HT Announce - economic adjustments - sponsors increase next week !!!

[Alf]

2003-09-08 Economy adjustments
As announced in the HT 6.5 document, we are dedicated to keeping the economy in Hattrick under control. This means acting before things go wrong. Currently our various indicators are clearly indicating that the deflationary tendencies are far higher than the risk for too much inflation. Hence we have decided to raise the sponsor income parameters, taking effect from next week. Also, from next season, spectator income per sold ticket will be increased by 25%.

[sterlingice]

I really have no idea if this will actually do anything. If I were an owner looking to buy something (fancy that)- I'd just look at it that I have an extra $25K to spend on that high priced guy I want rather than use that $25K on another low end flunky. I guess I would have thought differently last season, but I'm guessing there are more people who have played for 6 months than are entering the game and you are giving all of those people an extra 25% to play with.

SI

[KevinNU7]

I have 925 supporters that are high on life but if it rains only 8k show up for games. I think that issue should be addressed more then an increase in ticket prices. If sunny weather brings a multipler of 25-30 then rain shouldn't be less then 15.

[KevinNU7]

Dola

I'll take the extra cash though as keeping a good staff and youth squad is tough on a D.V revenue

[NAIWF]

Anything that gives me more money is a good thing :)

[Bee]

We need Quiksand to break this down for us. It seems to me to be another case of making the rich teams richer (which appears to be a trend with recent changes to Hattrick). While I'll benefit from the 25% increase in ticket prices, I'm sure teams with much larger stadiums will benefit much more than I; thus making it harder for me to advance. If bigger clubs are getting more money from the 25% increase, it seems they'll benefit more. Of course, I could be wrong.

[DukeRulesMAB]

Well, one set this will definately benefit is the group that is in a little bit of debt and barely treading water. Sure seems like this'll make 100K of debt or so a lot easier to get out of. Since most of those teams are newer teams, basically I think this will make it easier to stabilize your finances early (something I won't be able to do until after this season, my second year, when I sell my trainee keeper).

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by NAIWF
Anything that gives me more money is a good thing :)

Yeah but remember what gets you and me $1K gets TP (yeah, that's who I'll pick on ;) ) $2K. Then again, if this is something minor and just expected to help cover weekly expenses rather than bring in big cash, I'm all for it. I remember it being very hard to make ends meet early on.

It does beg the question: should everyone be able to upgrade their stadium (and pay upkeep), put $20K in the youth squad, have a full staff, and spend the $300K foolishly (as we all did)? Or should the opening weeks of hattrick be about trying to figure out your finances? I suppose I'm in favor of the former and helping new teams meet expenses but it does at least open up a little debate.

SI

[damnMikeBrown]

The income derived by this will effect the given resource which all teams have, their crowd revenue & sponsor income.

For many teams, myself included, these two forms of income are integral in my balance sheet. The addage of trying to stay even during a given 2 week home/away period, is still true for most teams up through their 3rd or 4th season.

The only true sources of new income into the game are through supporters & ticket sales. (edit: bonus $ for top 4, promotion bonus and scorer bonus). The rest of the $$ is merely transferred from one owner to another.

Upping the revenue from sponsors & fans will increase the monetary pool as a whole, which is obvious. The obvious effect would be to increase the price of anything that can be transferred in the game through the means of a $. So, hey, we all have more $$, that means player prices are going to raise, right? Well, maybe, maybe not.

There has been a huge money sink put into the game, in the form of the new coach pricing. This is not a steady drain such as weekly expenses, but something more along the lines of a stadium expansion in frequency. It's a big ticket item, with a fixed cost.

Think of that solid coach for $2million. By the 3rd or 4th season, you've expanded your stadium twice already, that's $420k or so there. For many teams, my own included, we're still running on the rims, trying to break even in our 3rd season. With a solid trainee program, estimate about $2.5million in profit, wether it's realised (sold the trainees yet) or not. That conveniently equals the amount for a solid coach and the stadium expansions.

That means that if you assiduously run a team with a solid training program for 3-4 seasons, that you'd be able to expand your stadium twice, have a solid coach, and then, if you're like me, be running a two-week average defecit through no fault of your own.

I think that the HT team saw the enormous costs of the coaches, and how it would negatively effect any team trying to start from scratch with a weak coach, and adjusted the economy. Instead of lowering coach pricing, they upped the medium in which they're obtained, money.

In the short term, I'd epect small bumps in player pricing, however, long term, everybody has to bite from the sour coaching pie. It's a HUGE expense that very few people have tasted of yet, and it's effect can't be determined for another 4 or 5 seasons.

As a conservative, I'd take the increase and sit on it, to see what happens. Somebody more agressive will see the chance to improve their team sooner through players in the short term. With the huge unknown of the engine changes, and the likely short term volatility you'd think there would be more conservative spending.

The nature of the game, however, is that it is an amusement. It's a game, played for enjoyment, and people enjoy seeing their teams improve now & win, now. When given the opportunity (or $) with no negative impact, I believe that would be the first act taken. That, combined with the fact that teams will likely not be reinvesting into new coaches for another 3 seasons, leads me to believe that the main funnel for the new funds will, in my opinion, be into players, thus elevating their market price.

Yes the rich will get richer, but, I think the poor will get less poor as well. If you are running a good transfer program, you will have an opportunity, the same opportunity as every team in HT, to reap the rewards of the increased spending.

Me? I'm going to sit on my $$, and try to break even. Perhaps it will give us lower-middle class teams a break.

[Nyarlahotep]

Is it really that hard to break even in their first few seasons?

[GoldenEagle]

Anyone know how much more sponsor money we will get?

[FrogMan]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
Anyone know how much more sponsor money we will get?

I don't think so, as they have not said clearly how much more it will be. We'll see on Saturday...

FM

[NAIWF]

I don't understand the idea that people can't make money. I've NEVER been more than 40K in the hole. Yes, I did land a million dollar trainee in week 1, but I also had to invest over 430K in getting my first solid coach (17 tries under the old system, and $268,000 to get him now).

I train defenders which take the longest to improve and sell for the least amount of money, so I honestly don't see how people who got luckier early on and train either middies, goalie or forwards are struggling so much.

To me, I attribute it to trying to win too much too soon as opposed to not being able to compete. Even before I got the "million dollar man", I was fielding a strong team (best in my series down the stretch), had expanded my stadium once and was consistently selling it out. All while never dipping below 40K in the red. And I did all of that in my first 12 weeks as a player.

Fiscal prudence might not be as fun as playing the transfer wire 24/7, but it can be done and done to a profit.

[damnMikeBrown]

You may be discounting the starting strenght of your team, NAIWF. I know I had one solid PM, one solid defender...and that was it. If you were fortunate and started with, say, 7 solids, that's a -minimum- of $700k you were starting with that I wasn't.

[Nyarlahotep]

I thought we were discussing breaking even or better every two weeks, not if you should go into debt or not. I've been far into debt plenty of times, but my team still makes a very nice profit every two weeks.

[NAIWF]

But the two do tie in together. If you're in debt early, the odds of losing money increases exponentially because of the interest fees. If you're not making money, you'll eventually head in that general direction.

As for my starting team, I had a solid scorer and one solid defender. That was it. Everyone else was passable or worse, so I had to buy basically everyone, and still managed to stay above even with the exception of 2 weeks. Again I don't see the struggle that so many teams have with staying above negative income.

[GoldenEagle]

I didnt have any solids :(

[Airhog]

Look at my team. Im in my 3rd season, and still trying to make ends meet. If you are in a tough division, you may not be able to count on a second place finish and only losing 2 games. I think series strength plays a huge role in this.

[FrogMan]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
I didnt have any solids :(

Me neither, I had one with two passables, that was it...

FM

[Nyarlahotep]

Originally posted by NAIWF
But the two do tie in together. If you're in debt early, the odds of losing money increases exponentially because of the interest fees. If you're not making money, you'll eventually head in that general direction.

That's strange. I've been deep in debt several times and never had a problem making money.

[TargetPractice6]

I had two solids... and Bautista :) Bee, this isn't a rich get richer thing. Neither are any of the other additions. It's easier for us to make money, and more of it. And the entire game centers around finances. So anything they do to alter the game (that affects everybody equally) will of course be more easily available to larger teams.

Aside from that, yes big teams will be able to gain more money that little teams. But then again why shoulnd't they? The same ratio will still be there, and if player market values go up like the HTs want them to then it won't make any difference at all. I mean how else can you provide additional income without making it so that the top teams get more?

The instant $200k bonus from season 16 was a total disaster. Too much money was added too quickly. I like how they are going to make it a gradual change this time.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I've had no trouble staying above water, but I've had the good fortune to be successful in series play. I won't say my series is easy (it isn't, we hit top 15 in USA.V one week), but it's manageable. My team wasn't world-beaters when I got it, but I had enough to get by and only really wasted about $20 to $30k in transfer fees (both fine players, I just overspent).

But I know others with as good (or better) team who are struggling. I'm quite sure for some of them it's too many splashes into the transfer market, but some of them simply aren't as well situated as I am.


(I did have the good fortune to get a solid playmaker and buy a cheap passable to fill out my midfield, and my offseason stamina training puts me level with just about anyone in that department, which has been a huge help.)

[Mr. Wednesday]

Dola... (WTF does that mean, anyway? Does this forum have a FAQ?)

I suspect the HT team may plan to tweak the distribution of sponsor income amongst the divisions, since they didn't say it would be a flat increase. They may give the lower divisions a boost there.

[FrogMan]

Originally posted by Mr. Wednesday
Dola... (WTF does that mean, anyway? Does this forum have a FAQ?)


Kinda funny that the search for "dolamite" returns the same question asked by our old friend BillyMadison :D

Anyway:
DOLA? (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9493&highlight=dolamite)

FM

[Mr. Wednesday]

Muchas gracias... I would have searched on "dola", but I figured there'd be just way too much stuff to wade through.

[illinifan999]

I was talking to this one guy who had just started, and on his second day sold one of his original guys for something like 825k. :eek: My best players were a solid scorer/PM, and a solid defender. Somehow though with NO defending training at all, and without buying one, I have two now. One of them popped in my second season as I was still training general. (Before the hattrick boom occured) Now, even though I train PM, my defenders are steadily getting better. They have started to put up 3-3.5* a game. I can't explain it. Their value keeps going up, form is erratic, but they put up nice ratings and stars?!.

[Masked]

experience?

[illinifan999]

Naw, it was before they had implemented the new changes. Think 2 seasons ago maybe.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by NAIWF
I don't understand the idea that people can't make money. I've NEVER been more than 40K in the hole. Yes, I did land a million dollar trainee in week 1, but I also had to invest over 430K in getting my first solid coach (17 tries under the old system, and $268,000 to get him now)...

Fiscal prudence might not be as fun as playing the transfer wire 24/7, but it can be done and done to a profit.

I didn't really have a problem- but I did have to cut youth squad for a couple of weeks early on. If you're in a division that isn't really easy then it's hard to keep your supporters from leaving your team early on when you keep losing and you can't afford a fleet of spokespersons. So you either have to buy better players (spend cash) or gradually bleed cash until your youth squad helps turn it around (bleed cash).

SI

[Bee]

Originally posted by TargetPractice6
Bee, this isn't a rich get richer thing.

Aside from that, yes big teams will be able to gain more money that little teams.

That's how I'd define the rich getting richer.

If I'm getting an extra $25,000 a week, then a big team will be getting an extra $250,000 a week. Market costs (players, coaches, expansions, etc) are the same for both of us, so they benefit more from the change than I will.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. It's just a game and I have no problem with them doing this. I just see it as a way of further separating the "haves" with the "have nots". That's not necessarily a bad thing or even something that shouldn't be done, I'm just pointing out that IMO that's what this does.