BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Season 6 Changes

Season 6 Changes

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
40617.218 in reply to 40617.216
Date: 8/3/2008 9:56:00 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
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).

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
40617.219 in reply to 40617.218
Date: 8/3/2008 9:58:50 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
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

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
40617.220 in reply to 40617.215
Date: 8/3/2008 9:59:14 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
196196
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?

This Post:
00
40617.221 in reply to 40617.220
Date: 8/3/2008 10:18:17 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
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.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
40617.222 in reply to 40617.221
Date: 8/3/2008 10:19:24 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
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.

Is this a reason for the proposed measures to affect 2-season-old teams more severely than 4-5 season old ones?

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
40617.223 in reply to 40617.219
Date: 8/3/2008 10:21:54 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
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.


It's a bad example of two extremes. Not every established team over-expanded their arena, and not every new team under-expanded. It doesn't make sense to double your arena in the first season, but it also doesn't make sense to not expand at all when there's so many established examples of where you attendance will go at that level.

Last edited by brian at 8/3/2008 10:25:23 AM

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
40617.224 in reply to 40617.222
Date: 8/3/2008 10:23:58 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
I'm failing to understand how you're coming to this conclusion.

This affects a 2 season old team in a top division that failed to expand at all slightly more then others, not exactly forward thinking there.

Last edited by brian at 8/3/2008 10:24:47 AM

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
40617.225 in reply to 40617.221
Date: 8/3/2008 10:29:12 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
196196
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.


Understood - so do you encourage them to hoard cash and then only spend when they can compete?

Getting knocked out in round 1 after shelling out a load of cash would hurt you but the objective wouldnt be to win it.... the objective might be 4 rounds of cash and extra training to get your roster developing faster than your main peers.

Bottom line is that for the forseeable future those that are in Div1 with small stadiums will find it more difficult to aspire to anything other than competing domestically and I think this is a shame.....

Everyone likes to see an underdog get a favourable draw and progress as much as possible - the new taxes have acted as a strong enough deterrent for this to now be impossible.

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 8/3/2008 10:31:43 AM

This Post:
00
40617.226 in reply to 40617.223
Date: 8/3/2008 10:34:17 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
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.


It's a bad example of two extremes. Not every top team over-expanded their arena, and not every new team under-expanded. It doesn't make sense to double your arena in the first season, but it also doesn't make sense to not expand at all when there's so many established examples of where you attendance will go at that level.

I've had my team for 2 full seasons now. At maximum prices, I barely started tipping full attendance of my original arena midway to the season. I have been expanding ever since, and I am maintaining full attendance at maximum prices right now at 5700 seats or thereabout.

How was that bad management? Is it bad management because I should have foreseen that someone will introduce a measure that will strongly impact a small-arena, high-price strategy, and by doing that will deprive me of a substantial part of the cash flow I need to further expand my arena?

Hindsight might be 20/20 right now, but this doesn't help the teams who chose a similar strategy.

Even so, it remains a major issue that the more effective and fair way to deal with excessive cash in the game is to tax teams progressively based on their income source, which in this case is their arena.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
40617.228 in reply to 40617.224
Date: 8/3/2008 10:40:49 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
I'm failing to understand how you're coming to this conclusion.

This affects a 2 season old team in a top division that failed to expand at all slightly more then others, not exactly forward thinking there.

Easy. The designed measure tax income a nominal 40%, and plan to compensate by allowing for increased attendance. The problem is that while the nominal tax affects everyone, the attendance boosts affects only teams that have overdevelopped their arena, since teams who have optimal arenas will have no seats to absorb any increases.

Additionally, this means that small arena teams will have less disposable income to invest in increasing their arenas, which means that you hamstring their development them for no good reason, since they contribute in no way for the excess cash in the game.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Advertisement