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 3 13 14 15 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-01-02 14:24:54 (ID: 100094883) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
I'm not sure if you've seen the other threads about this Jonny but Pete did give us a bit more of an explanation.
I said: "My guess is that when Pete thought about the finances of RZA he was thinking in a season by season way (i.e: spend more or less what you earn every season) as opposed to some of us thinking "I'll save money for X seasons and then overspend for Y seasons."" To which Pete responded: "replace your Y with "some" and it would be OK. Teams having multiple hundreds of millions of cash are not healthy in terms of a working competition, and from the game-admins point of view, not predictable... I do not ask you guys to understand this one..." And later in the discussion in another post he said these two things (in 2 different posts): "You are not supposed to overspend 30 seasons, you are supposed to overspend a max of maybe 5 seasons...period!" "We need the teams to work a little more on their financial edges, not a pillow as huge as Mount Everest..." So basically big bank balances bother Pete from a game-admin perspective because it makes us unpredictable and because our safety net is too big allowing us to overspend for too long. Last edited on 2017-01-02 14:29:25 by Meitheisman |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2017-01-02 14:39:20 (ID: 100094885) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
It's somewhat unfounded though.
Speaking from my own perspective, I'm utterly predictable 
I built a big bank account for 2 reasons: - mainly because I'm both bloody minded and tight fisted, and play games in the same way I approach real life. I'll spend an hour researching prices in order to save myself 50p on Ebay for example. I set myself a target in RZA of building a competitive and affordable team, and for 15+ seasons imposed my own salary cap of '£2m for squad, £2m for coaches'. I only recently raised that to '£5m combined', because I've calculated that that is close to the break even point when friendlies/fanshop are added - with profit coming from cup run/playoffs/player sales. I may increase that again a little, but my plan is a long term one - to attempt to win the Elite bowl with the lowest possible combined salary. - it's a safety net. I cocked up QB development a few seasons back - hence the Hategka purchase. Seeing £250m disappear hurt. But I'd saved it legitimately due to the reasons above. Did spending that much money on one of the best Free Agents ever to hit the market break the game? No, of course it didn't. Obviously I can't speak for every other player, but I would argue that having the persistence to gradually build up such a bank balance over many many seasons actually does not make me unpredictable in the slightest. Quite the opposite. I'll never have a fire sale, I'll never tank a season, I'll always compete as hard as I possibly can within the constraints I set myself above. And that mindset is firmly entrenched. Last edited on 2017-01-02 14:42:31 by JonnyP |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-01-02 15:38:12 (ID: 100094891) Report Abuse | |
|
I think the potential problem with big accounts is that as the game grows we could reach a point where there's a constant supply of many teams spending $12m a week on wages, once their money's gone there's other teams taking their place whilst they save again. It's highly likely it will always be one of these teams that wins the top trophies. One or two teams now doesn't have this affect but if there were 50 teams doing this it mght?
I've saved because i know i'll make lots of mistakes, if i suddenly need a new QB i can easily buy one, if a franchise contract runs out and i've forgotten a replacement i can just pay them for as long as i like, from a game point of view it's probably not good that these things don't matter to some people? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ryandinho
|
posted: 2017-01-02 15:48:29 (ID: 100094892) Report Abuse |
|
Does the issue not basically come down to the current system providing the opportunity for players to save up a huge sum of money, overspend for the 5 seasons mentioned (or more), win lots and then leave the game without consequence? I don't know if this happens but the possibility does exist. It only takes a handful of teams to do this to spoil the game environment for many people.
I like the idea of a hard cap which puts the emphasis on building a team but I understand the difficulties in using such a system never mind the unfair strain it would put on Pete to actually implement. I don't know if it has ever been discussed and haven't looked up the answer but was there ever any discussion about doing away with the transfer market and going with a draft/ free agency only approach? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-01-02 16:32:28 (ID: 100094893) Report Abuse | |
|
JonnyP wrote:
I have an inkling as to why, but I don't want to drag this discussion down the route of politics. Be happy I don't invent communism here...  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Quimriera
|
posted: 2017-01-02 16:35:38 (ID: 100094894) Edits found: 2 Report Abuse |
|
First, and to make my thoughts clear, in this game Pete decides and any decision he makes will be accepted, of course.
That said, I think that the Salary Cap is the only solution to "equate" teams at the player template level. Who would win then? The one that knows to extract the best of each team, through playbooks, scouting of the rival, tactics of rush/pass, study the draft, care for and train young people at the Academy, ... That is, PLAYING FOOTBALL. Why, if I have 1,000 million to sign whoever I want ... what's the use of everything else? 
Last edited on 2017-01-02 16:38:37 by Quimriera |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-01-02 16:39:15 (ID: 100094895) Report Abuse | |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
So basically big bank balances bother Pete from a game-admin perspective because it makes us unpredictable and because our safety net is too big allowing us to overspend for too long. In other words: Teams with big balance can kill any competition for long long time. I'm not saying you guys would, I'm just saying the risk is there...So having kind of an inflation would be helpful, since it destroys cash-piles on a steady way...or touching the bankrolls, kind of a luxury tax, would achieve the same long term! But no, I did none of it, even a hard cap (which fixes none of my problems but creates many more was on my table). No, I was just going to reduce the net gains per seasons, the money you earn from the season - if you earn any...as part of a plan containing more than this one little thing...and get grilled in the forums... Again, I'm done with this type of discussion...I was under assumption the managers could follow me, but of course they can't because they don't know the big picture, the goals, and the details behind. And no, I won't share such details... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2017-01-02 17:44:19 (ID: 100094900) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
- A strict salary cap. (Teams cannot spend more than $X on players salaries) PRO: It would become impossible to field a team full of superstars with 50 skills everywhere. CON: Pete doesn't like it? - An NBA style Luxury tax. (Only tax salaries above $X) PRO: Gives more freedom than a strict salary cap whilst still limiting the richest teams on field advantage. CON: Hard to explain to noobs? - A strict bank account limit. (Any dollar earned past $X simply disappears) PRO: Cash accumulation would become pointless after $X CON: It might take a while to do because if done too quickly the rich teams will overspend on the TM basically making it impossible for noobs and others to compete. - A higher tax rate on the TM. PRO: Limit wealth accumulation and managers selling players only for profit. CON: It would not impact those spending a lot on salaries and not using the TM much. - Pete's tax idea on profits over $X if more than $500M in the bank. PRO: I'm honestly not sure who this would affect, mid-range teams mostly I suppose. CON: This would do nothing against teams like mine with $1B in the bank and overspending. I could support 1 and 2. 3 i don't Like but i would not leave as long it above 500M 4 would not fix anything Unless the buyer is beging taxed instead of the seller. 5 Why i do not support. It could remove some money form the game. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2017-01-02 17:56:52 (ID: 100094903) Report Abuse |
|
The best way to remove money for the game Right now FA sales.
But we can not flood them the game with them. I say if money is the biggest problem. Do not touch bank rolls. But find ways to make player who are spend a lot of money. To find ways to send it out forever. But if i had it my way. There would be tax on profits if gains are over 80m a season.10% 100m 15% Luxury tax on people spending over let say 5m a week on players. 5m 10%, 6m 15%, 7m 20%, 8m 25%. Quick way to remove money. Player wage only. tax buyers who pay over 50m for player at 5% I could go on. Right now money just trades hands is not leaving the game. My 2 cents P.S. The only idea i do not support in this matter is taxing the saving. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-01-02 18:06:45 (ID: 100094906) Report Abuse | |
|
I am willing and do spend a lot more on Free Agents than I do for team owned player. I don't mind doing that because the money does disappear.
I still think experience needs to be an important factor on player wages. it's realistic AND the money goes away.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 13 14 15 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Limiting the financial power of rich teams | |
