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 / Suggestions / contracts Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< 2 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
wsfjlt
|
posted: 2017-03-07 23:20:02 (ID: 100099423) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
I noticed that you can only put so many players on longer term contracts. I would like those restrictions removed so that you could put as many players as you wanted on longer term contracts. You do pay more for them, but you also lock them up in an affordable range.
I would also suggest adding with this a no drop or sell clause on any player with more than 2 years left on his contract. This penalty would prevent people for putting a bunch of long term contracts on all their players but only those that they actually want on their team for a longer term. Last edited on 2017-03-08 02:37:00 by wsfjlt |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2017-03-08 00:01:38 (ID: 100099429) Report Abuse |
|
here on rza contracts are not about keeping players. As you never bid against other owners. But they are about wage control. So longer contract more savings if use right.
So unlimited amount of long contracts could cause issues. But then again if they was no sell cause. It would mean owners would need to thing about long and hard. As then the only was to be rid of that player would be if fire him. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
wsfjlt
|
posted: 2017-03-08 02:46:22 (ID: 100099432) Report Abuse |
|
that is why I put the no sell or drop clause in if you placed him under a 5 year contract you would not be able to move him of your team regardless of how good he plays for 3 years. This would allow players with out huge amounts of cash to lock up players that are affordable while keeping it in mind that if you lock up everyone you will not be able to move them.
The exceptions would remain for retirement, career ending injuries (if they exist in this game) and of course if you fall into financial bankruptcy and the best or most expensive player on your roster is being taken. The longer term contract would not protect him from being taken. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Gambler75
|
posted: 2017-03-08 03:05:01 (ID: 100099434) Report Abuse |
|
As it stands, I've got weekly wages of about $1.4M ...
If I were to turn off HR dept, it estimates my weekly salaries would come in just shy of $3M, meaning I'm already saving a bit better than 50% over what non-HR contract based would be paying with a similar roster. If unlimited long term contracts were enabled, that number would be even more tilted ... two big problems I see with this: 1) It would take not using the HR, from a non-efficient choice - to a completely non-competitive choice. 2) While this change would help a younger team - it would actually help older teams MUCH more in terms of revenue saved. Adding another "rich get richer" element to the game seems like moving in the wrong direction, IMO. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
wsfjlt
|
posted: 2017-03-08 19:35:20 (ID: 100099494) Report Abuse |
|
I would like there to be a salary cap of a hard number on players 2.5 million so it wouldn't matter if you had a gazillion dollars you could only spend 2.5 on your 70 man roster Maybe that number could be higher or lower, but the number would be a hard cap.
I also would like to revise my first though to reducing it to 35 of the 70 players that you could lock up on a long term contract with the penalty that you could not release them or sell them until their finale 2 years of the contract. I revised the number of players that you could lock up to prevent a team from locking up everyone making it impossible for them to draft or make any moves. But with this you could have a better grasp on your financials and always have players that you could move. This would better reflect real football, putting us all on the same playing field, with an affordable salary cap for players, that cant be exceeded, along with a way to be able to control your expenses with long term contracts for more players on your team. I like 35 as it allows you to keep long term control over your regular team. While keeping you active with the forced ability to being able to move the other 35. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Rock777
|
posted: 2017-03-08 20:25:19 (ID: 100099498) Report Abuse |
|
I think Gambler75's point was more on the disparity it creates between those using HR and those not. Adding a cap on top of it just increases the disparity. Now someone using the HR department can get an awesome team at a 1/3 the cost of someone not using HR. So the cap limits the non-HR teams to just average, while HR teams can be all super stars.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
wsfjlt
|
posted: 2017-03-08 21:52:48 (ID: 100099507) Report Abuse |
|
all top teams are using HR as the cost would be outrageous not to.
The problem is that the money discrepancy between teams is enormous. I asked for those not making the playoffs to be able to have other games on Mondays and Thursdays with a pittance, this was shot down so not only do you loose the experience teams making the playoffs are rewarded with 6 million plus dollars per game while you get nothing. Further widening the gap. The excuse is you deserve the money for playing a better game. A JOKE as I have only played 2.5 seasons and rated 61.5 and have to compete against teams that played for 10 or more and rated 75 or better. This is why a salary cap is a good idea of a hard number not a percentage of something but a hard number of 2 3 4 or what ever million all would have to stay under it. Next is my idea of allowing more long term contracts. Would it allow those with all the money to lock up players for cheap making them even richer yes. But does it even matter, they have the money so that they can pay for them at any price with out care and yes with their superior players they will win make the playoffs and all the extra games to continue their wealth to pay for them. Those of us competing with limited funds need to have a way to keep more of the higher quality players on our roster with a way to pay for them. (salary cap does make us all regardless of wealth have to stay in certain parameters) Given us more players that we can lock up will give us that ability regardless to what the wealthier teams do. Remember, they have the money and can pay what ever price it is to keep them, teams competing with limited funds can only keep a few of the higher priced players or go bankrupt |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Rock777
|
posted: 2017-03-09 02:26:43 (ID: 100099526) Report Abuse |
|
Actually I saw a post recently that showed several top teams are not using the HR department.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-03-09 10:50:54 (ID: 100099544) Report Abuse |
|
I'm not sure if I'm considered a top team or not but I don't use HR. Having to deal with contracts every season sounds very tedious to me so I'm paying my players a bit more to avoid having to do it.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Firenze
|
posted: 2017-03-09 12:02:56 (ID: 100099553) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
I'm not sure if I'm considered a top team or not but I don't use HR. Having to deal with contracts every season sounds very tedious to me so I'm paying my players a bit more to avoid having to do it. Within HR Department, if you go to HR-Settings, it will give you an estimate of how much you could save. ----------------------------------------------------------- For me it shows: Current weekly player wages: 5,572,077 Estimated weekly player wages after switching off the HR-Department: 7,601,431 --------------------------------------------------------------- So I save 2 million per week by using Contracts (26%), and over 24 weeks that's almost 50 million a season. Your values will be lower, but it does make a big difference. I actually like contract resignings, but I know some people dislike them. Until recently, you couldn't switch back once you'd committed to Contracts, but now you can. Last edited on 2017-03-09 12:05:55 by Firenze |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< 2 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / contracts | |
