BuzzerBeater Forums

In the german league we have an average revenue of ~380k and an average net income of ~115k.

Last edited by Yoginger at 5/13/2009 7:40:31 PM

In Bulgaria, the numbers are virtually identical ($380,000 average, $115,000 profit).

However, there is one 8,000 and one 6,000 arena in the league (the rest seem to be in the 11,000-17,000 range.

My take is that an average income of $400,000+ should be easily attainable, which can typically support $300,000 in salary -- or more, on the front-runners.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 5/13/2009 8:00:55 PM

Sorry to reply to this after so many other posts went by. I seem to be online when most people are asleep and then log off just as the masses are getting on board.

I do see what you are saying but I disagree. Players are nothing more than the sum of the actions taken by their managers in training. I don't think that a player who has an unaffordable salary is the best player in the game. You have to weigh costs and benefits in this game. Up til now most managers have been blindly training single position with emphasis only on primary skills without looking down the road three seasons and seeing that their Frankenballers were going to have ridiculous and unaffordable salaries. Why is that a problem? It is a problem for the managers who trained those freaks and for the idjits who pay to have them on their team. It is no problem for managers who have spread their training around to create more balanced players who perform at a level of, say, 13-15. I think this trend for creating triple 18+ is not only overly testosteronic but obviously stupid financially. If a manager couldn't see that they were creating an unusable player, maybe next time they will open their eyes. Those players whose salaries make them unplayable will retire. So what? There will be hundreds more shortly. And maybe they will be more all-around, but I doubt it.

Now, to look at your problem from another angle- Perhaps a change in ticket pricing, tv revenue, or some other merchandising outlet can be introduced to increase the amount of cash teams are pulling in. 35k/week seems a bit low for tv revenue in the 21st century.

For my team, I have a high weekly salary of $494k and tend to have about $80k a week in profits (not including cup or b3). However, this week I lost by 3 points to the second place team on the road (crunch v. tie), lowering my attendance revenue by $120k. My finances will grow by about $50-60k next season once the taxes on first division teams are removed, but this will be no where near enough to cover any of these freaks coming up.

Im really happy right now, hearing all this.

I have an average net income of 160k and dammit, im only in divII.

Just bragging a little LOL

Well nobody brought up that only a little is known about high level PR managers, so far?

Well, I'm not argumenting pro or con but some people need to realize that normally you can't have all-star team roster including Paul, Kobe, LeBron, Duncan and Yao Ming or similar and even if you get three big names you are bound to rebuilding in nearer or further future. Running a sport club isn't cheap, bankruptcy is an issue in some sports. The one week rental of monster players could become a bigger issue than high salaries of some players. Payrolls will probably become more even over time and tactical approach will become more important.

There always be buyers for those players. Even if they would bankrupt because of this - some just don't realize until it's late.

I have a level 6 PR guy and he brings in substantially more than the level 10 guy I had before the staff change. The substantial difference would just about cover one day of a 150k/week salary, so there is a way to go before PR managers are going to help pay for Frankenballers.

Last edited by somdetsfinest at 5/14/2009 12:38:29 AM

No, they are indeed frankenballer - overtrained, useless freaks who will not fit into a star-studded franchise.

I know you won't agree with me - you appear to think players have some god-given right to be triple 18-skilled, whereas triple 14 not only makes much more sense, it allows players to emphasise one skill or another (at a defined cost) and give meaning to the levels about wondrous.

I absolutely love it that every training slot of every week has consequences, and you can't develop one player at the expense of your franchise, unless you effectively have quit the game in favour of NT 'glory'.

perhaps the anti-farmers should set up the NT-Player Police and use the anti-cheating forms ;-)

Hahaha...you've gotta be kidding me. You really think Fanesi is useless? Are you serious? Can you give me a rational explanation why, aside from his salary (which is the problem we are discussing), he isn't better than a triple 14? Try playing a triple 14 against him in a man-to-man defense and then we'll see if you still feel the same way.

Sorry to reply to this after so many other posts went by. I seem to be online when most people are asleep and then log off just as the masses are getting on board.

I do see what you are saying but I disagree. Players are nothing more than the sum of the actions taken by their managers in training. I don't think that a player who has an unaffordable salary is the best player in the game. You have to weigh costs and benefits in this game. Up til now most managers have been blindly training single position with emphasis only on primary skills without looking down the road three seasons and seeing that their Frankenballers were going to have ridiculous and unaffordable salaries. Why is that a problem? It is a problem for the managers who trained those freaks and for the idjits who pay to have them on their team. It is no problem for managers who have spread their training around to create more balanced players who perform at a level of, say, 13-15. I think this trend for creating triple 18+ is not only overly testosteronic but obviously stupid financially. If a manager couldn't see that they were creating an unusable player, maybe next time they will open their eyes. Those players whose salaries make them unplayable will retire. So what? There will be hundreds more shortly. And maybe they will be more all-around, but I doubt it.

Now, to look at your problem from another angle- Perhaps a change in ticket pricing, tv revenue, or some other merchandising outlet can be introduced to increase the amount of cash teams are pulling in. 35k/week seems a bit low for tv revenue in the 21st century.

I think you have to distinguish between players. There are ones that have been trained horribly that are indeed almost useless, even though they have a huge salary, and there are those, like Fanesi or the Latvian dude, who are just fantastic players, aside from their salary. When I say "best player" I am referring to their skills, and not considering their salary, which, like I said in my previous post, is exactly the problem. The paradox we are reaching is that the best players in the game will be the most harmful to their teams. That really makes no sense at all, and is an indication that perhaps the salary growth, which is obviously exponential, is not calibrated correctly.
And I agree with your last paragraph 100%.

It would be comforting to be able to insure your players against inj. maybe 5/10% of the salary per week. At least you could then invest with a bit more confidence and this could help stabilise transfer prices.