Available Money still not considering Revenue Share

[coljesep]

I understand the thought behind changing the available money for free agent spending. The math does make sense.

I am just not sure I understand or agree with the implementation and feel like leagues that existed long before 24 are being harshly impacted by these changes.

Attached is an example.

We just finished the winter meetings, so every team has begun their season ticket sales. This team went from having almost no money, to now having over 4m to spend.

However, nowhere in the available $ process does it take into consideration that we share 40% of season ticket revenue. It's assuming that this team will have 100% of the funds available to them.

I don't think "available money" should change until the pre-season. And at that point, leagues that share season ticket revenue should have those allocations completed prior to getting a new budget in preseason.

Season Tickets should be Winter Meetings - Preseason. Then Gate Share/Lost calculation can contribute to the new budget.

Otherwise, your budget for the offseason spending will always be based on false data.

This team is getting credit for $3,380,057 worth of season ticket revenue when 40% of it will be gone.

If available money is going to determine how much teams can spend, then this calc has to be more dynamic and adjust in real-time to take gate share into consideration.

[Sweed]

I think the problem is they tried to shoehorn all of this in via a "mid-version" patch. While it is a good idea, IMHO it should have been put on the "to do" list and implemented in the development cycle for v25 where proper planning and beta testing could be done. Or limited to a stand alone beta for any that wanted to test it. In any case, before pushing it out as "tested and working" a lot more questions should have been asked and answered. Ie how does "x" affect "y", and "z"? Instead it seemed to be "we should be able to move take $x from here and move it there and small market teams will have the money they should, without thinking through how it would affect large market teams.

As is it has already thrown many leagues, that were "working" a curveball with unintended consequences, and many had to wait for the hotfix before their games could be resumed. Those that let owners control budgets, as I do, are back to having a stable financial game and can move on. Those that don't? I'd think they are all still struggling?

If they decide to take anther stab at it I hope they limit it to a stand alone beta/public beta so those that want it can test away. Then only release it once it is tested and pretty much bullet proof.

I do hope you get what you want and in a working model. In the end the game will be better for it. However, I hope we don't break the game again this year while trying.

[coljesep]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I think the problem is they tried to shoehorn all of this in via a "mid-version" patch. While it is a good idea, IMHO it should have been put on the "to do" list and implemented in the development cycle for v25 where proper planning and beta testing could be done. Or limited to a stand alone beta for any that wanted to test it. In any case, before pushing it out as "tested and working" a lot more questions should have been asked and answered. Ie how does "x" affect "y", and "z"? Instead it seemed to be "we should be able to move take $x from here and move it there and small market teams will have the money they should, without thinking through how it would affect large market teams.

As is it has already thrown many leagues, that were "working" a curveball with unintended consequences, and many had to wait for the hotfix before their games could be resumed. Those that let owners control budgets, as I do, are back to having a stable financial game and can move on. Those that don't? I'd think they are all still struggling?

If they decide to take anther stab at it I hope they limit it to a stand alone beta/public beta so those that want it can test away. Then only release it once it is tested and pretty much bullet proof.

I do hope you get what you want and in a working model. In the end the game will be better for it. However, I hope we don't break the game again this year while trying.

If I could get 23 for all owners and somehow get the file reverted back...I'd give up on it.

But this is 10 years of work in the making, and its.blowing up over a revamped Financial system.

I'm stunned that it took til this summer for all of this to be discussed. Makes me wonder what type of users are playing in the winter/spring.

It's really unfortunate, it doesn't seem like it should take a big lift to have the money system make sense since it's just formula based...yet here we are, and it's a bummer.

[brich1212]

I dunno, i think '24 actually fixed some of the glaring issues with financials.

You cant game the system anymore...

in 23 if you had 0 profit and 20mil cash you still had 20mil for FA and 20 mil for extensions.

Then you could sign a player to 7 years at 20million and essentially net out -140mil + 20 mil you can cover.

Revenue Sharing at the end of the year sounds correct. And shouldn't impact your current year's budget. It's like a tax bill on all revenue.

The only thing i see missing is how to handle "cash" in terms of long term deals.
If i had no profit and had 10mil available id like to be able to extend a dude with that cash but that budget would need to disappear then.

Which i think can only happen with projecting out budgets to Max Contract Extensions.

Shrug I dunno, the more i see it, the more i like the changes.

[coljesep]

I'm not suggesting the purpose or intent was wrong. But the execution was flawed and unfortunately has caused issues with online leagues.

Thankfully the OOTP team has been responsive, and willing to address the issues we have found to the best of their ability.

Currently, if you have a setting where season ticket revenue is shared with the opponent, that share is not considered in your available money to spend. So if you share 50%, you're getting 100% of that revenue to spend from December until the season starts. That could cause a lot of problems in balancing books and free agent spending.

Personally, I'd rather see the Gate Share Lost begin once season ticket sales begin. If I share 50% of season sales, and I sell $3m worth on day 1 - then I should only have 1.5m added to my available spending.

Then as the season progresses, my gate share gained can help balance the budget. I shouldn't budget for what "your" team sells tickets for. But I should be able to budget for what my ticket sale revenue will really be.

Originally Posted by brich1212

I dunno, i think '24 actually fixed some of the glaring issues with financials.

You cant game the system anymore...

in 23 if you had 0 profit and 20mil cash you still had 20mil for FA and 20 mil for extensions.

Then you could sign a player to 7 years at 20million and essentially net out -140mil + 20 mil you can cover.

Revenue Sharing at the end of the year sounds correct. And shouldn't impact your current year's budget. It's like a tax bill on all revenue.

The only thing i see missing is how to handle "cash" in terms of long term deals.
If i had no profit and had 10mil available id like to be able to extend a dude with that cash but that budget would need to disappear then.

Which i think can only happen with projecting out budgets to Max Contract Extensions.

Shrug I dunno, the more i see it, the more i like the changes.

[OliverBuckland]

I get your concern about the budget changes. It's tricky when the system doesn't consider shared revenue like season tickets. I agree that a more accurate reflection should come in during preseason, factoring in all the shared funds. It's tough when the budget is based on incomplete data. Anyways, everyone should always plan their budget with a proper specialist. If I want to buy a house, I will talk to a mortgage broker (like Mortgage Broker in Huddersfield), so I have no problems in the future. Let's hope the system gets a tweak for better accuracy

[Brad K]

Perhaps its better for people to accept the known with whatever deficiencies it may have than to chance the unknown on the hope it will be better. What's the saying about changing horses mid stream?