Equalized Cities

[AndyP]

It's been suggested that with our revenue sharing being what it is, we just equalize cities and do away with revenue sharing.  This would give teams more certainty in game.

I would change league revenue to +20% and it would make league revenues roughly the same on average as they were. 







San Francisco Edits

[mattynokes]

The data looks like some out of whack code at the moment. However, I've long been a fan of equalized cities. In Mogul leagues, it's always seemed to me that certain teams can have a massive revenue advantage (or dissadvantage) to other teams. Just because finances would be equalized, don't make the assumption that all teams will be"equal." Consistently winning will still get you a better budget than a team perpertually stuck in the cellar. Additionally, I think a big sell is not having to run Revenue Sharing for Andy and then making all of the in-game adjustments.

As for the Stadium money that's been talked about, I think some sort of reimbursement should be in order. Something of x% based on x number of years in our recent history. Also, while teams should have access to their locked Stadium Fund money, I don't think it should be immediately dumped into the file. There's a few teams with $100M+ and I think that would have adverse effects on the file.

Here's my idea for the Stadium money spent/current Stadium Fund money:

1. If you've made purchases in the last four years, you get your money back less 20% per year that you've had those changes in effect.

i.e. Team spends $100M in 2025 for Stadium. Since they've now had three seasons of usage of those upgrades, they get 40% ($40M) back.

2. Stadium Fund money stays in the "Stadium Fund" portion of the Team Bank List until the 2133 Free Agency file. At that time, a maximum of $50M can be dumped in the game. Any money left in the "Stadium Fund" after the in-game dump will be taxed at 50%. At that time the remaining money will be moved into the normal Team Bank (those teams will have an exception to the $50M max, but cannot add any more money until there's less than $50M).

To clarify, I mean that for accounting purposes, it would remain as a "Stadium Fund" and not moved into the Team Bank until 2133. If you use it, great. Whatever is left at that point, could have a max of $50M dumped into the game, and then the remainder gets a 50% tax and immediately dumped into the Team Bank. Then the "Stadium Fund" is over.

3. Some teams may see drastic changes in their budget. If they do, they can see additional cash added to their Team Bank for up to five seasons.

i.e. Team used to have a net budget (post-Revenue Sharing) of 125M. With equalized cities, they've dropped to 110M. With having signed a player to a lucrative long-term deal, the team will have an additional 10M added to their bank for the next five seasons to help cover most of the differences in net budgets.

Net Budget = In-Game Budget + Revenue Sharing Total Net

[hokeyrules]

I spent a lot of money to build my Stadium. I realize it is 11 seasons ago or so. However, I also took  5 seasons to pay it off 300 million, and traded a lot of assets to even have the ability to. So I do think there should be exceptions to the only in the past 4 years.

I also am fine whether we do equalized or do not.

[warpriest]

Just in case anyone is interested in the opinion of one the biggest revenue sharing beneficiaries in FCM history, I am on board with equalizing cities as soon as it is feasible. 

 The stadium fund dialogue is interesting but probably doesn't touch my world much. Just keep it fair and judicious as the rest of you understand it. 

 FCM 4 EVER.

[mattynokes]

I spent a lot of money to build my Stadium. I realize it is 11 seasons ago or so. However, I also took  5 seasons to pay it off 300 million, and traded a lot of assets to even have the ability to. So I do think there should be exceptions to the only in the past 4 years.

I also am fine whether we do equalized or do not.

I think we could definitely look at additional years, the four years was just an off the top of the head suggestion. However, I do think the Net Budget changes need to be taken into consideration. Like, I could complain that over the past few years I've had to sell 1st round picks to stay in the black. 

Under the Revenue Sharing, my Net Budget has been around 130M. Based on what Andy has posted for the equalization tests, I'm going to gain 10-15M in spending power. If I had 140-145M budgets to work with, I probably wouldn't have had to sell my picks as often and/or might have been able to get away with selling my 2nd round picks, instead of my 1st rounders.

With winning generally comes increased spending in future seasons without reprecussion and I don't think I saw that. Certainly, some of it I brought on myself. No one but myself made me spend 175-200M on payroll for a few seasons. With equalization I get some of that back, but I'm unsure if I'f have a leg to stand on to ask for money back.

To Andy, honestly this is my forte. I think I can come up with a good financial proposal based on Revenue Sharing years Net Budgets, what the expected Budget changes are with equalization, and large cash expenses coming from the Rev Sharing years.

[AndyP]

Matty is posting the excel file on what we plan to do, here is what that looks like:

We are equalizing cities THIS offseason.  There really isn't any point in waiting, the only concerns we have will be in timing how long teams have to utilize their cash.  With that in mind:

*Teams will be given through the year 2038 to utilize extra room in the banks.  There will be no bank limit during these ten years.
*In 2039 all banks will be set at $50M.  Any excess will be dumped into the file at a tax rate of 50%.  So spend...your....money.

This is a lot of time to spend this money, it shouldn't be an issue.

Per Matty's suggestion (which is totally flexible, we can hash out any concerns), the following cash payments would be made back to teams THIS offseason:

Cleveland - 88M  Houston - 203M  KC - 86M  LAV - 68M  LAA - 2M  MIN - 19M  TOR - 42M
AZ - 60M  ATL - 194M CHC - Nothing (Payments were never completed, stadium is old now)  CIN - 123M (Missed payments taken out of bank)
FLA - 34M  PHI - 104M  SDP - 148M  SFG - 91M  STL - 131M  WAS - 123M

These payments will not be taxed.  They will be part of the bank system for 10 years as outlined above.

[mattynokes]

Alright, I have them done. Both for going back 10 years and going back 15 years. The decision between the two is pretty how far back should we go or how long until your stadium has seen a reward and it's no longer "wasted money."

Red Font = Assumed payments, where I could find an end to the payoff, but no yearly payments.

Highlighted Font = Remaining amount owed where I could not find an end to the payoff.

Cash Back at Once = How much is dumped into their Stadium Fund immediately. Again, it would stay there for 5 seasons. Then with anything unused, teams would get 50M dumped into their Bank Fund. Anything remaining gets taxed at 50% and then also immediately dumped into their Bank Fund. (I would think another 5 years and then anything above 50M gets moved to In-Game and teams have to endure the consequences).

Cash Back per Season = For 5 seasons, those teams get that much dumped into their In-Game cash totals on one of the FA updates.