Fixing Cash Abundance

***mattynokes*** · 03-11-2013, 12:06 PM

I like what's been said so far. I do think exceptions should be made for teams building a new stadium. The admins have been talking and I suggested something pertaining to WB to promote spending. First, I think the cost is a little too high for the worth of it and second, I think the prospect (however so slight) of a 500 or career ending injury scares people off.

If you look from a realistic standpoint teams are VERY cautious with players and the slightest of injuries usually get the player removed from the remainder of WB. There's a few ways we can look at the cost. We can simply lower it ($5-7.5M would be my suggestion) or we can make the cost based on what dice roll you get. Below is what I would alter WB with #1-45 = $5M, #46-175 = $7.5M, #176-200 = $10M or at least something of a staggered scale.

1-2: 200 day injury
3-5: 100 day injury
6-10: 50 day injury
11-45: No change
46-140: +1 predicted
141-175: +1 predicted, +1 peak
176-185: +2 predicted, +1 peak
186-195: +2 predicted, +2 peak
196-200: +3 predicted, +2 peak

***AndyP*** · 03-11-2013, 05:58 PM

I guess my issue is that I don't want more custom altered players if it can be avoided.

James · 03-12-2013, 08:23 PM

those proposed numbers by matty are very reasonable

thenamelesspoet · (This post was last modified: 03-13-2013, 03:20 PM by thenamelesspoet.)

I say leave as it... nothing is being hurt by it and I can tell you form 5tm... the cash IN GAME is hurting small market teams. Also... I need to have over 100MM saved in the bank for the stadium I want to build. I have no interest in building a stadium then every year having to upgrade it... thats why I am saving cash... I could do it in game but then players ask for more making the small market teams have to let guys go or trade them (as I had to do with Rollins a year early in 5tm).

I am all for stopping the lineup bonuses BUT that does make sure some people (especially in rebuilding years) stay active. Example is me in 5tm. I have no players to trade and am awful, trying to rebuild at a snails pace lol. I have no reason to submit a DC because I don't really care atm I am just coasting. BUT that extra few million I get every year for submitting my DC is HUGE. So its a double edged sword.

I say... what isn't broken... don't fix it. at least make it say 200M in the bank not 50M if ANYTHING... but why change what isnt broken?

i do like matty's idea with winterball tho I would say if its ANY increase in peak or predicted... it should remain at 10M

Cdawg · 05-17-2013, 05:11 PM

What about a min cap of team budgets? It sounds archaic but it's abusive. Teams dumping entire payrolls and still allowed to keep their large budget. Certain teams like the NY teams sorta have to stay under a certain budget, but the Yankees at this moment are 100M under their budget and could probably stay there for a few seasons and still keep a payroll budget above 125M...
Some teams can't full reap that benefit and in a way it forces teams to either A)over pay or B) attempt to compete in a way.

Another thing is that team payrolls are at an average of about83.6M this season with budgets at 104.9M which means theres over 20M just in that average. Force teams to up their budget a few mil will take that much more out of their pockets and lower the overall cash in the league.
If you put that average at about 50%(number could be lowered or increased depending on market) it's really easy to just open up the finance page, and eyeball. Arizona is under the cap, ATL is over.

If a team fails to comply they get taxed, that can be worked, but maybe it's a sim by sim tax or a season ending tax etc.

mike · 05-17-2013, 05:32 PM

If there was ever a cap on budgets I'd prolly leave. I've never seen a point in that as long as your in the black at the end of the season. Unless I'm misunderstanding on what you mean by cap.

I'd say there is nothing wrong so no point in discussing it further. We discussed it a couple seasons ago and pretty much came to that concsensus.

ARC_Troopa_Nate · 05-17-2013, 09:08 PM

If we were to change I like the earmarked stadium fund idea. Honestly I'm fine the way it is though.

thenamelesspoet · 05-18-2013, 12:40 AM

(05-17-2013, 09:08 PM)ARC_Troopa_Nate Wrote: If we were to change I like the earmarked stadium fund idea. Honestly I'm fine the way it is though.

+1

If ANYTHING I am all for the earmarked ONLY FOR STADIUM idea.

Have a cap of 50M in the bank so that the small market teams can have SOME surplus, and make everything above that for STADIUM upgrades/new buildings ONLY

Cdawg · 05-18-2013, 03:09 AM

(05-17-2013, 05:32 PM)mike Wrote: If there was ever a cap on budgets I'd prolly leave. I've never seen a point in that as long as your in the black at the end of the season. Unless I'm misunderstanding on what you mean by cap.

I'd say there is nothing wrong so no point in discussing it further. We discussed it a couple seasons ago and pretty much came to that concsensus.

it's hard to explain but, it'd be a minimum cap IE like a floor. And it's more geared towards larger market teams. The Yankees atm are 100M under budget. That's not fair to the small market teams that don't even HAVE a 100M budget, let alone the cash flow that NY has. In this scenario NY would be expected to have a payroll, about 60% of their budget or be penalized.

again it's a way to eliminate money and the best way to eliminate money is force ppl to spend it. This is one of those ways.