no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Discussions / Limiting the financial power of rich teams Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 13 15 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2017-01-07 22:52:46 (ID: 100095412) Report Abuse | |
|
Rock777 wrote:
Where are the details in the manual? The News says to look in the manual for the details, but I can't seem to find them. Can someone give me a pointer to the section? "Transfer market" |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
MonsterT95
|
posted: 2017-01-08 03:42:25 (ID: 100095417) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
pete wrote:
Bigger than 50%?? Bigger than the tax for player bought, that's all I can say |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
frankie nice boy
|
posted: 2017-01-08 15:37:58 (ID: 100095450) Report Abuse |
|
To me a tax for very rich teams is a possible option, if it is directed to hit someone who is trying to exploit a loophole in the game.
On the other hand don't forget that finances are one of those crucial features of a sport management game, so the best managers are also able to accumulate and save large amounts of cash to spend in a planned way. So if it is maybe a good idea to hit a "malicious" use of money, it is for sure an error to penalize indiscriminately every single manager trying to accumulate money perhaps for replace a group of old stars about to retire. Take also into account that if you will limit the financial power of EVERY SINGLE team in a GENERALIZED manner it will be much harder for those teams not engaged in any match during the final weeks of the season to avoid bankruptcy. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-01-10 22:46:53 (ID: 100095650) Report Abuse | |
|
Agreed, this seems more like something to combat day trading than something to impact the assets of rich teams. That's okay...maybe that's the intent.
The rich get richer: +$25M this season! Steve SD Blitz |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Cheesehead
|
posted: 2017-02-22 09:17:07 (ID: 100098521) Report Abuse |
|
I was on my bike yesterday and I suddenly I had a great idea regarding this. Not sure if it's been mentioned before but a salary / transfer money cap would be really useful.
This would be a formula current salary + bank account. The more you spend right now the less you can spend in the future. Basically mimicking the cap system of the NFL right now. You want to spend big to go for the throphy, fine but it will cost you in the future. Obviously you need to set a sensible limit on when these limits will kick in but that is another discussion. Good idea? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-02-22 10:14:17 (ID: 100098529) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
So for example, instead of setting a strict salary cap at $8M per u p d a t e for one season you'd want a cap set at $40M for 5 seasons and a team could spend $10M for 3 seasons and then they'd only be able to spend $5M the following 2 seasons?
Last edited on 2017-02-22 10:14:51 by Meitheisman |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Cheesehead
|
posted: 2017-02-22 13:17:20 (ID: 100098547) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
So for example, instead of setting a strict salary cap at $8M per u p d a t e for one season you'd want a cap set at $40M for 5 seasons and a team could spend $10M for 3 seasons and then they'd only be able to spend $5M the following 2 seasons? Yes sort of. The beauty is that this gives Pete complete control of the economy if this needs balancing in-game (as it happens in the NFL). Need more cash flow, up the cap etc. This would basically take away the advantage the very rich teams have that if they make wrong decisions they can buy themselves out of it. An addition could be that saved cap space can be partially reinvested in the future. Lots of options here but I really like the elegance of it as it's not a hard , permanent cap and allows room for people to still make strategic decisions on how to use their income. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-02-22 18:14:08 (ID: 100098566) Report Abuse |
|
Interesting idea since it seems to match Pete's vision that it's OK to overspend for a few seasons but not too many.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2017-02-22 22:34:38 (ID: 100098583) Report Abuse |
|
I would certainly be in favour of this. It seems like a sound plan giving Pete overall control whilst at the same time allowing managers some flexibility when they need it.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-02-22 22:51:06 (ID: 100098586) Report Abuse | |
|
The toughest part: finding a limit...
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 13 15 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Limiting the financial power of rich teams | |
