+- First Class Mogul (https://www.firstclassmogul.com)
+-- Forum: General (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: League Suggestions (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Tighten Finances Suggestion (/showthread.php?tid=49713)
Pages:
1
2
Tighten Finances Suggestion - AndyP - 07-09-2018
It was tossed around in Discord today about either decreasing revenue or increasing player demands as a way to make finances a little tighter and competitive. I'm good either way, but I'll open it up to thoughts.
-10% for league revenues
+10% for demands
No change
Something more radical: Offer a bonus WB spot for 50M, IFA, etc.
Nothing about be done for 5 seasons though, as a way to give teams a chance to get ready for the adjustment.
Just for context: finances haven't changed here in decades. The total revenues have been in line for a long time, so it's more about how people are spending money than the actual money.
RE: Tighten Finances Suggestion - mzylinski - 07-09-2018
No change
RE: Tighten Finances Suggestion - cadmus2166 - 07-09-2018
No change or the something radical idea. Since it's more about how people are spending their money, I say give them more options to spend it.
I also thought of a couple of other options that i think would help more than increasing player demands or decreasing revenues:
1. Limit how often teams can build stadiums, thereby forcing them to spend differently in between,
2. Get rid of the team banks, and make teams pay the luxury tax/pay more for re-signings if they're going to sit on a lot of cash.
RE: Tighten Finances Suggestion - mike - 07-09-2018
I don't really think our finances are offside even in the slightest now that basically any of the bottom tier budget teams have built stadiums. However I've always (and quite vocally) thought player demands are stupidly low. You can re-sign top tier in their prime players for wayyyyyyy cheaper than they would fetch in FA. It's not even like a hometown discount thing it's basically just a screw job. The only exception is if theygo off the rails and have a crazy good season. Then they ask for what they are worth. Same thing goes for arby guys and us being able to screw them down a good 3 or more mil each time. So if plus 10 for the demands is the only option I'd do that but what I suggest is:
We have to accept the offer given from the player in both re-signings and arby. Or a more softer route use the 3 click system for re-signs. So this would mean u can counter their original offer when you open up the dialogue box, counter again in which they either accept that counter or u can use the third click and hit accept player demands.
Another way we could help things and could use in conjunction with any change is to have to follow the min bids guide even for re-signs. This wold ensure you can't lock up a guy to a cheap 7 year deal without at least giving them proper insensitive to do so.
As far as an extra slot, I'm fine with that as long as the odds don't change and it's expensive to do so. No for IFA, I don't even like the tinkering anyone has to do with WB but if it's here then may as well charge through the nose for another slot.
RE: Tighten Finances Suggestion - Geaux Blue - 07-09-2018
I'm for increasing player demands.
RE: Tighten Finances Suggestion - MidMissourians - 07-10-2018
I like everything Mike posted.
RE: Tighten Finances Suggestion - AndyP - 07-10-2018
At this point I'm going to keep it simple. I'm leaning towards upping player demands to +20%.
I will post two resignings files this year under each setting just so people can compare and we can revisit.
RE: Tighten Finances Suggestion - warpriest - 07-10-2018
According to the vote count at this time, no consensus has been reached and no one as of yet has made any case for increasing player demands or cutting revenues. I do acknowledge STUPID money occasionally being thrown around in FA, but I fail to see how increasing player demands alters or affects that. In chat, I see a ton of folks being generous with their respective opinions but without arguments supporting said opinions.
RE: Tighten Finances Suggestion - hokeyrules - 07-11-2018
I am down with getting more money out through WB.
RE: Tighten Finances Suggestion - mattynokes - 07-11-2018
Revenues/Demands: Anything done here will hurt the small market teams more than the larger markets. We certainly see some good players sign cheap, but we also see some average-to-solid players require more money than they're worth.
Winterball: I don't think 50M will entice people to use this avenue to spend money. Maybe a few times a team with 100M+ will use it, but I'd think they'd get better value out of buying picks/prospects and won't bother with it.
I'd rather see teams allowed to sell their WB slots for a set amount of cash and then the receiving team is charged a higher rate for using acquired WB slots. Something like WB slots can be traded for 5M and then acquired WB slots cost 20M (double).
IFA: I think this could be a good thing if it's done like GBA. In GBA there are no additional players added to the file. A few players are chosen from the Draft Pool and blind bids are sent in. Those players have their names changed to ALL CAPS, the winners are announced on Draft Day, and the players are signed to the winning team after the draft.
Cash: I think it'd be more beneficial to raise the In-Game cash minimum to put money in the bank to 50M, which will naturally raise player demands.