BuzzerBeater Forums

Well problem could be on my side, while I'm not used to speak fluent english.

I suppose that this system would make you bid on like 50k or more to get the coach, wages could be enormous, because if there isn't such a staff member for a next 24 hours, there will be wage bidwar and than we are at the same situation, however with great expenses every week...

50k would be a little extreme. If a manager decides that he wants to pay 50k a week to one of his staff, I say we let him.

Or if we don't go with the weekly increase if salary, we can go for the two season staff lock. Staff is paid a set amount which does not increase and is obligated to serve your club for two seasons. After two seasons, other clubs can 'see' your staff and his salary. If they think he is suitable, they can offer him a higher salary. You have 3 days to offer him a better salary before he leaves for the new team.

That way we don't have to worry about people keeping low paid staff for 10 seasons or so. And it puts the onus on the clubs to actively scout and pinch these low wage earners.

On coaches with speciality and with level 5, 6, 7 - I would not see 50k wage as an extreme - without other investments.

You can imagine that if you want to erase momentally investment during bidding which is on current system (600k-2,2M), these money have to be spent by other way and this other way is on your suggestion a wage...

..this can create great demand from lower leagues, because they will be now capable to bid on that too, that means even stronger wage bidwar...

In this context is current system genious, in my opinion

You cannot save money for 10 seasons with the weekly increment in place. I only suggested removing the one time transfer bid with a salary based bidding system, not the weekly increments which ensures staff turnaround.

Actually, that will make staff payments even more lopsided. Given that salaries rise by a fixed percentage each week, a large starting salary will rise much faster than a low starting salary.

edit: Here's the detailed explanation:

Roughly speaking, with a 2% increase in salary, the total amount you pay for staff over a period of N weeks is:

[(1.02)^N]*SAL, where SAL is the initial salary.

If for some reason the initial salaries of staff are different, there will be a difference in the total salaries paid of these two staff member, based on how much time, on average, you choose to hold them. Mathematically, it can easily be proven that the difference in total salaries paid increases exponentially.

Please note that staff members of the same level can have different salaries even now. That doesn't necessarily make one of them superior to the other. However, it does make them cost differently in the open market -- staff with higher salary will cost less, and this difference should be roughly equal to the extra salary you're going to pay him.

What you're suggesting is to remove this mechanism for equilibrating staff costs, and allowing teams to arbitrarily profit by good deals over time with no built-in mechanisms to prevent this.


Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 11/27/2008 11:09:13 AM

allowing teams to arbitrarily profit by good deals over time with no built-in mechanisms to prevent this

You are talking like a cop.