BuzzerBeater Forums

there currently seems no reason for any team thinking they can make the play-offs to build more with any surplus cash they have (assuming they are not looking at upgrading players) then try make 100-200k profit in the playoffs and then promptly tear down the surplus they dont want or think they will need to carry.

How many bleachers traders will we get this season...

All those that follow me say 'I' !!!!

You are right, unless the waiting time to get your dough back is long enough to discourage that activity. Maybe 100 seats at atime will take 1 day, but if you go for the whole left side of your arena at once it will take you four seasons.

I sort of hope this is the way it goes, so that teams aren't suddenly receiving bales of benjamins dropped from single prop cessnas in the middle of the night.

except you cant build large amounts of seat instantly.

there currently seems no reason for any team thinking they can make the play-offs to build more with any surplus cash they have (assuming they are not looking at upgrading players) then try make 100-200k profit in the playoffs and then promptly tear down the surplus they dont want or think they will need to carry.

How many bleachers traders will we get this season...

All those that follow me say 'I' !!!!

yes thats right, this season it makes sense to put every non used dollar in the arena, but without knowing which was a good amount of seats the next season is probadly the best way to avoid the opposite way, in which even necessary builds in the arena won't happen.

except you cant build large amounts of seat instantly.

you can say that again!!!!

you can't build anything to the deadlines given :(

ähm ... Sorry no .. This logic doesn't have anything to do with the arena think working here ... First of all you should look at prices, and the arenas who should be redoced works often below standard price ...

Fine, give them back money only for seats less than 24 home games old.

Secondly if youbuild 5 seats extra and sell them, you can not count ticket prices * 5 to look how much money the seats generate - no you normally balance those ticket prices that you get sold those additional 5 seat so you have taken these number and "-" the old seats * price difference. And if this sum is zero, the teams make profit, and this is a lot more then 20 games.

The example before from me, with 55 VIP lounges i making 33k, with 95 i would make 40k. Lets count:

40 * 16.000 - X * 7.000 = 0
X = 40 * 16.000/7000
X = 20
oh shit
X = 91.4

If a seat costs you $200 to build, and you sell it for $10, you only need to sell it 20 times to make your money back. I don't know where you're getting the "7,000" figure above. The statement that you make 33K with 55 luxury boxes but only 40K with 95 luxury boxes doesn't match reality. You're selling them at $650, so it takes you 24.6 home games to make back the value of one box, and you pull in $35K per home game from those seats. And if you had 95 instead of 54 (not 55), you would be making nearly $62K, not $40K.

Even if it was that much harder to sell out more seats -- so what? If you happen to be in the Bundesliga and overbuilt seats, say in an attempt to reach the top of the arena-size leaderboard by jacking your stadium up to -- what is it now? -- 28,548 capacity, and you can't sell out your seats, then seating capacity was a bad investment from the get-go. Having made your bad investment, you now want to be bailed out entirely? Do you work for Merrill Lynch?

Damn you should play " the price is hot", you are master of estimation. Hey and don't forget in the last season, we only get 90% of the price, with reduce the difference to 6.300, and we have less fans which reducing it additionaly, and you will crush the faktor 5 ...

I'm not sure what this means.

one question, what do you think have teams done, with the money who don't invest on the arena?

I'll tell you what they haven't done -- they haven't earned any money back by selling the seats they didn't build to fans. You did. And if you didn't, as I noted above, you made a lousy investment and don't deserve to see a full return.

Did you suggest that every team should instantly loose 30% of their money, because else they will invest it on the transfer market and runining the prices? At BB this has to happen instantly, else the problems appears few minutes before regulation - i see many player like things like that.

This is pure straw man argument. I never said anything about taking money from anyone. What I said was that allowing players with bloated arenas to sell back large numbers of seats after having made tons of money from selling those seats was not a step calculated to please the more recent additions to the BB universe. Nor, from my perspective among the many looking up, does it seem particularly fair for early starters like yourself to receive, in effect, a no-interest loan to bail you out of your previous indulgences.

Last edited by crimedevil at 6/16/2009 10:49:57 PM

If a seat costs you $200 to build, and you sell it for $10, you only need to sell it 20 times to make your money back. I don't know where you're getting the "7,000" figure above. The statement that you make 33K with 55 luxury boxes but only 40K with 95 luxury boxes doesn't match reality. You're selling them at $650, so it takes you 24.6 home games to make back the value of one box, and you pull in $35K per home game from those seats. And if you had 95 instead of 54 (not 55), you would be making nearly $62K, not $40K.

compare my and the arena from the tall blacks, i linked them short time before ;) I write it above if you have mre seats, you will have less prices, so if you have 50 you ask for 650$, if you have hundred, you will selll the new 50 for 450$ or less, and the old 50 not for 650 anymore you will ask for 450$ too(which gives then a income fromm 10.000 less money, where you have to sell ~20 seats to be "neutral") ;)
Like i said before.

So 7000, is the different income betwenn 40k with 95 and 33k with 55, pretty easy or ;) Because he sells more then 25 ticket, without nno income which gives full income in your totaly wrong math.

Thatsa how the arena works, not i build an extra seat, and all the money it generate is extra, the effect is much lower.

Even if it was that much harder to sell out more seats -- so what? If you happen to be in the Bundesliga and overbuilt seats, say in an attempt to reach the top of the arena-size leaderboard by jacking your stadium up to -- what is it now? -- 28,548 capacity, and you can't sell out your seats, then seating capacity was a bad investment from the get-go. Having made your bad investment, you now want to be bailed out entirely? Do you work for Merrill Lynch?

did you know the difference betwenn succesfull and less succesful teams? that's around 35-50% of the income, so if i make the prices that i sell everything even if i lost the game before, i will waste 50% of the income if i win this game. If i plan with a win and don't have it, i maybe loss 10%. So calculate with the optimum is ebetter, then with the nmore normal case odf a midfield team, which i was actually even if my start is messed up.

So please think a bit how the visitors works in the game, and not make the counting to i sell a seat this is the money i get and i sell everytime every seats - thats have nothing to do with the game.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 6/17/2009 4:44:04 AM

I sort of hope this is the way it goes, so that teams aren't suddenly receiving bales of benjamins dropped from single prop cessnas in the middle of the night.

i quote this. 3 days delay would already be enough, so that you can't just see a player you like on the TL, dismiss the right amount of arena seats and buy it (this would work for everybody, not only for monster arenas).

Well, first of all sorry for my english.
I don´t have a prime time team. It´s only a 4º division team in spain but I have invested 3.3 millions in my arena en the past 2 seasons. And I secure that the new seats have not given me adicional economical income. I put the money in the arena as a long term investment, but in the short term I could have got nearly the same income putting the tickets prices up.
What I want to say is that the seats demolition needs to be regarded with the 100% of the invested money. Al least in my case it would need to be because I have not get any advantage of it (you can see my past games income and see, but I am making nearly the same money this season in 4º division with my new arena than I did last season in 5º division with the older and smaller arena -maybe now a bit more, but only a bit) . Maybe other teams got it, but I think thats impossible to knew for every single team.

compare my and the arena from the tall blacks, i linked them short time before ;) I write it above if you have mre seats, you will have less prices, so if you have 50 you ask for 650$, if you have hundred, you will selll the new 50 for 450$ or less, and the old 50 not for 650 anymore you will ask for 450$ too(which gives then a income fromm 10.000 less money, where you have to sell ~20 seats to be "neutral") ;)
Like i said before.

So 7000, is the different income betwenn 40k with 95 and 33k with 55, pretty easy or ;) Because he sells more then 25 ticket, without nno income which gives full income in your totaly wrong math.

Thatsa how the arena works, not i build an extra seat, and all the money it generate is extra, the effect is much lower.

You have almost 24,000 bleacher seats and haven't been able to sell more than 20,000 since at least April 25. Why should you get a full return for having foolishly built 4,000 more seats than you can sell?

I understand exactly how this works. You invested in something that carries a diminishing rate of return. In other words, your money was being spent in an inefficient manner -- for every seat you bought, you got less and less return. Once again, having made a poor investment in order to chase maximum arena returns, you now want to suffer none of the consequences that attend having made that decision. It's inane to cast this as a strategy choice -- every single team in BB was trying to build an arena to your levels to capture every possible seat dollar, since there was really no negative to doing so. But my point still stands -- you have already made a return from your seats and received the benefit of the bargain you made when buying them. Therefore, you are not entitled to anything in addition.

did you know the difference betwenn succesfull and less succesful teams? that's around 35-50% of the income, so if i make the prices that i sell everything even if i lost the game before, i will waste 50% of the income if i win this game. If i plan with a win and don't have it, i maybe loss 10%. So calculate with the optimum is ebetter, then with the nmore normal case odf a midfield team, which i was actually even if my start is messed up.

So please think a bit how the visitors works in the game, and not make the counting to i sell a seat this is the money i get and i sell everytime every seats - thats have nothing to do with the game.

If it is true that in order to succeed a team in BB must have a massive arena and overbuild seats, all this does is highlight my earlier point that building large arenas was not a strategy, but a requisite. It also does absolutely nothing to disprove my point that you have already received back the money you spent to build seats that are more than a certain number of home games old, and are therefore not entitled to more. And as to your diminishing returns, you knew when you spent the money that there was a decent chance you would never sell all your seats, and if that was the case, any cash spent on empty chairs was wasted. Yet now you want that money back?

you have a 6k arena. seriously...