BuzzerBeater Forums

I'm doing my springtime (well almost summer time) cleaning so don't have time to check :) but the thing that they didn't get the investment back is wrong, they had huge attendance and a lot of money from that

next time please check before ;) Did you count how long it takes to get the investment back?

/BBWeb/arena.aspx?TeamID=26226

/BBWeb/arena.aspx?TeamID=26206

compare the income through VIP(it succes independent, and i think the comparisation with the biggest arena wasn't bad), and think about that the arena was exploding the last two seasons. And last season the difference was smaller, and the main part of the lounges come through that.

If they don't reduce it to the 5-10k level, of the arena most arenas aren't long above the sensefull size and the additional income is low. Did he have 7,5 seasons to get his investment back, this was the time it takes in the last season?

Did you have time if you build now, or short before the changes get announced? Without even knowing that you hit the boarders?

Last edited by CrazyEye at 6/15/2009 11:45:53 AM

we meant you will get back 100% of what you paid for it.

Isnt it gonna hit the economy balance? 15M given at once? These managers would become untouchable at Transfer market..

i expect that their will be a small transient effect on transfer prices, but i dont see that as effecting economic balance, the money will get distributed out and things will even out quickly. These managers arent going to want to pay exorbitant prices for players, so they will probably not spend their money all at once.

I see but how many real good players are there available on TM? 2-3 per week? And guess who will buy them? Best teams will get better and the gap between them and the other teams might enlarge..maybe you should split the money. Just think about it. Thanks

I see but how many real good players are there available on TM? 2-3 per week?

Seriously?

I see but how many real good players are there available on TM? 2-3 per week?

Seriously?

I normally list 3-4 myself each week :D

I also agree that returning 100% of the money paid for seats is a bad idea. A percentage seems more plausible and also more fair. It doesn't seem right that a team should be able to get all their money back for something they have used already.
Just my two baht.

that's what I'm talking about...
it's not like they didn't have a benefit from it so far... they did...
so a idk, 60-70% max would be acceptable.. you can't get money back for the workers that build the arena, and you need to pay the workers to demolish a part of the seating and rearrange the new layout... so anyway... 100% is a bit too much since as I said, it already generated profit for the teams... giving 100% back is saying that those seats were never used and didn't generate any kind of profit and that's wrong

(no hard feelings, just discussing things here... don't shoot the messenger) )

I agree with Kivan.

In essence, giving back all the money spent to build arenas is like extending no-interest loans to the downsizing players. Players who have been around for longer get larger loans. It's one thing to say that you'll give all the money back in the interests of fairness, but Kivan is correct in that the teams that have expended money on their arenas have already seen a benefit, which they will not be required to disgorge when they downsize. They will basically get a cash windfall when they chop up their stadiums.

One way to address the fairness aspect would be this: At standard prices, it takes 20 home games to pay off each seat built. It would therefore be more fair to give back money only for arena builds that finished less than 20 home games ago, i.e., to teams that have not had the chance to earn back their build money yet. It's true that by raising prices you can recoup your money in less time, but in that event you could make the cutoff 18 or 19 home games ago to average out the price variations.

While it's improbable that these teams would spend all their money at once on the transfer market, what will certainly happen is that the teams with larger arenas will get a cash infusion which they can then use as a cushion for their bankrolls. This is bound to increase the gap between divisions, first economically, then talentwise as teams receiving the windfall are able to lay out for better players. Thus, if your goal is to reduce arena size while not totally shafting teams that built large arenas, while simultaneously preventing a noticeable increase in the talent gap between divisions, it seems to me that you had better find a justification for reducing the payout made to downsizing teams. Just giving them all their cash back only sounds fair.

While I don't know what the optimum arena size will be, it seems very likely that a very select few teams will be affected by this, with the vast majority in Germany. The refund will essentially act as returning capital and the past attendance as interest. Clearly if these teams had known there would be a cap on arena sizes they would have spent the money on players and be in a different position now..