BuzzerBeater Forums

My point about the bankruptcy and replacement of teams was that nowhere in that process is there any counter-balance to the money it introduces into the economy. And there isn't. You rightly pointed out other factors. I think the bankruptcy/replacement of teams is under-appreciated as part of the problem. It is, of course, not the only significant contributor to the over-heated economy.

Bankruptcy isn't injecting money into the game, but instead is another hole in the ground, since the only way to reach bankruptcy is through "fixed" expenses (i.e., you can not buy a player if that purchase will put you below zero). Of course, you can get down to zero either by spending all your money on transfer listed players (which recirculates that money minus transfer fees), or you can get there by overloading on wages or overloading on staff, neither of which recirculates money.

As far as replacement of teams, it depends - there is 500k "added" to the economy, and an amount of money removed if the team being replaced had a net positive balance.

In terms of the issue here, though, I don't see how these conditions would be related to one another. If the contention was that it was simply impossible to find a single player under 300k, and that was because new teams were blowing their initial cash on whatever they could find on the TL, I could agree. If players were becoming unaffordable because managers who routinely flip nearly worthless players for money from new teams were suddenly buying up all the players in a higher price band, there would be some correlation. In this case, though, I keep coming back to the concept that price is essentially demand divided by supply multiplied by some factor representing the overall fixed amount of money in the system. The number of things and the amount of money involved in the non-related factors I would think keeps that amount relatively low, and supply is slow to adjust since training players takes time, so unless a spike in prices can not be explained by a corresponding spike in demand, that is when the problem is something fundamentally wrong with the economy.

I like your posts because they look like prison jumpsuits.

I like your posts because there are few other people in the game who have played a game with me where both of us have combined to 100 points.

Bankruptcy isn't injecting money into the game, but instead is another hole in the ground, since the only way to reach bankruptcy is through "fixed" expenses (i.e., you can not buy a player if that purchase will put you below zero).

Wrong. A bankrupt team has poured all its money into the economy somewhere. It doesn't much matter where -- the money is in the economy. Then the team simply disappears (with a negative balance) but most of the money remains in the economy. No one goes around removing any of the money it injected into anything except what remained in the team, which was already a negative balance.

As far as replacement of teams, it depends - there is 500k "added" to the economy, and an amount of money removed if the team being replaced had a net positive balance.

No new team starts with a negative balance, so no money is removed from the economy in the formation of a new team. Rather, there is another $500k in the economy. And I'm talking about the replacement of bankrupt teams. Replacement of solvent teams is another matter altogether.

Overall, the bankruptcy and subsequent replacement with a new team is one factor in the overheated economy. I don't know why it is so important to try to disguise this instead of squarely facing it. How are you ever going to correct the overheated economy if you don't squarely face all of the factors causing it?

@Mike ... If you want to minimizing my comments, by labeling me a "ranter" ...

I think you're thinking of someone else. I don't remember you making any rants.

Bankruptcy isn't injecting money into the game, but instead is another hole in the ground, since the only way to reach bankruptcy is through "fixed" expenses (i.e., you can not buy a player if that purchase will put you below zero).

Wrong. A bankrupt team has poured all its money into the economy somewhere. It doesn't much matter where -- the money is in the economy. Then the team simply disappears (with a negative balance) but most of the money remains in the economy. No one goes around removing any of the money it injected into anything except what remained in the team, which was already a negative balance.

If a new team signs up, logs in one time, spends 1k on a trainer with a weekly salary of 100k, and then logs in enough to not be removed for inactivity until they go bankrupt, how does any of that money move the needle one inch on the transfer market? The amount of money available for everyone else to spend on player transfers is literally unchanged, and since the user neither participated in buying or selling players, there is no component of this team's existence that would have influenced the transfer market. Every dollar spent by the team has been thrown down a hole and does not cause the amount of money created from nothingness to consequently increase, nor does it make more or less money be thrown down other holes.

As far as replacement of teams, it depends - there is 500k "added" to the economy, and an amount of money removed if the team being replaced had a net positive balance.

No new team starts with a negative balance, so no money is removed from the economy in the formation of a new team. Rather, there is another $500k in the economy. And I'm talking about the replacement of bankrupt teams. Replacement of solvent teams is another matter altogether.

Overall, the bankruptcy and subsequent replacement with a new team is one factor in the overheated economy. I don't know why it is so important to try to disguise this instead of squarely facing it. How are you ever going to correct the overheated economy if you don't squarely face all of the factors causing it?

How many teams are replaced by bankruptcy as opposed to replaced through inactivity or bans, though? Seeing a team actually even reach the point of their players being transfer listed at $0 for not being able to get back above -500k for two weeks is pretty rare, while teams being replaced because they haven't logged in for a long time is much more common. And those teams can quite often have a fairly substantial bank balance, especially at lower levels where the whole "get a team, log in a few times, disappear" phenomenon primarily occurs - and was exclusive until recent changes in signups allowed new teams to start at higher levels.

Regardless of how many things that may be proposed as a "factor in the overheated economy" (your words), though, the primary factor in transfer prices by an overwhelming margin is supply and demand. Sure, having to pay a week's wages when you fire a staff member may also have some tiny, incidental knock-on effect, but if the market is saturated the prices fall, and if the market can not meet demand, prices rise. If you wish it to be otherwise, feel free to propose a fixed-price system and I'd certainly entertain a discussion on that, though I might not consider it an ideal solution.

If a new team signs up, logs in one time, spends 1k on a trainer with a weekly salary of 100k, and then logs in enough to not be removed for inactivity until they go bankrupt, ...

(A) That happens a lot, does it? If not, then the example you made up has little or no bearing on the discussion, it is totally beside the point. (B) Obviously a team that disappears largely because of inactivity isn't what I'm talking about, now is it? The way you keep changing the subject, making up irrelevant examples as though they were meaningful (when you yourself admit they don't move the needle) makes me think you understand my point but don't want to admit it.

How many teams are replaced by bankruptcy as opposed to replaced through inactivity or bans, though?

Darned if I know. You're the expert, you tell us. But the ones that go bankrupt never have a positive balance when they disappear, always have a negative balance when they disappear, and sometimes the negative balance is over half a million dollars, isn't it?

So I guess we can agree on three things, eh? (A) Teams that existed for maybe one day "don't move the needle." (Those weren't the teams I was talking about anyway, as I am certain you realize. Bringing them up was a red herring.) (B) Some bankruptcies occur after the team has pumped all its money into the economy, and then pumped in more money that it didn't have, sometimes more than a half million dollars, and then disappear. This puts a lot of excess cash into the economy. (C) When the replacement for these teams get a new manager, another $300k is pumped into the game, plus $50k per week for several more weeks.

Now you can continue to say "other things overheat the economy, too," and I'll agree. But you cannot honestly deny that bankruptcies are a factor.

You think "supply and demand" of players is the root of the problem. I say no, too much cash chasing too few worthwhile players is the root of the problem. It would be easy to see who is right -- leave the same number of players and managers in the economy and start withdrawing cash. If it helps, I was right. If it has no effect, you were right.

Here's an even better test for your theory and mine.

Example 1: Five managers, two players that they want for their teams. Inherent value of each player is $100. Bidding ensues, and two managers get their player. How much do you think those players sold for? Answer: The players sell for $100 each.

Example 2: Same managers, same players, but to test my theory each manager has $1000. Do you think the player prices will be higher? You say supply (two players) and demand (five managers) are the same, so prices will be the same. I say the prices will be higher, too much money chasing the players. Answer: The players sell for almost $1000 each.

Example 3: Ten managers this time, each with $100 just like example 1, and the same two players. Will the price of the players be higher or not? You say twice as much demand but the same supply as example 1, so higher selling price. I say no, the cash is the same so the selling price is the same as example 1. Answer: The players sell for $100 each.

People say the decreasing number of managers in BB is the problem. Nope. Notice that if the number of managers decreases, you have to take a corresponding amount of cash out of the system, and then if you do that, prices remain stable. The key is still the cash.

The cash in the system is the culprit. If managers have too much cash, the prices are too high. If many, many managers have too much cash, the prices are too high. If there are fewer managers in the game but they still have too much cash, then prices are still too high. It isn't how many managers there are that matters, it is how much cash they have.

It will be interesting to see average weekly net income not only for own league but for:
- all teams on the same level from the same country
- all teams on the same level on the world
- all teams from the same country
- all teams on whole world
as well.
Other interesting information could be:
- sum or average cash reserves (at least for whole world, I'm not sure it will be good for own league)
- sum of all weekly player transfers (and sum off all transfer fees)
- sum of all staff bonuses and severance
- sum of all GM fines ;-)
- etc
- average arena capacity (it can be done by external tool)


It would help to control global economy by community, find inballances, observe short and long term tendences.

So I guess we can agree on three things, eh? (A) Teams that existed for maybe one day "don't move the needle." (Those weren't the teams I was talking about anyway, as I am certain you realize. Bringing them up was a red herring.) (B) Some bankruptcies occur after the team has pumped all its money into the economy, and then pumped in more money that it didn't have, sometimes more than a half million dollars, and then disappear. This puts a lot of excess cash into the economy. (C) When the replacement for these teams get a new manager, another $300k is pumped into the game, plus $50k per week for several more weeks.

The whole point I have apparently been unable to make is that the idea of money "pumped into the game" is the red herring, as none of that money causes any effects on the rest of the game world in any way unless the manager participates in the transfer market. The money they spend on wages or scouting or anything else disappears into a hole, and new dollars are created from attendance and TV revenue and the like. If, at the time a team went bot, every single dollar they owned was paid to staff as a severance bonus, that wouldn't cause even one millionth of a dollar of change to the "economy." If at the time a team went bot, they continued to draw revenue from attendance and merchandising and ceased paying salary, causing their bank accounts to rise perpetually, that wouldn't cause even one millionth of a dollar of change to the "economy." It will still cost the same amount of money to build a lower tier seat, a player's wage will be the same for the same skill set, and the amount of money available for teams to buy and sell players is exactly the same.

Now you can continue to say "other things overheat the economy, too," and I'll agree. But you cannot honestly deny that bankruptcies are a factor.

Sure, and the gravitational pull of the moon on the Earth is a factor in why Shaq was a horrible free throw shooter. I'm sorry, that's dismissive. I'm saying that the actual affect of bankruptcies on the transfer market (which I assume is what you mean by economy in this context) is trivially small.

You think "supply and demand" of players is the root of the problem. I say no, too much cash chasing too few worthwhile players is the root of the problem.

You know, "too few worthwhile players" sounds awful lot like saying there's insufficient supply of players. Let me ask google to define supply, and the noun definition:

a stock of a resource from which a person or place can be provided with the necessary amount of that resource:

Now I just need to read up on the economic model that says when there is too little supply for a product that is easily produceable at a low cost, the solution is to forcibly extract money from people until only those who started with the most money will have enough left over to purchase the product.

Here's an even better test for your theory and mine.
[...]
The cash in the system is the culprit. If managers have too much cash, the prices are too high. If many, many managers have too much cash, the prices are too high. If there are fewer managers in the game but they still have too much cash, then prices are still too high. It isn't how many managers there are that matters, it is how much cash they have.

The flaw in your examples is that they make an unspoken assumption that supply is fixed and can not be altered. If no other players are ever going to be created, people will have to spend up to their available resources to acquire the player because there will never be another player available to them again.

But putting that aside, since there's no point in discussing something based on that flawed a premise, what is your solution? If money needs to be drained out of the game when teams leave, are you suggesting that each week, BB deducts additional cash from each team in the game to make sure that the transfer prices stay at whatever fixed point someone deems appropriate?

So do they take this money from everyone? "Hey, new team, I know you're working on building your arena and not spending money on the market, but prices went up 3% this week, so we are deducting $15,000 from your account." Or just from people who want to spend to buy players? "Hey, I know you'd like to buy player X, but prices went up 5%, so we'll take that money from you. On the bright side, he'll cost you less now!" Or maybe just those who sell players? "Player prices went up 5%, because there aren't enough good players. So since you are one of the people making the players, we'll have to make sure to take that 5% out of the transfer fee to keep prices level. Maybe if you'd make enough players, you wouldn't get penalized any more!"

And if that works, all you're doing is reducing the amount of money in terms of pure dollars. Teams will still spend their available dollars on the players, just that those without large reserves built up in the past will be disproportionately affected. Teams who need to spend dollars on arena expansions will be disproportionately affected. And prices for players who are desirable to teams who don't fall into your limitation of having very low money compared to the player's "worth" won't be affected - a 300k valued player would be worth a lot less to new teams if they don't start with 300k, for instance, but if guys with $3M in the bank still want him that price won't drop at all.

Other than all of that, it almost might work. Anything to make sure that you can buy players without people having to actually create them, I suppose.