How Are Finances Working?

[MikeG719]

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

If anyone is interested here is a league report for a test I've run for some 60 years or so. It's remained fairly stable and most teams have excess money that gets put into player development and scouting. They're a bit lower than what I want so I'm slowly raising them.

So it's safe to leave settings at default for MLB quick start?

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by MikeG719

So it's safe to leave settings at default for MLB quick start?

Well mine is a fictional league set up like the mlb but so far the tweaks I've been making have been off the 2011 financials I believe. I really can't say what I've tweaked all though since I'm been messing with everything.

[megamanmatt]

Also,

another thing that has helped me is:

Free-agent Pitchers | Cot's Baseball Contracts

and

Free-agent Position Players | Cot's Baseball Contracts

by letting me realize there are plenty of players who have had generous contracts who are free agents after the season starts because no one wants to pay them that generously anymore for whatever reason.

[SunDevil]

There is also another wrinkle to team and league finances. That is the storyline feature, where certain storylines can drastically change a team's fan loyalty and possibly even their market size.

Ticket price * attendance = gate revenue. GMs can set the ticket price, but gate revenue is driven by team market size, fan loyalty, and fan interest. These can be seen on top left of the Finances sub-screen of the Front Office area. The best way to influence these factors is by winning!

Media revenue is partially driven by team market size, fan loyalty, and fan interest. However, the biggest influence on media revenue are the Average Media Contract and Media Contract Fixed? settings.

Merchandising revenue is partially driven by team market size, fan loyalty, and fan interest.

Here is one proven example and one suspected example that I have seen where storylines have impacted these values:

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ak-2014-a.html

So the RV storyline based on the outcome dropped a team down 7 points in fan loyalty. This value might increase by 1 if you either make it to or win the World Series, and here in a half season it is possible to lose 7 points. That 7 point drop will have a big effect on the money you bring in from here on out, and after simming 20 more years in this test league, their fan loyalty never went back to the original value.

Another example that I saw last night and have not had a chance to post on the forums is what happened within the first 5 years of another test league where the SF Giants with a Market Size of 8 when the MLB quickstart league was started in 2012 by 2017 their Market Size was down to a value 1. This again will have lasting and most likely permanent impact on the finances of this club.

I have not verified that a storyline was the result for this drastic drop in the Market Size for SF, but to have within the first five years of a MLB league to have such a drop can and will affect the financial health of the overall league over a long enough timeline.

I plan on researching exactly what happened in the case above, and will post the results of what I find, but just wanted to bring to people's attention that another factor in the financial health of a league and/or team in your universe is the storyline feature.

[Cras]

Some of these storylines that kill the market size from a high number to 1 is utterly stupid and ridiculous. I cannot imagine what an owner or organization would have to do to drive everyone away from the club.

[Mecza]

Originally Posted by Cras

Some of these storylines that kill the market size from a high number to 1 is utterly stupid and ridiculous. I cannot imagine what an owner or organization would have to do to drive everyone away from the club.

Chicago Blackhawks.

Bill Wirtz ->

No home games on TV. Shrewd with handing out contracts.
4,000-7000 fans a game. Team was a joke in the city of Chicago
for nearly 15 years. Perennial bottom feeder.

He passes away. In comes his son, Rocky Wirtz.

Rocky Wirtz ->

Home games are put back on TV. Willing to sign significant
free agents and his star core players to high dollar contracts.
The team got good (Fixes all problems really). 20+ thousand
home game sell-outs. Tickets are a hot commodity. Win the
Stanley Cup.

Bill Wirtz can arguably be defined as one of the worst owners in professional sports. Fans would call him "Dollar Bill" because of his stubbornness to make ANY significant splashes in free agency. He had a pay-per-view system of watching home games if you wanted them during 1992 and 1993 that was like $30 a month! He traded star players for scrubs. He alienated our star players throughout the 1990's. He literally handicapped the team throughout his entire tenure as owner. As sad as his passing was, it was literally the end of an era when it happened. The team moving on from that point improved IMMENSELY for the better.

So while those storylines really blow and seem unrealistic, there are real world examples out there of owners killing the soul of an entire organization. That being said, the storylines like those need to be really rare or can ruin many teams in a healthy league.

[Cras]

Bill Wirtz is a good example, and living in Chicago during those years, I saw first hand that guy destroy that hockey club. However, it was over a long long period of time. In 1992 the club went to the Stanley Cup Finals, they were a hot ticket throughout that decade, and all those policies of no home TV was already in place during that time. But then he didnt want to pay players, they started to loose, a lot. And the NHL itself tanked as a league, so it was a very long process of turning a big time club into a pile of garbage. With these storylines, it happens over night. It happened to me, checkout my ponzi scheme thread.

I went from being by far the most sucessful club in the history of the league. My market size was astronomical. Then, my owner gets busted in a ponzi scheme, he lost all his money he invested into it, and then instead of seeing the club in the red, like I would expect, my penalty was instead having my market size knocked down to a 1. No way, would never happen. It defies logic, common sense. Flat out, this would not happen. The Mets got nailed with the ponzi scheme, but their market size did not shrink over night because of it. They had their hands cuffed because of the lack of funds, for me, it is the other way around.

[henry296]

Look at the Mets attendance over the last couple of years because of the Wilpons.

[SunDevil]

After going through the seasons, I found were the SF Giants went from a value of 8 for their Market Size and to a value of 1 for their Market Size.

12/23/2013

San Francisco Giants Owner, Laurence Baer, Loses Money In Ponzi Scheme: A very frustrated Baer stood in front of a crowd of reporters today to let them in on the bad news. "My finances were wrapped up in the recent Ponzi scheme being reported on by the media," said Baer. "I am not yet sure of the full ramifications of what this means but one way or the other, it looks like the short term finances of my beloved San Francisco Giants will be reduced. By how much, I just don't know. Unfortunately at this point we will need to start trying to sell off some of our more expensive players and try to go a bit younger and less expensive. Rest assured, we will rebuild this team stronger than ever and bring it to the top of the National League Western Division."

So it was Storyline that dropped a team's market size from 8 to 1 and after 20 years it has never went back up to even a value of 2. It has a smaller market size now then KC and Tampa Bay.

Whether this happens in real life or not, please understand that my intention was just to make people aware that when you are trying to setup your finances for your league, might want to consider turning off storylines if you want those leagues to be more stable financially.

As for the people who wonder what exactly is the Market Size really made up (in real life), please refer to the links that I posted in a post on the top of the first page of this thread, to get an idea of how much goes into determining a Market Size.

[SunDevil]

Originally Posted by henry296

Look at the Mets attendance over the last couple of years because of the Wilpons.

But that is the attendance. That would fall under the Fan Interest and Fan Loyalty attributes. The Market Size is the radio, internet, corporate sponsorships, tv (local, national), the population of the city the team is in, it's history. So a place like New York regardless of the Wilpons (and being part of a ponzi scheme ) will always be a huge market.

[Cras]

Again, it is over a couple of years. Point me to an event that on a single day can render a market insignificant? Even hypothecially? What single event could possible destroy an entire fanbase? Nuclear fallout being dumped on the stadium? Revealing the Owner is really a terrorist? Or he kills minor leaguers who don't pan out? I mean do you get the picture here? It takes time, years, even decades, of bad dissicions to destroy an organiziation and its fanbase (market), not having an owner found to be on the short end of a ponzi scheme. Having no market is a huge blow in OOTP. It destroys attendence, lowers the amount you can charge for tickets, marketing revenue, and media revenue, it all goes away. Nothing should be able to do this. Having the owner go nuts and uber cheap, where his actions slowly destroy the club, that is fine. Dropping an atomic bomb on the whole operation, stupid.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Cras

What single event could possible destroy an entire fanbase?

Drayton McLane.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

The Market Size is the radio, internet, corporate sponsorships, tv (local, national), the population of the city the team is in, it's history.

The bolded plays no role at all in OOTP's market size. Even the smallest city can eventually have a gigantic market size, and vice versa.

[SunDevil]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The bolded plays no role at all in OOTP's market size. Even the smallest city can eventually have a gigantic market size, and vice versa.

I know. I was answering the post I quoted in my post about the Wilpons and being in New York.

[jhart05]

Originally Posted by Antonin

I've read a number of posts on this topic and remain confused, because there does not seem to be a clear consensus on what settings are best for keeping one's league stable.

Same here.

What I'll probably do is a test run. Lock in the financials how I want them, sim a season at a time, then do a quick audit of the books before simming the next season.

[bailey]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The bolded plays no role at all in OOTP's market size. Even the smallest city can eventually have a gigantic market size, and vice versa.

I know and I think that's a problem. Fan interest should be driven by team playing performance and signing popular players, fan loyalty by owner behavior and keeping popular players, and market size driven by population (or should remain fixed if you want it to.)

[SunDevil]

Just and FYI for people starting new leagues because of the patch. For the MLB Quickstart.

Originally Posted by SunDevil

MLB Quickstart:

Owners that have both their patience and spending set to 0.
(In game it says the range is from 1 - 10)

Arizona: Ken Kendrick (Suggested Value: 6/3)
Atlanta: John Malone (Suggested Value: 5/4)
Baltimore: Peter Angelos (Suggested Value: 4/3)
Boston: John Henry (Suggested Value: 3/10)
Cleveland: Larry Dolan (Suggested Value: 7/4)
Colorado: Charlie Monfort (Suggested Value: 7/5)
Los Angeles Dodgers: Earvin Johnson (Suggested Value: 3/8)
New York Yankees: Hank Steinbrenner (Suggested Value: 2/10)
Tampa Bay: Stuart Sternberg (Suggested Value: 8/3)

Originally Posted by snepp

Here are a couple of numbers to add to your collection. Financial setup similar to yours, owner budgets, huge cash max, same revenue sharing, the only difference is that I use smaller figures.

I edited each team to have the same end-of-season balance (250,000). The list is "Owner Spending" followed by the amount that they kept (and %).

1 - 200,000 (80%)
2 - 150,000 (60%)
3 - 100,000 (40%)
4 - 50,000 (20%)
5 - 0
6 thru 10 same as 5

This time with a 150,000 cash maximum. When you account for the first 100,000 automatically kept due to the cash max, the percentages end up being the same (80/60/40/20).

1 - 220,000
2 - 190,000
3 - 160,000
4 - 130,000
5 - 100,000
6 thru 10 same as 5

Negative 250,000 balance, no cash max, list shows money added by owner.

1 - 25,000
2 - 50,000
3 - 75,000
4 - 100,000
5 - 125,000
6 - 150,000
7 - 175,000
8 - 200,000
9 - 225,000
10 - 250,000

So keep in mind, with these owners not defined in terms of patience and spending these owners should be taking close to 80% of the available cash after season. This can mess up the financials for a league especially when New York, Boston and LA are involved.

[luger]

To those that have tested finances: at what point in the season do you look at the financial reports to see who is in the red and who isn't? When I look at my own settings, the league is very different from the offseason to spring training to midseason as far as the financial health. So, I'm not sure when the best time to 'check the pulse' of my league's finances.

[SunDevil]

I check at three different times:

1. First day of Spring Training.
2. All Star Break.
3. Last day of the playoffs. (You can not really use the sim option for the end of the playoffs as it advances the day and all the financial reports are reset for the offseason. I usually just sim to the last game of the world series, and then sim the game and then pull the reports.)

If you setup your league correctly and I have posts all over this thread with some of my suggestions, there should not be many teams in the red at all.

And if you could elaborate what quickstart you are using, what year are you currently at that you see the financial health vary so much from the offseason to midseason? Also it would be helpful if you posted a screen shot of your league financial settings.

Thanks.

[luger]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

And if you could elaborate what quickstart you are using, what year are you currently at that you see the financial health vary so much from the offseason to midseason? Also it would be helpful if you posted a screen shot of your league financial settings.

Thanks.

I don't use a specific quickstart... I've built my fictional universe from scratch and have fairly unique financial constraints (I use a salary cap and don't use arbitration, for instance... and I've been fiddling with making it so the owners don't set the budgets).

Currently, I'm at work so I'll post some screenshots later. I think part of the reason that I see such variance is that I may be looking first when teams are still signing free agents (and thus have more budget room) versus in the midseason when everyone is signed.

I've been tweaking settings quite a bit so haven't settled on exactly what I'd like. My ideal settings would have a reasonably low salary cap with all team payrolls fairly close to the cap and the budget not being much of a concern aside from staying under the cap (similar to the NFL's structure currently). The two problems I've come across in my tests are teams not spending up to the cap and/or there being a large number of unsigned players with fairly good ratings/stats.