Proposed Financial Changes

[Young Drachma]

i edited it.

[muns]

So basically if I have a guy making 3.5 mil a year for 3 years, and I release him id go into the red is that what im getting here?

[Young Drachma]

Well..not exactly. You'd still have a pool of cash at the end of the regular season before the FOOL Classic. Probably in the $20-30m range. After the FOOL Classic, you'd only retain $9m of that revenue and so, yeah, if you wanted to drop big contracts, you'd be severely hampered in that effort.

I'll have more concrete numbers later.

[TurnerONU22]

I just thought about this, DC, but will teams be able to use that 20 to 30 million before the FOOL classic to dump players?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by TurnerONU22

I just thought about this, DC, but will teams be able to use that 20 to 30 million before the FOOL classic to dump players?

I'll have to look at the numbers. 30 million might be on the high end. I couldn't create a way to make sure that 1) teams could spend to the cap without giving some wiggle room so they could make enough money and have cash left over.

It's not cut and dry because OOTP isn't and so...that 30 mil. might be high, but leftover cash and releasing isn't an issue. What we wanna rule out is the $25 million incentives (I know) and big money balloon contracts that have lots of deferred cash. At least not without implications.

[magic_number]

Originally Posted by TurnerONU22

I just thought about this, DC, but will teams be able to use that 20 to 30 million before the FOOL classic to dump players?

Lots of info needed b4 a vote, also - ETA of "new rules" needs to be late enough to covers those contracts that were signed under the "old rules", IMO.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by magic_number

Lots of info needed b4 a vote, also - ETA of "new rules" needs to be late enough to covers those contracts that were signed under the "old rules", IMO.

There would be a one-time grace period for that.

[magic_number]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

There would be a one-time grace period for that.

roger, M# out.

[Commo_Soldier]

My question is what was the average ticket price at before the change?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier

My question is what was the average ticket price at before the change?

Heh...I asked the same question in private. Apparently no one really knew.

I am assuming you mean what was the ideal ticket price setting. DC said $17 (which is interesting actually).

If you actually mean average ticket price, I am sure it was much lower than that. Which means we're all awful economists.

[Commo_Soldier]

Yea, I was more shooting for the number that will be getting changed.

[TimGuru]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Heh...I asked the same question in private. Apparently no one really knew.

I am assuming you mean what was the ideal ticket price setting. DC said $17 (which is interesting actually).

If you actually mean average ticket price, I am sure it was much lower than that. Which means we're all awful economists.

I'm in an Olde Timee league (the 30s) and it has turned out in that league that pretty much opening the gates and flooding the park is the best revenue making decision. By selling out the park every game, you maximize merch. I don't know if it changes when ticket prices are in the dollars and not cents range.

[Young Drachma]

It doesn't change if it's dollars. Merch goes up based on ticket prices, but also how well the team does and how high attendance is or some variation thereof.

[Young Drachma]

So we do phase in these changes or make them sooner with a one-time exemption that teams can release players (to a max. number of some amount like $25 million) one last time.

It's clear they need to happen sooner than later, it's just a wonder whether the consensus is whether we ought to implement them now or on schedule for two years from now?

[kaosfere]

Hmm. Would the way we implement them reduce the amount of "cash available" that free agents see? The primary problem I could see with doing it in one swell foop would be if FAs decide there's still enough money sitting around to ask for the kind of money they're used to. There could be one year of an unaffordable FA market before the money drains from the system.

As long as that's avoided, I don't see any reason, personally, to go for later rather than sooner.

[Young Drachma]

Well, we could lower the financial modifers and that would lower all of the cash in the system completely, too. I'll play with that when I get home. That way, it'd just lower all of the contracts, as well as what players expect. It'd be done automatically and based on the lower modifier. I'll run up some tests when I get home and display the info here.

[TurnerONU22]

I think its best it we make the decision now to keep on schedule, that way everyone has a clear understanding of when this will take place.

A couple of other notes from the INT league:

1) The crazy amount of money the guys coming in from the INT league request. Is there any way that can be changed so it fits in line much better with the demands of a comparable player from our league?

2) Do we want to allow teams to pay exorbitant sums to obtain INT players for one year, then their contract goes to min sal auto renewal? Should (or can) we match up the service time required for FA between leagues so that this won't happen?

[Alan T]

Remember that the longer a player is a free agent with no offers or low offers, the less his asking price is -supposed- to go. So it might not necessarily be a bad thing to have FAs with asking prices higher than people are willing to spend, as it means more FAs available on day 2, etc.

[Young Drachma]

I can see deleting the VL once and for all. It doesn't really add value in the way that I think I hoped it would, it seems to be mostly a massive complication that we're always trying to alter our rules for and well, that's not what I hoped it to be. It's a lot like rookie free agents that I hoped for, an idea that I wanted to create in an environment that was competitive, but OOTP's financial model isn't sophisticated enough.

[Commo_Soldier]

Originally Posted by TurnerONU22

2) Do we want to allow teams to pay exorbitant sums to obtain INT players for one year, then their contract goes to min sal auto renewal? Should (or can) we match up the service time required for FA between leagues so that this won't happen?

I am not completly against offering a large one year contract to a player. Granted it favors teams with higher amounts of cap room available. However one player does not make a team, so spending that money on a multiple others is almost always better. However if you need a guy for one year to propel you then why not allow it. Also it will not go to a min salary deal. It automatically renews. Meaning it renews for the previous amount. It will show up as 190 k in the salary report but will renew for the amount it was the year before.

As for the integration I believe we should do a partial integration this year, maybe lower it by 25% of what we will. Then next year 75% of the total and then the third year have the system fully in place. For players maybe a one time exception that will give teams extra money that will offset it. This amount would be $32 million minus the new carryover amount. This exception will only be allowed for contracts signed prior to the 1978 season or 1979 season, but should have some year associated.

[TurnerONU22]

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier

Also it will not go to a min salary deal. It automatically renews. Meaning it renews for the previous amount. It will show up as 190 k in the salary report but will renew for the amount it was the year before.

I did not know this. I better cut the guy I signed last year

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier

As for the integration I believe we should do a partial integration this year, maybe lower it by 25% of what we will. Then next year 75% of the total and then the third year have the system fully in place. For players maybe a one time exception that will give teams extra money that will offset it. This amount would be $32 million minus the new carryover amount. This exception will only be allowed for contracts signed prior to the 1978 season or 1979 season, but should have some year associated.

I think this 'phasing' is just too much work on DC's end and the benefits aren't really worth it. I think we just do a one time exception which allows everybody to release whomever they want without penalty is fine.

My hope for this system is that each team will be held accountable for the contracts they give out. Under the new system, you will still be able to give backloaded contracts, but you won't be able to get out from them like you can now.

Also, what should we do about bonuses? I'd say, since they really don't mean much, it would just be easier to say "no bonuses". Contract options, I really don't know the details about those (I've never used them), so I need to understand what the issue is before I know what to think.

[kaosfere]

Originally Posted by TurnerONU22

Also, what should we do about bonuses? I'd say, since they really don't mean much, it would just be easier to say "no bonuses". Contract options, I really don't know the details about those (I've never used them), so I need to understand what the issue is before I know what to think.

I'd disagree with that. I think bonuses are a very useful tool to use with players about whom you're uncertain. It's a great way to be able to say, "I'm not sure how good a pitcher you're going to be, so I'm going to offer you a low-priced contract, but if you end up being solid enough that you throw 200 innings this year, you'll get a little more."

The only problem I have is when you abuse the AI by offering it huge incentives in lieu of a fair contract.

[Alan T]

Perhaps the simple thing to do is allow bonuses, allow options, allow long term contracts but limit the extent of each of these. Bonuses are not allowed to be higher than x percentage of the lowest year's salary in the offered contract. For instance you can set it at 10%, so then in a 5 year contract offer of 6 mil, 7mil, 7mil, 7 mil, 8 mil .. the highest a bonus can be offered for would be 600k.

For team options, the option itself is not the problem it is the backloaded contract that is the issue. The game allows any given year to be within 50% of the average salary which only becomes a problem when you're talking $10-15 mil a year averages and that means a 7 or 8 million dollar backended loaded contract. We could instead cut it to no year can have a variance of more than 20% from the average salary with the exception of any contracts that have an average salary of below $1mil a year.

That way you can't have a contract that is $10mil, $10mil, $10mil, $20mil anymore.. you could only have $10mil, $10mil, $10mil, $12mil instead or such. Then the option being included isn't as big of a deal...

That coupled with the already proposed financial changes limiting excess cash will limit people trying to dump out of backend loaded contracts as well.

[TurnerONU22]

Originally Posted by kaosfere

I'd disagree with that. I think bonuses are a very useful tool to use with players about whom you're uncertain. It's a great way to be able to say, "I'm not sure how good a pitcher you're going to be, so I'm going to offer you a low-priced contract, but if you end up being solid enough that you throw 200 innings this year, you'll get a little more."

The only problem I have is when you abuse the AI by offering it huge incentives in lieu of a fair contract.

I understand this in a normal league, but in this league, you know what you're going to get out of each guy at the beginning of the season, at least in terms of # of innings or AB's.

Honestly, I don't mind bonuses, but I'm more of the mindset that doesn't want DC to have to worry about checking bonuses for each and every contract to make sure they fall in a certain percentage, having to do the math. No bonuses would be a simple solution with an even playing field and doesn't seem to take much away from the game, in our league. If this were a slower league, with the ability to constantly tinker lineups, rosters, ect. where the bonus might have more importance, I'd be much more receptive.

In all, I'm really not dead set on either, just prefer to keep it simple in this case.

[Young Drachma]

- You cannot release a player under contract until the last year of his deal, no matter whether you have the money or not.

- Incentives in contracts may not exceed $5 million total. (meaning both incentives may not total $5 million.)

- Option years are allowed, but may not be for MORE money than any of the previous years of the contract. Meaning that the last year of the deal -- if it's an option year -- cannot exceed any single year of the deal.

Ok, I figured it out to make it simple.

Ticket prices are $1.
Media media is set to $65 million
By doing that, each team's budget is at least $65 million, plus gate and playoff and merch, which isn't really all that much.
Cash maximum is $1.00

[Young Drachma]

We won't be policing. If you get caught, we kill you.

[TimGuru]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

- You cannot release a player under contract until the last year of his deal, no matter whether you have the money or not.

- Incentives in contracts may not exceed $5 million total. (meaning both incentives may not total $5 million.)

- Option years are allowed, but may not be for MORE money than any of the previous years of the contract. Meaning that the last year of the deal -- if it's an option year -- cannot exceed any single year of the deal.

Ok, I figured it out to make it simple.

Are these your proposals or official new rules or what?

[Young Drachma]

Let's call them "proposed guidelines." If you all have thoughts, share them. I mean, sorry if that seemed hegemonic, I just figured that we get this stuff out there and get it enacted and solved...seems like those incorporate all of the things people have been saying.

[Young Drachma]

And my proposal includes deleting the VL, too. It's outlived its usefulness. And we'd phase in these rules in a year or so with a one-time exemption for releasing contracts. Also, I have the average salary numbers I'll post them after I run FOOL.

[TimGuru]

OK Thank you, not hegemonic at all.

I especially like the rule of release only for the last year. I assume that means that if you offered a player option you can't release him in the last guaranteed year?

[muns]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

- You cannot release a player under contract until the last year of his deal, no matter whether you have the money or not.

- Incentives in contracts may not exceed $5 million total. (meaning both incentives may not total $5 million.)

- Option years are allowed, but may not be for MORE money than any of the previous years of the contract. Meaning that the last year of the deal -- if it's an option year -- cannot exceed any single year of the deal.

Ok, I figured it out to make it simple.

im good with everything except the "you cant release a player under contract until the last year of the deal".

While I understand why some would like this, this affects development for those of us that dont want to micro manage minors.

If I have a guy that I dont want anymore id have to either play him or send him to the minors and that guy would more than likely be better than my minors guys, which means they would take at bats away or innings away.

Id much rather say we cant cut a guy making more than 5 mil a year or whatever.....

Just my 2 cents

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by muns

Id much rather say we cant cut a guy making more than 5 mil a year or whatever.....

Just my 2 cents

Ok, that's pretty much what I was aiming for. And $5 million sounds like a good number.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

- You cannot release a player under contract until the last year of his deal, no matter whether you have the money or not.

- Incentives in contracts may not exceed $5 million total. (meaning both incentives may not total $5 million.)

- Option years are allowed, but may not be for MORE money than any of the previous years of the contract. Meaning that the last year of the deal -- if it's an option year -- cannot exceed any single year of the deal.

Ok, I figured it out to make it simple.

- I like muns' suggestion on the first one. Allow releases up to $5 M. Although I actually do micro-manage my minors, so I have no sympathy for him there.

- I would drop incentives even tighter, maybe $2 M tops.

- I am against option years being strictly to the max of the highest single year. Options fairly often in real life are slightly more than the highest contract year. I recommend up to 10% or 20% max. 10% is the easiest to do in your head, but I think 20% gives more of the room I would like to see.

Not sure yet how I feel about the financial systems settings you put up. They seem to be very far different from what you have been testing, and what the BoD has been commenting on.

[Young Drachma]

I've been testing those other numbers, but this makes more sense and it's simpler. That's why I've gone in a different direction. The other tests required more tinkering and frankly, I'm done tinkering. For real. This makes more sense, it's easy to understand and the quibbles we all have at this point seem minor and easy to bridge together to find some sort of resolution like pronto.

So really, that seems to make sense to me.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by TimGuru

OK Thank you, not hegemonic at all.

I especially like the rule of release only for the last year. I assume that means that if you offered a player option you can't release him in the last guaranteed year?

If you offer a player option, you can decline the option and release, yes. Just simpler that way. But you can't decline an option and re-sign the player, without releasing the player first. Let's just keep that consistent with the sign/release 24-hour rule.

Let's just drop incentives all together. It makes it easier for us to watch, keeps the mucky mucky out and since we don't REALLY know how much they affect things, it keeps the accounting simple.

On option years, Chief's comments make sense. I was just thinking under the realm of what folks had originally be saying. So to that end, based on his suggestion, let's do no more than 20% of the highest single year. Again, all on the honor system.

[Commo_Soldier]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

If you offer a player option, you can decline the option and release, yes. Just simpler that way. But you can't decline an option and re-sign the player, without releasing the player first. Let's just keep that consistent with the sign/release 24-hour rule.

I am not a big fan of this but will go along with it. We are getting rid of back loaded contracts so it is not like the void will to be getting rid of a back loaded contract. Second voiding an option year can happen at any point in the contract in real life and then be renegotiated. Voiding simply will allow him to be a free agent that year if not resigned, not an all out release as some here seem to think it is.

Finally just to clarify before export all these will be in effect tonight right?

[TimGuru]

More importantly, I would really like it if we could have an "official" post once it is felt that discussion is either over or fruitless to continue. In the long run, we can trust what DC and the BoD decide.

I'd suggest a new compendium of important rules and have all of us "sign" the thread.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier

I am not a big fan of this but will go along with it. We are getting rid of back loaded contracts so it is not like the void will to be getting rid of a back loaded contract. Second voiding an option year can happen at any point in the contract in real life and then be renegotiated. Voiding simply will allow him to be a free agent that year if not resigned, not an all out release as some here seem to think it is.

Finally just to clarify before export all these will be in effect tonight right?

That's true. I wasn't really a fan of the idea, I just wanted to float it anyway.

Honestly, it'd be hard to enforce anyway. Seems that not bothering with making rules against option year signings would make it easier and since there are rules on extensions and such, I'm a fan of keeping it status quo, in the vein of player declines being signed to massive deals, but still being guys you want to keep.

So we can weed this out.

And no, these rules wouldn't be enforced until at the earliest next season. Need to give people a grace period to release players, etc., but I don't think waiting another two seasons to do it makes a lot of sense, only if because with all of the rankling over the "way things are, etc.," it seems that getting the financial issues fixed and moving towards a new era in-game would be good.

The one-time exemption would be simple. Release who you want this season without any damages. The new financial rules would become enacted after the regular season ends, so extensions and future deals would be based on it, rather than the current circumstances.

It also limits the money out there, so player demands shouldn't be out of the world going forward.

If we've been trying to same thing for nearly 20 years and it's not gonna work, the only way to really test this is to do it and see how it works and then adapt it. I think the foundation of what I've come up with is 1) simple and 2) sound.

And the rest are just details we're fixing.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by TimGuru

More importantly, I would really like it if we could have an "official" post once it is felt that discussion is either over or fruitless to continue. In the long run, we can trust what DC and the BoD decide.

I'd suggest a new compendium of important rules and have all of us "sign" the thread.

I just want to get some sort of consensus. If folks feel the need to have a voting post, then I can post one and we can vote. I'll do that now. I don't know if we need to discuss much more, seems we're pretty much on the same page. I'm presenting this to everyone at the same time. Wasn't done on purpose, it just turned out that way, because the testing I did went in a different direction.

So we're all discovering this at the same time. I'm all for waiting another year (so starting in '81) to give people time to let it "digest" and to get used to what we have...i'm not trying to foist the ideas. I just wanted to post it and make sure we were all basically on the same page (or close), before going any further.

[Young Drachma]

So here are the rules as drawn up. I'll create a "proposal" post later that you all can vote on. Seems waiting another season to do it, would give people time to prepare, rather than giving them just a few days. So they'd take effect for the '81 season or next weekend after the season.

Ticket prices are $1.
Media media is set to $65 million
By doing that, each team's budget is at least $65 million, plus gate and playoff and merch, which isn't really all that much.
Cash maximum is $1.00

- Option years cannot be for more than 20% of the highest year of the contract

- Incentives are eliminated.

- Players cannot be released until the last year of their deal.

A one-time exemption for releasing players would be allowed in the September after the proposal passes.

[kaosfere]

Hmm. You went from limited incentives to banning them? I'm not sure I like this. I'm not going to vote it down because of that, but I'd like ask you, if I may, why you made the change. I don't see a problem with limited incentives, unless you're just worried about enforcement. (But, then, that would still be an issue with no incentives, just a little easier to see if it was happening.)

[Commo_Soldier]

Originally Posted by kaosfere

Hmm. You went from limited incentives to banning them? I'm not sure I like this. I'm not going to vote it down because of that, but I'd like ask you, if I may, why you made the change. I don't see a problem with limited incentives, unless you're just worried about enforcement. (But, then, that would still be an issue with no incentives, just a little easier to see if it was happening.)

I like incentives as well from the stand point that teams are probably not going to have more then $10 million to spend each season. So those that do not cut people can spend it on incentives, while those that cut frequently will have to save that room.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by kaosfere

Hmm. You went from limited incentives to banning them? I'm not sure I like this. I'm not going to vote it down because of that, but I'd like ask you, if I may, why you made the change. I don't see a problem with limited incentives, unless you're just worried about enforcement. (But, then, that would still be an issue with no incentives, just a little easier to see if it was happening.)

I was responding on the fly to comments to make it palatable to people.

I think it'd be easier to enforce if there were none at all. That was my logic.

I think also, once we get comfortable with the new system that we can roll out the things we used to have that we liked, like incentives.

Just seems it'd be better to get the big problem solved first, before trying to make it more complicated for ourselves.

That was my thinking...

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier

I like incentives as well from the stand point that teams are probably not going to have more then $10 million to spend each season. So those that do not cut people can spend it on incentives, while those that cut frequently will have to save that room.

I'm not opposed to incentives, for the record. I think they're fine. I'm just trying to tailor something together that we can pass now. That's sorta where I am. So...it seems the number between $2-5 million was the consensus. How about a $3 million cap on incentives?

[Commo_Soldier]

I am not sure there need to be any limitations on incentives. With these new rules the days that teams could really afford them are over. For example at $1 and selling out every game of a 50,000 seat stadium which I believe is the largest a team will make 3.6 million in ticket revenue and maybe 2 million in merchandise. So if I team wants to take a chance and possibly go negative and face penalties, why not allow them.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier

I am not sure there need to be any limitations on incentives. With these new rules the days that teams could really afford them are over. For example at $1 and selling out every game of a 50,000 seat stadium which I believe is the largest a team will make 3.6 million in ticket revenue and maybe 2 million in merchandise. So if I team wants to take a chance and possibly go negative and face penalties, why not allow them.

Incentives have one of the following possibilities:

1) Either they do have some effect, and thus having exploitative incentives that are unlikely to trigger but do have the effect are exploitative in nature and bad to have.

2) They do not have any effect, thus the banning of them all together has no effect other than possibly saving some teams some money.

3) They have limited effect, thus exploitive offers do not really gain much for the team, but risk causing them to bankrupt or go into ruin thus it is a tax on stupidity...


I'm not really sure that any of the above three warrant enough of a reason to allow them to stay in.

[ekcut]

My only issue with banning insentives, is the player requested ones....I think it will be easy to inadvertently hit the "meet demand" button, which includes an insentive.
Ignorance is not an excuse, but, well, it's a pretty darn good excuse I KNOW this will happen...

[ekcut]

Hmmmm...I PROPOSE to give new owners a $20,000,000 signing bonus to undo any mistakes the previous owner may have done. Because of the propose $1 cash limit, this bonus must be used in the 1st season. Thoughts?

[Young Drachma]

I've proposed:

- All Stadiums will be equalized at 40,000 seats.

We can envelope that into the proposal after the fact, as I can't imagine it being a deal breaker for anyone.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ekcut

Hmmmm...I PROPOSE to give new owners a $20,000,000 signing bonus to undo any mistakes the previous owner may have done. Because of the propose $1 cash limit, this bonus must be used in the 1st season. Thoughts?

Hmm...this is interesting. Not a bad idea, either. I like it.