Two Proposed Changes

***AndyP*** · 05-26-2013, 09:58 PM

These would not take effect until the END of the 2038 season and would come into effect directly before resignings:

1. Salary Demands will be increased to +10% Quite frankly, we've all been benefiting from some dirt cheap signings. Especially on guys that are just exiting Arby and getting their first contract. Just look at some of the in-season extensions - those guys are not getting paid.

2. Banks will now be capped at 50M. The game's fan loyalty and other responses to cash are dependent on in-game cash. By letting teams shuffle so much cash away from that mechanism, they aren't being forced to use the cash in a realistic, meaningful way.

So starting at the date above, all cash that exceeds 50M will be returned to the team in-game that it belongs to.

There is one exception. If you are banking to build a new stadium, you can earmark that money for the stadium. All we ask is that you post a stadium build, expense expected, and the timeline you plan to use to build it.

Any concerns?

***mattynokes*** · 05-27-2013, 12:15 AM

+1

ARC_Troopa_Nate · 05-27-2013, 12:23 AM

^

Rhendricks · 05-27-2013, 11:14 AM

I'm still not a huge fan of the banking cap, but like I said in the earlier post, I know I have a biased opinion. Obviously, whatever y'all decide, I'll go with.

***mattynokes*** · 05-27-2013, 01:16 PM

After more thinking, this probably should have been done a long time ago. One of the bigger (and unrealistic) rebuilding strategies is...

- Fill your team out with dirt cheap high 70s/low 80s players
- Hoard in the cash from the massive profits
- Put excess cash in the bank
- Spend the cash on WB or draft picks

This is great for playing a game, taking advantage of AI, but is in no way realistic. Which we strive for here. This allows for any good players that might come through during a rebuild to be re-signed fairly cheap and avoids my big issue - not having to answer to fans.

Here, we don't have to answer to fans, media, etc... Making that unrealistic move to further a rebuild when you could compete works great in a game, but would anger fans into a riot or boycott in the real world. This lessens the ability to work the system of Mogul. And you can still have about $100M to finance WB, stadium upgrades, or buying draft picks ($50M in the bank, $50M in-game) without seeing salaries skyrocket.

mike · 05-27-2013, 03:22 PM

1. Meh not sure its ultimately needed but 10% is nothing drastic but players making more money isn't a big deal since there's a lot of cash floating around anyway.

2. I agree on principle here but I think by only giving it a year you will be creating the same dynamic that we all wanted to avoid 2 seasons ago when this was brought up. You are going to force guys to spend a good chunk of their cash right away or come season end they will essentially lose it because any re-signing players will ask for considerably more. Very easily this could set off a chain of events where the Corey's of the league will have to buy any remotely good FA's. Not many teams will sell their picks because it would put them in the same boat, and spending on WB would barley put a dent in. I suggest starting the cap much higher and slowly bring it down over the course of 3-5 seasons, giving teams like that a chance to bring the cash down naturally.

Rhendricks · 05-27-2013, 06:34 PM

(05-27-2013, 03:22 PM)mike Wrote: 2. I agree on principle here but I think by only giving it a year you will be creating the same dynamic that we all wanted to avoid 2 seasons ago when this was brought up. You are going to force guys to spend a good chunk of their cash right away or come season end they will essentially lose it because any re-signing players will ask for considerably more. Very easily this could set off a chain of events where the Corey's of the league will have to buy any remotely good FA's. Not many teams will sell their picks because it would put them in the same boat, and spending on WB would barley put a dent in. I suggest starting the cap much higher and slowly bring it down over the course of 3-5 seasons, giving teams like that a chance to bring the cash down naturally.

I would be a lot more for this. I would essentially have about 300 Mil to do something with this season in order to avoid higher salary demands and such. A gradual cap makes more sense to me here than a 1 year notice. By my count, about 15-16 of our teams would have to be spending this season to get past this. Out of those, 8 or 9 would have to dump 100+ Mil.

***AndyP*** · (This post was last modified: 05-27-2013, 08:35 PM by AndyP.)

Getting rid of cash "naturally" isn't going to happen any more in 3 seasons than it is 1 or 10. The teams that are most taking advantage of this "Cayman Islands" system aren't going to be able to spend their way out of all this cash that quickly.

They have a year to unload what they can and then suffer natural consequences, stretching it over three seasons isn't going to change much.

mike · 05-27-2013, 08:58 PM

Well by my count that's 3 years worth of WB slots they can buy, and 3 years worth of FA's. Right now what your doing is pretty much punishing teams who have been completley obeying our rules.

***AndyP*** · 05-27-2013, 09:01 PM

No one is being "punished" - theyr'e just now going to have to live (realistically as matty rightly points out) by the consequences of stockpiling cash. What has been unfair is skating that responsibility for so long.

3 years of 4 WB slots and Arizona still has 270M. Just to put that in perspective. Most teams, in one offseason, will find ways to unload some of that excess cash without much issue.