BuzzerBeater Forums

I have been amazed at the response. First of all, no one knows what the change will be. Secondly, the wording of the statement implies that homegrown players will be cheaper, not that foreign players will be more expensive. So if you go the way you are, you won't be losing anything. If, however, you decide to have a few homegrown players on your team, you will save some cash.

I am from a very small country. I think that there are good and bad points about being in a small country. Good- it is easier to make $$$, and easier to succeed. Bad- competition is lacking. Getting to play in the BBB is great, even though I have been spanked both times I have been involved (By the way- the BBB is elite, not elitist).

I think many of the posters on these forums are fairly narrow-minded in their reasoning. "what helps me is good, regardless of its influence on the 40000 other users." I believe that what is best for the majority of users is best. The majority of users are mid-level teams from big countries. To that end, what players like myself or superfly or springfield drunkers or hambourg bulls think or want doesn't and shouldn't really matter. In a game of this magnitude appeasing the vocal few is wrong. If the vocal few can't handle adversity it is better for the developers that they leave the communtiy than 20000 typical users. Not to say that the developers shoudn't listen to the vocal few- who often have a much deeper interest and more in-depth insights than the hoi polloi- but the game and site will benefit from having the interests of those masses in mind when they implement changes.

That's what I think anyway.

Last edited by somdetsfinest at 2/26/2009 7:16:16 PM

Stop making sense.

Stop being so harsh to me!

but that game and site will benefit from having the interests of those masses in mind when they impement changes.

If this is true, and I think it is, I am quite sure that the decision shoul be not to introduce a tax on foreigners. The tax on foreigners might have an effect on how competitive BBB teams from different countries are (i.e. a very limited group of team) for all the rest the only effect will be that it forces them to spend more time on the transfer to find the player that fits their team. Any tax on foreigners will have this effect, so if it is for the masses the desicion is easy I would say and it has nothing at all to do with small/big countries (which it might for a minority).

I really hope that the BBs decide to keep this kind of limiting "protectionism" to Hattrick and do not introduce it in BB.

Last edited by chespirito at 2/26/2009 12:48:07 AM

How come you insist on calling it a tax on foreign players? It very well could be a credit for homegrown players.

Why will it make average teams spend more time on the TL? Especially now that you can search by nationality.

More to the point, I don't think the majority of teams spend much time on the TL AND I don't think this change, even if it is as cataclismic as some people seem to think it will be (not knowing any more than one sentence about it- a sentnece which alludes to homegrown players being cheaper and NOT foreign players getting more expensive by the way).

was it introduce as tax on foreign players or was it the people who think or intepret it as tax on foreign players.

everyone, its said as economically better to my understanding its cheaper.

i cant believe this thread would go this far. . . imagine how many are laughing out there reading this stuff, clearly we are tryin to step onto something we are not clear.

How come you insist on calling it a tax on foreign players? It very well could be a credit for homegrown players.

Well, it really doesn't matter, the effect is the same, so call it whatever you want.

Why will it make average teams spend more time on the TL? Especially now that you can search by nationality.

Because there will be less players availble that you can look at. Of course you will have less competitors for the same problem, so the first thought for many might be that it should have no effect om your possibility to find a player. However to work a market has to be big enough (a basic principle of economics) otherwise it will become difficult to find the right customer/seller at the right time. The effect will be that more time has to be spent on the transfer to find the player that you believe is the best for your team. Thus, the change will have a small negative effect on a majority of teams in big countries and a lartger in small.

More to the point, I don't think the majority of teams spend much time on the TL AND I don't think this change, even if it is as cataclismic as some people seem to think it will be (not knowing any more than one sentence about it- a sentnece which alludes to homegrown players being cheaper and NOT foreign players getting more expensive by the way).

This is absolutely true, and there is a reason for that. Most teams don't find the transfer very interested it is just something that is needed. Therefore making a change that makes the transfer more complicated and important for having success will alienate BB from the average user. This can by no mean be good for the game.

I disagree that it is the same thing. Although it seems silly to be arguing about something that we have no idea about, I will try to explain why I disagree with you.

Team A has a total salary of 100,000/wk. It has three homegrown players whose salry is 20,00/wk. If the new rule is a credit of 10% this total salary becomes 98,000 per week. If it is a 10% tax on foreign players, his salary is 108,000 per week.

Why will there be less players available? Do you honestly think that somebody who is in a middle league looking for a 5000/wk player is going to freak if the foreign player he wants is 5500/wk.? I don't. At the moment there are 39 players from Thailand on the transfer list.I don't see there being a major meltdown in the Thailand BB community if that number drops to 29 or even 9 for that matter. I concede that Thailand is one of least active communities in the game, and also that I know very little about economics. I do know that if I were to find two players of equal skill and one was from Thailand and one was from the USA, I would go for the Thai dude because he would be slightly (typically 10-20%) better economically for me. I wouldn't not buy a player for my team because he was American or Maltese or Chilean, though.


edited by somdet to remove transfer ad.

Last edited by somdetsfinest at 2/26/2009 8:00:36 AM

The problem is that if you are a top team, e.g. Swedish champions Hoop Hoop Hooray have a total salary of ~$380000 of that only ~$90000 is for Swedish players. With 10% tax he would have to pay an additional $29000 every week which will be $410000 a season. That is much more than your specific example.

I tried to calculate his weekly income and from his matches it should be ~420000. You can then see that instead of a $40000 profit if comparing income from one match it will be ~close to break even. Then there will of course be other incomes but considering that top teams needs to buy top players as well it will be very difficult to keep your team at the same strength if you lose $410000 a season to buy new players. And if top teams can't buy expensive players who should afford to do it?

I am not sure though that I consider a 10% increase in salary to be as big problem that some describe but it surely will affect the clubs and they will have to think twice before paying that extra tax.

Comming back to your question

This is a little bit off topic, but it seems like a lot of this debate is coming from speculation about the details of this system. We tried very hard to announce very far in advance that this would be happening in order to minimize the impact on teams who decide to adjust their long-term strategy as a result and in order to minimize the impact on the transfer market.

However, we've also made a number of changes this offseason that we really did want to make sure were given proper attention, and we really did not want to spend a lot of time in what was already going to be a long news post focusing on the details of a system for two seasons from now.

Do you think it was a mistake to announce something like this without details? What would have been a better option?

The problem is not the moment of the announcement. I think it is very good to do such announcement quite early. The problem is that many users (including me) do not understand why this change should be necessary. So it is understandable that we react vigorously independently from the moment of the introduction of the change.

I would have liked to have a description of the problem and of the solution proposed before even talking about a timetable of introduction. This is particularly important for a change that is likely to have a large impact on economy and on equity among countries.

Furthermore explaining on how this system should be made to be fair to countries of different sizes would have been interesting, too. To me it is like introducing something to do something and then to have to correct because the new system has a lot of disadvantages. So why should it be introduced at all???