BuzzerBeater Forums

i think the point is with salaries as they were and some teams grossing $500k a home match with $400k for TV and 2 decent cup runs with some home draws, it doesnt take rocket scientists to figure out how much spare cash is flying around the game.... if managers were working it out and then planning for inflation (which most of us were - and in some cases making huge transfer commitments through calculations that player values were still going to keep rising) this is like having the carpet pulled from underneath.

regardless - whats done is done - the lesson i have learnt is to just keep to a balance squad and keep some cash... ive stuck my neck out a couple of times to try stay ahead of the curve and its either going to go your way or it isnt....

looking back ive only lost some value on 2 or 3 recent large purchases however this is offset by the money received from my last big sales...

anyone who had saved and splashed out is in a far worse position - anyone who saved and hasnt splashed out (or better still finished 5th and sold off their entire roster before the playoffs) is likely to fair better!!

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 7/29/2008 12:03:08 PM

will the team that won the champinship this year will get the money for next year? unless, this team will only lose money next year..

Amazing - I love the changes (don't think anyone in the US would be surprised) as most discussions we have had about changes is about the balance of money top division teams had access to. BB Charles is right, 40% is not enough. Anyone who saw the boat loads of money being offered for players or the The Celtics who sold off his whole team and transferred 6 mil to another team for a 34 year old player should be able to tell you there is an issue.

The timing is fine, A simple suggestion to reduce some of the issues of the added 3 players and reduction of revenue is to soften the week 1 salary hit. This will allow all the teams to get a home game in allow them 3 weeks to get their finances in order. Another suggestion is to scale it based on user base. Bigger user bases should be hit harder than smaller ones.

There are plenty of examples out there where me as a Div II team plays a team from the NBBA multiple times. I improve my team, they improve their team by spending twice as much money in the same amount of time. It's ok because my team isn't that good and there team is that good, but when you look a little deeper, the disparity of the money pool between our teams grows. I am not going to stop playing because he has more money available.

My team is going to be seriously financially strapped going into the toughest stretch of the season. Does it bother me? Nope because this is a game that has caused some entertaining discussions, view points, arguments and probably the most fun I have had playing any online game.

Game on

Amazing - I love the changes (don't think anyone in the US would be surprised) as most discussions we have had about changes is about the balance of money top division teams had access to. BB Charles is right, 40% is not enough. Anyone who saw the boat loads of money being offered for players or the The Celtics who sold off his whole team and transferred 6 mil to another team for a 34 year old player should be able to tell you there is an issue.

Except all this isn't being done the right way. Why should a 2-season old team in the Bulgarian DI with a 6,000 stadion be taxed the same way as The Celtics or the Salisbury Auerbachs, for example? It makes no sense whatsoever, and it makes it unreasonably difficult for the smaller DI teams (yes, they do exist in some countries).

This whole thing looks like treating headache with the guillotine. If you're going to target anything, target huge arenas until player salaries catch up with the revenue. That's the actual issue here.

And if you read my suggestions portion, I said it could be tiered accordingly, but their revenue should be tiered as well. There is plenty of man hours in the day to work through that one.

As far as the arenas, there are threads that talk about the arena. But the reality is, if you have a "soft cap" which is known, it doesn't matter how big your stadium is - you may not fill it. There is nothing like a 10k people arena owner that can only get 6k people in it with a 10 PR guy.

If you're going to target anything, target huge arenas until player salaries catch up with the revenue. That's the actual issue here.

I wonder how salaries will catch up anytime soon with the introduction of potential and skill caps. Inside players salaries are getting up there, but guards are hitting their caps while their salaries are still relatively low.

If you're going to target anything, target huge arenas until player salaries catch up with the revenue. That's the actual issue here.

I wonder how salaries will catch up anytime soon with the introduction of potential and skill caps. Inside players salaries are getting up there, but guards are hitting their caps while their salaries are still relatively low.

I think potential caps are pretty high. People get scared of '6th man' and 'starter', but I suspect these can easily be trained to a 10k salary, judging by the fact that a lot of those all-star NT players are still below the cap.

And if you read my suggestions portion, I said it could be tiered accordingly, but their revenue should be tiered as well. There is plenty of man hours in the day to work through that one.

As far as the arenas, there are threads that talk about the arena. But the reality is, if you have a "soft cap" which is known, it doesn't matter how big your stadium is - you may not fill it. There is nothing like a 10k people arena owner that can only get 6k people in it with a 10 PR guy.

With season ticket holders giving you a bonus in week 1, there is no need to soften anything.

There already is a soft cap that works through season ticket holders. Whether it functions properly or not is a different issue. The problem here is not the soft cap. The problem is that top clubs cannot get players with high enough salaries, therefore they save too much of their weekly income, which obviously inflates transfer prices.

The problem I have with the current proposition for gate receipt taxes is that it targets the 'average' top team, while in reality 'the average' team doesn't really exist. So you risk ending up with a policy that is, in effect, suboptimal for everyone. It doesn't tax half of the teams sufficiently, and overtaxes the other half.

Apparently some are already hitting the cap. I suspect one of my gaurds, w/ salary of 30k, has hit the limit, and his skills total around 80 (not including ft and stam).