in BB economy comes from the dozens of little states with a top league and nothing else

He is refering to Division I teams that do not have large arenas and depend on TV money. Other than tv money and larger arenas how is it that he would make so much more money than you? That is his point - if there is no advantage in TV money and he has the same a rean that a lower division team has then he is going to have a great deal of trouble under the new changes.

He never suggested that there are Div ! teams not currently making money, he suggested that there are Div I teams that may be in trouble when the changes take effect.

If you're going to target anything, target huge arenas until player salaries catch up with the revenue. That's the actual issue here.

I wonder how salaries will catch up anytime soon with the introduction of potential and skill caps. Inside players salaries are getting up there, but guards are hitting their caps while their salaries are still relatively low.

I think potential caps are pretty high. People get scared of '6th man' and 'starter', but I suspect these can easily be trained to a 10k salary, judging by the fact that a lot of those all-star NT players are still below the cap.

Thats nice to know!!

But somehow i cant see many bidding wars breaking out over these kinds of players by the bigger teams.... do you think that these 10k players will help teams compete with the reallly top teams within BB?

1. Will the new attendance formula be less influenced by the result of the last game? My biggest issue with attendance is that its so focused on your last game result and should be more based on a longer-term average.

This is an important question to know the answer to!

1. You might consider changing top league income based on the size of the countries user base. For example, there is a disproportionate number of I clubs, because all the small countries have no II leagues and those teams have the potential to make huge income streams. If income was scaled according to user base size (not linearly, but maybe using a log function or something...that would reduce a lot of the teams making huge profits and creating run-away inflation.

For example income in various countries might scale by...

Italy (3200 users) -> log 3200 = 3.5 (income in larger countries fairly similar -- maybe there could even be a cap)
USA (900 users) -> log 900 = 2.95
Brazil (500 users) -> log 500 = 2.70
...
Bulgaria (160 users) -> log 160 = 2.20 (top league teams in medium countries might be make more like II money)
...
Japan (13 users) -> log 13 = 1.11 (top teams from smaller counties wound be making considerably less and thus wouldn't be contributing to the inflation effect).

Thanks! - We already make less because the average team that visits us has little or no STH - the fact we can accumalate decent win/loss records offsets this fact. Then when you lose - ouch (back to Q1) it takes a while to get back to 75% capacity....

As jbmcrock says - the changes will effect the 'average' Div1 more. Those with bigger stadiums should be able to survive and push on despite the reduced revenue. Those that don't will be forced to increase their arenas.

If new actions harm the smaller nations more than the bigger ones then the already fragile userbases will retract or disappear having massive knock on effects to already stagnant National teams.

All the foundations for a strong International framework and newly proposed U20s will only ever be interesting for the more prominent countries...

Thats nice to know!!

But somehow i cant see many bidding wars breaking out over these kinds of players by the bigger teams.... do you think that these 10k players will help teams compete with the reallly top teams within BB?

In the long run, the result is exactly the opposite. Bid wars don't break out over very skilled player, because usually there are too few teams that can afford the transfer sum or paying their salaries week in and week out.

Of course, this doesn't work right now, because there are few players whose wages are high enough, and there is a ton of money to fly around.

As the game matures, plenty of average teams will be looking to purchase 10k players. Sure, they might not pull the type of top dollar they do right now, but they surely will be sold.

If this is really just to contain money supply, why not just temporarily increase player salaries by a large amount? This could be done in a weighted way so that the salary increase only impacts players who currently have large wages.

You said that player salaries have not caught up to what you want. So just set them that way. If you want the top players to have $500,000 salaries, then do it. Reset the salaries every year so that again the top players have a $500,000 salary. Then mid-range players who currently have 5-10 thousand in salary could remain relatively the same.

Also, something that could introduce a cost would be to age players faster. Right now they need to be geezers before they start to see a drop in skill.

Anyhow, I will take your suggestion, watch the changes and see what happens. You have never disappointed before so I will be cautiously optimistic. ;-)

This whole thing looks like treating headache with the guillotine. If you're going to target anything, target huge arenas until player salaries catch up with the revenue. That's the actual issue here.

I'd like BB-Charles to comment on this one because it looks like a reasonable idea.

:-)