BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't mind any of it. I just think it's rubbish that a guy whose salary is 200k is cheaper to purchase (sometimes) than a guy whose salary is 20k.

Why penalize managers for not spending in a dead market.

Hoarding vs. not spending in a bad market ... two very different things. Nobody needs $20 million, and when that money floods the game it damages it.

It best to let the BB market crash, then allow BB marin or BB mark to fix it.

If the market crashes, I and undoubtedly many others will be long gone before they fix it.

What about if you're still winning and still making money? Surely then you couldn't be punished for having a large sum of cash stored.

I think it's a bit more filled with grey areas than just being black and white.

Hoarding money or saving revenue is not hurting the game. The whole argument is bs. excuse my language, its just a dead market.

Man, if you had a clue about Economics I would Continue the discussion...

instead of talk smart ,proceed your case? I shut your argument down and you have no reply. Ther fore you come back with smart alic remark.. typical. I don't know bb economic..>? you don't know BB economic well .

The fact is our saving is not connected to the BB market to the player prices. You don't know how the BB market works.. It takes 3-4 season to create a good player because they system forces us to train to start now.. thats why theres no player to meet to demands and also people rushing bad player out 2-3 season of training out the door to get money also over priced because of a lot assume the "could be" and "what if" on the player. People are paying for those "what if" and "could be's"

If you bid on that player the next price will be higher on a slightly better skills for same player only slightly higher skills. Both player's crap, both over priced. Both killing the market rather than them being 23~24 yrs old and on point in skills with the correct prices. Manager are buy the 20-21 yrs old. Why^^ I just explained this above.

In a lot of manager mind they have the "cap mentally "buy him before he's capped. That's flawed thinking in most cases for player on the market. Buying capped saves you money in training also you get a good player for the correct price. paying for potentials when one knows how good the player will be, is a risk and also seen as foolish IMo. They may never get to the expectations with the way 48 min training is working these days. Nothing but high risk, low rewards.. So again don't say I don't know BB economics. You need to sit back ask me about it..

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 4/12/2015 10:11:41 AM

Hoarding vs. not spending in a bad market ... two very different things. Nobody needs $20 million, and when that money floods the game it damages ~mike franks

I don't think saving money is hoarding you need to save to do things on Bb, this is a managers game as well.. Do you know how much it cost to field a top team and b3 team in salary's. about 8-10 million a season. Maybe more than that because some team have player worth 6 million alone. insert a money tax you killed the game pretty much.

Teams will come down in division even more like they are doing now. Its has nothing to do with the market ,the top level is just way too strict to manage a team.

If the market crashes, I and undoubtedly many others will be long gone before they fix it~mike franks



The market has been dead for a very long time, since "look inside" took over as the tactic of choice. If it falls, it will not effect anything much. The prices will go flat same as before these changes, which is what we all need lower prices.

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 4/12/2015 10:48:59 AM

I don't think saving money is hoarding

Yes, that is what I said, too. They are very different things, but the continuum between them is a grey area, as Balev said. Hoarding hurts your team, and when the hoarded millions flood back into the game it hurts the game. You would do better to try to understand Knecht than to pick a fight with him.

you don't know BB economic well .

The fact is our saving is not connected to the BB market to the player prices.

At least I have tricked the University to give me a Masters degree in economics - so I guess I understand the Basics.

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.

Just catching up on my Sunday afternoon BB blog reading here, and this thread is quite interesting.

Mr. Franks,
It seems like the second sentence here, bolded, is a solid example of 'supply & demand' causal factors taking place, the 'supply' of too much cash being high and the demand on the 'few worthwhile' players also being high (and supply of them being low, of course).

If your answer is to remove the cash, it seems that would be a really hard thing to do. I read through most of your posts, and I may have missed it, but how would BB skim cash out of teams? How do you determine how much cash? Who gets hit?

Also, you've made the statement several times that bankrupt teams have pumped 100% of their funds into the transfer list economy. From my understanding of this game, that statement is not true (most 100% of anything statements are not true). While I agree that their funds have all gone to expenses related to managing a team here in BB, I think that rarely does a team blow out it's entire cash-wad on buying players (but if/when that does happen, I agree that would be pumping 100% of their newfound cash into the transfer list economy). However, there are many other cases that drain a new team's bank account - I think more times it is the salaries of their purchased players that sinks them. and those salaries being paid don't prop up the transfer market at all. Also, as has been mentioned by other posters, new teams also pick up trainers with a too hefty salary, which will soak up all their funds and take them into the red while not adding cash to the transfer market.

None of these examples always happen (in truth, I can't name the percentages on the pie graph that shows how much bankrupt teams have spent in various areas to make them go bankrupt, but neither can anyone else). More accurately, the ways teams go bankrupt are a combination of various factors, many of which don't put money into the transfer market. And teams go bot a variety of ways as well, and often times have nothing to do with being bankrupt, and thus also don't prop up the transfer market.

Just my two cents,

Iguanadon

Note: Just realized that I didn't actually read this thread all the way through, and that most of my points had already been made. Okay. Nice one, self.

Last edited by Iguanadon Joe at 4/12/2015 5:22:52 PM

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.

Just catching up on my Sunday afternoon BB blog reading here, and this thread is quite interesting.

Mr. Franks,
It seems like the second sentence here, bolded, is a solid example of 'supply & demand' causal factors taking place, the 'supply' of too much cash being high and the demand on the 'few worthwhile' players also being high (and supply of them being low, of course).

If your answer is to remove the cash, it seems that would be a really hard thing to do. I read through most of your posts, and I may have missed it, but how would BB skim cash out of teams? How do you determine how much cash? Who gets hit?

Also, you've made the statement several times that bankrupt teams have pumped 100% of their funds into the transfer list economy. From my understanding of this game, that statement is not true (most 100% of anything statements are not true). While I agree that their funds have all gone to expenses related to managing a team here in BB, I think that rarely does a team blow out it's entire cash-wad on buying players (but if/when that does happen, I agree that would be pumping 100% of their newfound cash into the transfer list economy). However, there are many other cases that drain a new team's bank account - I think more times it is the salaries of their purchased players that sinks them. and those salaries being paid don't prop up the transfer market at all. Also, as has been mentioned by other posters, new teams also pick up trainers with a too hefty salary, which will soak up all their funds and take them into the red while not adding cash to the transfer market.

None of these examples always happen (in truth, I can't name the percentages on the pie graph that shows how much bankrupt teams have spent in various areas to make them go bankrupt, but neither can anyone else). More accurately, the ways teams go bankrupt are a combination of various factors, many of which don't put money into the transfer market. And teams go bot a variety of ways as well, and often times have nothing to do with being bankrupt, and thus also don't prop up the transfer market.

Just my two cents,

Iguanadon

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and reasonable post. You should apply to be a GM.

As far as supply and demand, the supply of players is at issue, as well as the demand by managers. Of course this is part of the issue. Where some contentious posts developed was over the role that cash plays in this formula, since the game has too much cash and the prices of TL players is outrageously high, as plenty of others besides just me have observed. GM's have denied this, turning a blind eye to it and mocking anyone who tries to make the case for this imbalance in the economy.

Adding players and removing cash are both possible, and the initial steps would not even be difficult. Players can be added through lowering the threshold on free agency. Cash can be controlled through a reduction in TV contracts. Additional steps are also available.

Of course not every bankrupt team has pumped a lot of money into the economy. Some have, though, as you correctly observed. GM's also fought against that idea. BTW, your observations about the pitfalls that lead new managers to bankruptcy would form the base of a very constructive effort toward reforming aspects of the game with an eye toward retaining new customers.

Have a fine Sunday afternoon.