Simplifying New Stadium/ Stadium Upgrades

Wiguy · 10-15-2021, 01:06 AM

I vote against…. I like the old way and don’t see the need for change

'PR' · 10-15-2021, 01:23 AM

I vote yes. I like the idea of getting rid of the 100M cap.

mzylinski · 10-15-2021, 06:48 AM

Vote against, leave it as is, if you want certain things save for the new stadium

sxr007 · 10-15-2021, 09:27 AM

So the stadiums that have over 60k in seats currently will have a competitive advantage that we can never achieve?

***hokeyrules*** · 10-15-2021, 09:43 AM

I am against this strongly

Peter · (This post was last modified: 10-15-2021, 10:00 AM by Peter.)

what sxr said.

don't fix what isn't broken

gmoney · (This post was last modified: 10-15-2021, 10:22 AM by gmoney.)

I'm okay with the stadium changes themselves to simplify the process, especially if this makes things easier for Andy, assuming that people currently in stadiums with 60K plus can't use any sort of process to upgrade them and will be forced to build a new stadium at some point. They get to keep what they paid for, but have to be compliant with the new rules going forward. The amount of seating some teams have is insanity, and even if nothing changes with the process, putting some sort of sanity check on the total number of seats in a stadium is probably a good idea.

However, I don't agree with the changes with the bank and stadium bank. Banking cash is necessary due to Mogul's poor financial system in the game, especially for small market teams that could really use that 50 mil to keep their competitive window open for multiple more years. Forcing them to spend it in some way on winterball or on something else in order to keep from losing it is a pretty serious competitive disadvantage. I also agree with everyone else who has brought up the idea that due to the current changes to revenue sharing and resigning demands, doing the bank change at the same time could create some serious unintended consequences, especially without the GMs having some time with it first to better know how to plan their financial situation.

If the real worry is large market teams banking excessive amounts of stadium cash, forcing those teams to spend it within a certain period of time (something like 10 years for the first deposit in the stadium bank) or it gets thrown back into the revenue sharing pool for the other 29 teams seems like a better way to deal with this. If this is paired with some changes to the upgrades or seating process to make it more realistic, even better, but this change to the banking system is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

mzylinski · 10-15-2021, 10:29 AM

I vote No