SQL Utilities/Financial Utility

[Andrew]

Can we just move up the media revenue baseline, say 50 million? I understand that we don't want an insanely, large influx of cash into the financial models, but my guess is that this would be the least complex option.

From that point on, allow the game to handle finances, market drift, etc. Its not a cure all, but it does allow smaller market teams to instantly become more financially competitive, without disturbing salary structures of teams above the benchmark.

If you did that I think the competitive balance would remain the same because salaries would just go up mitigating any benefit the small market teams received by the additional media revenue.

If we're willing to accept an influx of cash I think a better approach would be to leave media revenue the same but narrow the market size gap between small market and large market. Currently they range from 3-8 but if the range was closer, such as maybe 5-8, it would help the smaller market teams more.

For perspective I think Baltimore is an 8, Maine and Carolina(I think) are 5's and Batavia is a 3.

[Andrew]

I've volunteered in the past to be a financial record keeper for the league, but someone created a nifty online utility for that instead.

I'd volunteer again, if there was interest. It would all be transparent (no secret spreadsheets).

I'll leave that up to Clay but my reason for never wanting anyone else to be responsible for record keeping is a) I always felt like I would need to double check everything and b) if that person ever left the league or got too busy to do it the burden would fall back on me anyways.

[BradZ]

I'll leave that up to Clay but my reason for never wanting anyone else to be responsible for record keeping is a) I always felt like I would need to double check everything and b) if that person ever left the league or got too busy to do it the burden would fall back on me anyways.

A) understood, which is why it would be transparent, posted at all times for everyone to double check on an ongoing basis

B) til death do us part

[BradZ]

If we're willing to accept an influx of cash I think a better approach would be to leave media revenue the same but narrow the market size gap between small market and large market. Currently they range from 3-8 but if the range was closer, such as maybe 5-8, it would help the smaller market teams more.

For perspective I think Baltimore is an 8, Maine and Carolina(I think) are 5's and Batavia is a 3.

This is intriguing and would seem to close the gap between the haves and have nots, but even on a scale of 3-8, I'd rate Batavia a 1.

[Jistic]

According to most money doesn't seem to matter anyway...well the people that have money think that at least. So this shouldn't be a big deal.

Our first year I argued for equal markets for everyone before we even knew what our finances would look like. At the end of the day I really could care less. The money part is the most worthless part of this game for me. It's the least amount of fun. I don't want to feel like I'm at work when I'm playing a game.

I'm used to losing players every year cuz I can't afford 'em, so that's no biggie. I'd also adjust quite nicely to be able to actually keep them.

[Delandis]

Didn't I get my media contract and market size decreased around '84-'85, around when I first started? I'm not complaining about a second decrease, but I'm just wondering how effective it will be if my those factors continually increase?

[Andrew]

Didn't I get my media contract and market size decreased around '84-'85, around when I first started? I'm not complaining about a second decrease, but I'm just wondering how effective it will be if my those factors continually increase?

Yes, I think you were originally a 10. The gap used to be 1-10. We then narrowed it to 3-8.

[Lintyfresh85]

How about we stager the cash reserves.

5 million - Top tier
10 million - Second tier
15 million - Third tier

Whatever the case, I'm all for the fastest solution to the situation, whatever that may be.

[funclown]

How about we stager the cash reserves.

5 million - Top tier
10 million - Second tier
15 million - Third tier

Whatever the case, I'm all for the fastest solution to the situation, whatever that may be.

I'm a little slow. How does this help?

[Lintyfresh85]

I don't have a clue. Just throwing things up and seeing what sticks.

[Pat]

Just sticking my thing up and seeing what sticks.

Didn't this almost get you into a lot of trouble last time?!

[Lintyfresh85]

Many times.

Probably should work on correcting that problem.

[BradZ]

This is the page that explains most of OOTP's financial options:

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/docu...inancial_rules

It looks like the revenue sharing system is robust enough now to come close to what we were doing before. The only difference is the soft cap would be based on the current year rather than previous year.

From reading the description of the luxury tax setting it sounds like there will be luxury tax paid each year, no matter what. Since it's always based on league average payroll, there will always be teams above that payroll level by default. I only wonder if it calculates off the end of year payroll number or if it is calculating off of actual player expenses? There can be a large gap between the two figures.

[Andrew]

From reading the description of the luxury tax setting it sounds like there will be luxury tax paid each year, no matter what. Since it's always based on league average payroll, there will always be teams above that payroll level by default. I only wonder if it calculates off the end of year payroll number or if it is calculating off of actual player expenses? There can be a large gap between the two figures.

Yeah I'm playing around with settings now and the in game luxury tax definitely won't work. It's based on payroll rather than revenue. When I ran my test Baltimore, one of the largest market teams, ended up receiving over $30m in luxury tax because they had a low payroll last year.

[BradZ]

Yeah I'm playing around with settings now and the in game luxury tax definitely won't work. It's based on payroll rather than revenue. When I ran my test Baltimore, one of the largest market teams, ended up receiving over $30m in luxury tax because they had a low payroll last year.

It's based on Player Expenses and doesn't factor in revenue earned at all, only on what was spent. It's basically making the assumption that a team only spent X on player expenses because that's all they could afford. It doesn't "think" about a team just having a low player expense number in a given year.