BuzzerBeater Forums

so they already wasted a season. bad management
and what did they do with all the money from tv games last season? don't tell me they had problems paying their 60k overall salaries...

The problem teams are the ones who have religiously thrown large sums in their arenas starting in Season 1, not the teams who came into existence, say, midway through S3. However, the new measures do not make a difference between these two categories.

I actually think it is excellent management not to start to expand the arena at day 1, since you can gradually increase prices.

Of course, no-one had advanced knowledge that the attendance formula will be changed to favor huge arenas, but gate receipts will be taxed. This is a severe overhaul of the status quo, which totally kills teams who chose not to invest every free dollar in seats.

I don't think it is fair to those teams to put them in a vicious circle where they have the crowd to fill a larger arena, but no cash to expand since their income is being heavily taxed. I find this unforeseen and hardly equitable.

Of course, no-one had advanced knowledge that the attendance formula will be changed to favor huge arenas, but gate receipts will be taxed. This is a severe overhaul of the status quo, which totally kills teams who chose not to invest every free dollar in seats.

Precisely. I would also like to add to this that it is hardly fair to accuse someone of bad management when they managed their team based on a particular set of rules and then have the rug pulled from under them by another set of rules.

dam that delete button


Countries with I.- III. full divisions where are teams in fact for some time have no problem with that tax rule. However it seems that it would damage new countries or countries with not so high volume of users/teams, because these teams have no builded arena, which in fact compensate that taxes, it is a main income.

However you have to remember that these taxes are from the actually volume of wage from players.. your players demands more, there is no country tax or something like that, which means that you have these taxes in fact under controll...

I know from myself very clearly that in new country in second division is enough to have for several seasons players with wage 2-5k. New tax formula will happen that these teams will more think about their's expenses and will do that all. Indeed, who actually have bigger arena will more benefit from that for now, but if there is someone on the 1st league for 3 seasons now and have arena still 4500, I'm not sure how he could survive, by well done business?

What I want to say is that if the league is new, all teams have weak players with no wages, so they have in fact advantage to be so high with no reason and this advantage is now compensated by lower arena size.

It is not so easy like to say "I will have bigger taxes however I have no arena". There is important to remember why I have a bigger taxes and how the other teams will be - if they will sell high salary players too. There are more things to understand which are not so clear to see indeed, but this is a manager game, not a game for 7 years old kids, right?

Second thing which are braking these teams are ticket holders, which increase by the time and affects the attendeance according you last positions on the league. This increase/decrease is slow and if there are such a tax change, should be more dynamical, because your last year position better evidence which team you have. There would be no waiting for more ticket holders, because you are in the best league, however losing money because there is no reason to be in there so early - same as is no reason to have these players so taxed.
You could lose money from the attendeance, which you could not have, because you have no arena and you didn't know like was mentioned.

So ticket holders more dynamical.

But only temporary (2-3seasons just for the acomodation). Then it would be even more slower.

However it seems that it would damage new countries or countries with not so high volume of users/teams, because these teams have no builded arena, which in fact compensate that taxes, it is a main income.

New countries also have much less competition to gain top level amounts of season ticket holders. It costs less in the players needed to win, so I don't understand why there should be exclusions to the rule.

Attendance might be 1/3rd of what established top teams make, but so will wages.

However you have to remember that these taxes are from the actually volume of wage from players.. your players demands more, there is no country tax or something like that, which means that you have these taxes in fact under controll...

No. The gate receipt tax is a flat rate, and everything else was flavor text from the news release. The tax is not in any way related to the salary volume of the team.

It is not so easy like to say "I will have bigger taxes however I have no arena". There is important to remember why I have a bigger taxes and how the other teams will be - if they will sell high salary players too. There are more things to understand which are not so clear to see indeed, but this is a manager game, not a game for 7 years old kids, right?

Suppose team A is 5 seasons old with a 20,000 arena, and team B is 2 seasons old with a 5,000 arena. Both teams are in the top divisions of their countries and can potentially pull 15,000 spectators per game, on average.

Also assume that under the new rules, all teams can pull 20,000 spectators, but will be taxed 25% of their income. The figures are obviously not meant to be precise here, but it is a scenario in principle.

Simple math shows that team A faces a 7% immediate net increase in income, while team B faces an immediate net decrease of 25%.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 8/3/2008 9:56:30 AM

Of course, no-one had advanced knowledge that the attendance formula will be changed to favor huge arenas, but gate receipts will be taxed. This is a severe overhaul of the status quo, which totally kills teams who chose not to invest every free dollar in seats.

Maybe I missed this, but how is the attendance formula changes going to now favor huge arenas to the extent you're claiming? Charles stated in the news that:

"While the new attendance formula will leave the global average attendance in the same spot, the opponent's fan base will have a larger impact, which will result in higher-division teams seeing slightly higher attendance."

I don't see how "slightly higher" in the highest taxed division means death to teams that didn't spend every free dollar in their arena.

Last edited by brian at 8/3/2008 9:52:20 AM

Also assume that under the new rules, all teams can pull 20,000 spectators, but will be taxed 25% of their income. The figures are obviously not meant to be precise here, but it is a scenario in principle.

Simple math shows that team A faces a 7% immediate net increase in income, while team B faces an immediate net decrease of 25%.

Simple math based on an assumption of a 25% increase in attendance. I haven't seen this kind of large increase in attednance stated anywhere (though I've prob missed more then a few posts in this thread).

Also assume that under the new rules, all teams can pull 20,000 spectators, but will be taxed 25% of their income. The figures are obviously not meant to be precise here, but it is a scenario in principle.

Simple math shows that team A faces a 7% immediate net increase in income, while team B faces an immediate net decrease of 25%.

Simple math based on an assumption of a 25% increase in attendance. I haven't seen this kind of large increase in attednance stated anywhere (though I've prob missed more then a few posts in this thread).

The exact magnitude of the attendance increase doesn't matter. In the example above, the team with the large arena will always be penalized for less than the full amount of the gate receipt tax, while the team with the small arena will eat all of it.

Having in mind this measure was caused precisely by the extreme cash flows of large arena teams, I find this the result counterproductive.



Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 8/3/2008 10:01:19 AM

However it seems that it would damage new countries or countries with not so high volume of users/teams, because these teams have no builded arena, which in fact compensate that taxes, it is a main income.

New countries also have much less competition to gain top level amounts of season ticket holders. It costs less in the players needed to win, so I don't understand why there should be exclusions to the rule.

Attendance might be 1/3rd of what established top teams make, but so will wages.

so does this mean that teams in these countries should just compete with their domestic rivals and give up any hope of competing in the BB3?

If i was a 1 or 2 year old team, I wouldn't be expecting to compete with teams that are 4-5 years old.