2007 Financials - Potential Problem

[Andrew]

OK, I finally did some testing of the Financials in 2007.

I simmed to the end of the season with 2006, then saved. I then clicked over to "Offseason" with 2006 and 2007 and recorded the financial data for both.



Overall, this is a good thing because the money has drastically decreased. However, a few teams are going to be screwed.[/img]

[Andrew]

Here is some more data. It shows that 4 teams are going to have a higher payroll than Budget, after calculating it with 2007. However, this isn't as a big a problem as it seems as the payroll is Pre-FA. I'm simming to FA right now.

[Andrew]

Here is the same data after players file for FA. I think more teams are in the red here because the contracts flip over to the next season, so any backloaded contracts will have raised the payroll.

[Clay]

I don't see the problem. :twisted:

[Andrew]

My proposed solution to this is to allow all teams the one time option to convert money from their stadium fund into cash, but other than that let teams fend for themselves. Most that are in the red have enough cash on hand to make up the difference.

If this isn't enough to get them out of trouble, they'll have to write a few extra articles next season. :D

I'm open to any other suggestions.

[Clay]

What determines the budget? Market size? Wins losses? My team sucks and I'm in Virginia and I have a big budget.

[Andrew]

What determines the budget? Market size? Wins losses? My team sucks and I'm in Virginia and I have a big budget.

It's determined by how much money your team makes. Your team might get hurt in attendance because they do suck, but you have a big market size which helps in Media and Merchandising Revenue.

The teams that are getting hurt the most by this are smaller market teams.

[BradleyB]

Speaking as someone who had 55 million to spend last offseason and no one to sign... I like how things are looking so far. I've got no problem with allowing teams a one time option to use stadium funds to help bail themselves out.

[Clay]

In 2007 (I think I remember reading this) won't the price tags for players change on future contracts based on the money available to spend? In other words, when we were all swimming in green... a $13,000,000 a year contract was not out of the question to be sought... once money is more in line, won't they start asking for less????

Did I read that?

[rubisco43]

OMG, why did my budget go down the most? Am I overspending?

[Andrew]

OMG, why did my budget go down the most? Am I overspending?

No, it has nothing to do with spending. It has to do with the differences in how 2007 calculates merchandising revenue vs 2006. I'm not sure why some teams were affected so much more than others.

[rubisco43]

OMG, why did my budget go down the most? Am I overspending?

No, it has nothing to do with spending. It has to do with the differences in how 2007 calculates merchandising revenue vs 2006. I'm not sure why some teams were affected so much more than others.

Well, I guess a few of us have to be creative with trades for the 1981 season.

[Andrew]

Well, I guess a few of us have to be creative with trades for the 1981 season.

Not necessarily. I'm going to test to see how things will look at the end of the season. In this test though, you had $18 mil in cash which should be enough to cover the $8 mil deficit. You also would have the option to use some of your bonus money, raise ticket prices, etc.

[Andrew]

Another option is to give every team a "transitional bonus" of a certain % of the budget decline. So as an example, maybe Hyundai would get 20% of $22,560,340 which would come out to $4,512,068.

[Pat]

Love it.