2016 Brewmaster's 1 SIM Complete - Next SIM Sun AM

[Sharkn20]

Get rid of bonus.
Get rid of rev share.
Up Carry over Cash.
Be profitable.

No freebies. No gimmes for anyone.

+1

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Sharkn20]

That's 4 already for Delandis proposition

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[funclown]

That's 4 already for Delandis proposition

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Sadly it would have to be next season.

[BradZ]

How does Pittsburgh pull it off multiple years in a row? Are you suggesting that franchise is in for a painful crossroads financially in the near future?

Ok, so PIT specifically (not picking on them; there's almost certainly a plan in place to handle the situation) is carrying forward a -$29.7mil balance. With a projected budget of $126mil, they'll basically have access to $96.3mil of that budget. This impacts 3 things directly:

1) hinders the ability to offer player extensions (this is where the planning comes in, extension have either already been given, planned ahead for, OR those players were expiring contracts were planned exits.

2) It takes you out of FA.

3) Eliminates in game waiver claims. No $$, no claims.


So, how can a team handle this? Well, you may have access to 96.3mil, but PIT is going to bring in 126 (theoretically budget is tied to projected revenue), so you can comfortably sport a payroll above and beyond the 96.3mil.
-Push yourself up to the limit and break even and just keep carrying the deficit,
-go overboard a touch and push the deficit a bit further,
-make a bit of money and reduce the deficit.

The real trick comes just like any real life debt: as long as you can service it, it's not a backbreaker. The minute you fall short of revenue projections that debt snowballs. So, you have a losing season and the fans stop showing up and your future budget drops from 126 down to 116? Now you're squeezing yourself more and more. Eventually you lose more which leads to lower revenues which leads to lower budgets and you "collapse".

It's a highwire act and if there's a plan in place it's manageable. Match up those high deficit seasons with a youth movement (read: cheap) and if the winning keeps happening that deficit gets reduced season by season until the cheap players become expensive and you push the deficit back up. Wash, rinse , repeat. You just have to make sure the bottom is a low dip and not a crash.

We're a decent example of this in Philly. We were carrying -$17.3mil in deficit into this past season. Made some painful moves yet managed to be competitive and had a good season on the field so revenues soared and we came out ahead $7.5mil for the year, so carryover deficit is at -9.8mil (well it was until another 2.5mil left in rev sharing, so our actual carryover is -12mil). We actively chose a plan to reduce the deficit to give us more access to our budgeted money. Last season, no $$ for FA, no $$ for waiver claims. It's a burden that must be carried. Can't get away from it.

[BradZ]

Also, carryover cash is capped because teams "hoarding" cash drives up player demands to crazy levels and potentially "breaks" the financial model (or at least this was the case in older versions).

[Sharkn20]

Sadly it would have to be next season.

Would be fine anyway

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[BDub]

Forgive me if this is a dumb question but why not impose a salary cap?

[Matt]

I would be a no until I see what it does in 10 years. I'm sure there would be at least 5 more. We'll need 20 now to pass a vote. I don't see getting anywhere near that. Not being difficult but that's a lot without seeing how things would pan out.

Do we start over the financials? Put a salary cap in? How do we make sure in 2025 Batavia doesn't have a $200m budget and someone else has $100m?

[Sharkn20]

It's fine we will still giving up the half of our profitable income to the tanking teams... That's more fair

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[umd]

Also, carryover cash is capped because teams "hoarding" cash drives up player demands to crazy levels and potentially "breaks" the financial model (or at least this was the case in older versions).

I forgot about that.

[Pat]

We need Clay to do some some single player testing.

[Sharkn20]

I see the point to not carry over more than $10M to avoid teams having all of a sudden $130M to spend. But still not getting why teams that are profitable have to be punished. We should find a balance at some point

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[funclown]

Forgive me if this is a dumb question but why not impose a salary cap?

Cuz were not the NHL which is not a great way to run a sport.

Our financial model doesn't allow for revenue growth like the NBA or the NFL. Our lack of revenue growth is sort of our salary cap. We can't seek out HUGE tv contracts and not allowing us to hoard cash during very profitable years prevents from adding 10000 seats or something drastic.

Our system isn't broke really, just always looking for ways to improve it. Right now the issue appears to be teams not spending yet not turning a profit either?

We tried a salary cap back in 92 thru 98???

[Andrew]

Is revenue being shared at a greater percentage now than it was before? Did OOTP 16 change the formula in some way? Or are we seeing more revenue sharing simply because the top revenues were significantly higher this season than they were in year's past?

According to Andrew's data, the top teams pulled in considerably more revenue in 2016 than they did in 2015, so it would make sense that greater amounts would be taken for revenue sharing.

It's being shared at the same percentage but because of the higher playoff revenue the top teams are seeing an increased contribution. It's a weird system but basically every team contributes 30% of their revenue. That pot is then divided up evenly among all the teams. The financial reports show the difference between what each team contributed vs what they received.

[funclown]

It's being shared at the same percentage but because of the higher playoff revenue the top teams are seeing an increased contribution. It's a weird system but basically every team contributes 30% of their revenue. That pot is then divided up evenly among all the teams. The financial reports show the difference between what each team contributed vs what they received.

Probably would of made more sense if the playoff money wasn't part of the overall revenue sharing though not sure how much difference it would of made. Its just a thought.