BuzzerBeater Forums

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..

How much better of a position do you think you could possibly be in? Aren't you the guy who dropped $5 million in one shot on 3 rookies for training fodder last year?

But as to substantive points...

First, to call the attendance benefit you argue you should be allowed to keep "interest" is a flat-out mischaracterization. Interest accrues to a lender because the principal is unavailable to the lender and is therefore useless to it unless the recipient pays interest. Your loan, if you want to describe it so, was made to yourself, in the form of a larger arena and earning capacity. Thus you, not anyone else, has been getting the benefit of your capital, and no interest should accrue to you. You've already received your just deserts.

Second, it's irrelevant that only a few teams will find their arenas so large as to make downsizing sensible. Those teams also made "loans" to themselves by buying arena capacity for their own benefit. There is no reason why they should receive more than they paid for.

Third, this "returning capital," which is in fact a windfall for the reasons I described in my first point and my previous post, will permit the teams receiving it to establish an even larger advantage in cash reserves. Even if that's only a few teams, it hardly seems that giving them more money is the way to maintain a competitive atmosphere.

Finally, there is no way to change the economic dynamic of the game without causing pain to one subset or another of players. If anyone is to be harmed by this change, it should not be the lower echelon of the game. These are the people who the BBs should be working to attract and keep. You've already invested enough in this game that a little injustice in your direction won't cause you to ditch playing altogether. If that sounds unfair, it's because it is.

Like I said in my previous post, I think the solution is to give back any cash spent on expansions that were completed less than 20 weeks ago, so that no one actually loses money. I still don't see why people should be paid extra for seats that have been in place in their arenas for a long time, earning them revenue.





Last edited by crimedevil at 6/16/2009 12:29:50 AM

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 dont care either way... the fact is that the teams that wish to downsize and perhaps cash in upwards of $5mil can buy a great new player.. no big deal...

That money couldve been used to skill trade and replace non-trainees and it wasn't. There really is no clear cut argument for or against. The game is about improving your franchise. The teams that opted for arena improved their franchise within the rules of the game. Now the rules have changed they are being allowed to back track.

The mistake that was made that distorted the economy was the introduction of potentials... this killed everyone that invested heavily in the best allstar trainees overnight.... they didnt get a refund mind you so I see your point on the arena.

For me I kept up with a lot of the aggressive expanders but not so much. The way i see it now is to build more this season then charge a fortune for the play-offs, then deliberately sell back to 22-25,000 for the opening day of the next season (as from experience and hints there I will lose 30%+ fans from game 3 of the playoffs to game 1 of the new season.)..

I think the upside is that the surplus money may act as a catalyst for some player valuation growth....