February 3, 2016 at 10:05 pm #45731
I have had my budget scaled back significantly for 2 years running. Not only that, my owner expects that I bank 20 million this year.
I like the added wrinkle of the owner goals and letting the finances float BUT we are a hierarchy league and the way things are going the teams who have owners with tight budgets are going to find their way to the bottom tiers…
Anyone else facing this?
Any ideas? I am thinking that budgets should be set to 90 million across the board or maybe its a range or ?
February 3, 2016 at 11:19 pm #45732Mike NParticipant
I hear ya, but I don’t think we should be making any changes at this point. I really don’t like it when major changes are made to online leagues, because it makes me rethink my whole strategy.
I’m working on a budget of $67m, and that’s just the way it is….
February 4, 2016 at 12:12 am #45735
welcome to my world. last year i had the number 7 budget in the 4th tier Dominican. cant get much lower
February 4, 2016 at 12:37 am #45737wbhcommishKeymaster
Is there also some change not to the budget itself, but to how the game reports it to us? I ask because this is what my owner said:
“You will have $85,000,000 available for the total team expenses. Given your current spending on staff and other costs, this should allow a team payroll of around $90,000,000”.
I just thought it was interesting that it projects a payroll above the team budget.
February 23, 2016 at 4:56 pm #46510
February 4, 2016 at 2:22 am #45741
Ive got a $62M total budget, of which I can spend $56M on salary. Choose wisely grasshopper.
February 23, 2016 at 4:58 pm #46511
We had long set budgetary rules for the hierarchy to maintain a level playing field. In that light, this is a change that may have happened many season ago but, at least I for one, am seeing a real impact on my team. This is just a discussion…
All that said, I have no problem with letting the budgets float and letting the individual owners have more of an impact on team fiances. I like it even, but I do think it has an impact on teams that needs to be monitored to maintain balance. This is a hierarchy that is inherently difficult to compete in with everyone having the same budget.
For consideration I suggest that there be some sort of acceptable range of team budgets (90 to 75?) to make sure that teams like Tijuana can compete and rise in the hierarchy if they are able to assemble a good team and be able to afford to keep the players that they have. Think of it as revenue sharing.
Also, I am wondering if OOTP is smart enough to limit the owner’s goals within the league settings. I have an owner goal of 20 million profit. I am may actually make it… I don’t, however, want to lose that cash. This is new territory for me. It would seem to me that, as Marc said above, I may actually be able to go above the budget with that cash on hand…
February 26, 2016 at 8:53 pm #46525wbhcommishKeymaster
It’s tough to nail this down specifically, but I think the budgetary changes have more to do with OOTP 16 than they do with my ending of the merchandising revenue adjustment (which is, I believe, the rule you are referring to).
Let me tell you why I think that: I would process those merch revenue changes each season, and note who was being changed, and how. I think the original commish intended them to level the playing field somehow, but at least as far as I observed it, the effects were somewhat random. It only significantly affected teams at the extreme end of the spectrum, and most of the changes were a million here or there…not particularly significant.
If a lot of people feel strongly that there is a problem with team budgets, I would favor making some change within OOTP’s financial system, as opposed to imposing something manually from the outside. An example: we could impose revenue sharing, or we could increase the visiting team’s gate share of tickets sold.
As far as the owner’s goals…perhaps it’s a feature we could simply turn off. I occasionally laugh at my owner’s goals, but I pretty much ignore them. Maybe people think they have more effect on gameplay than I do.
February 29, 2016 at 8:14 pm #46538
Thanks. I definitely think it has to do with OOTP 16 and not any WBH rule changes that have been made.
Once upon a time, the merch revenue was the equalizer and, you’re right, it only affected the teams on the extreme.
From my perspective, I don’t necessarily think there is an issue with team budgets that needs immediate attention. but I do think it deserves monitoring and for us to compare notes on owner experiences.
My budget has decreased by nearly 20% from where it was two years ago. I don’t recall a swing of that magnitude happening in any of the previous versions of OOTP.
I am unsure how much this is tied to owner goals… The only think I know is that I have laughed at many of my owner’s goals as the majority were unreasonable – yet 2 years later, I am sitting with a budget that is a lot lower than when we started playing with OOTP 16. I was making the correlation, but maybe it is not so… Or maybe it depends on the owner’s personality. Or?
Finally if it does become more of an issue league wide it should only be within the OOTP’s financial system an outside band-aid that takes more of your time is unreasonable…
March 5, 2016 at 8:16 pm #47484Seoul Warlords – James KonopkaParticipant
I think the reason things changed so significantly in OOTP 16 was a huge rework of the financial system, including season tickets. I anticipate that future releases (e.g. OOTP 17, 18, …) won’t have such significant effects on us. I am guessing we’ll be able to balance and manage things better as we adapt to the new system. I’d prefer not to change rules or WBH operations unless we discover a problem which is otherwise unavoidable or detrimental to the league.
March 5, 2016 at 10:39 pm #47488
I agree, I have accepted the situation and taken it as a challenge. Yeah I’ve pissed and moaned about it, but its not that different then real life. The paradigm changes. Adapt or die.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.