|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Dec 13, 2017 12:28:40 GMT -5
Just as a discussion point, how would adjusting stadium capacities help only struggling franchises? I don't believe it would change much actually. I think it would actually help the large budget teams more. I'm curious, how many small market clubs are sold out at $40 per ticket? I've been working toward that $40 mark in Cincinnati since I started in this league but I'm not there yet. I'm close but not there. Despite that, I've been able to increase my budget significantly. that's the thing, If you can sell out at $32/seat with a 38,000 seat stadium you will likely also sell out (or close to it) at say $28/seat with 50,000 seats. That is more revenue.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Dec 13, 2017 12:32:19 GMT -5
I don't believe it would change much actually. I think it would actually help the large budget teams more. I'm curious, how many small market clubs are sold out at $40 per ticket? I've been working toward that $40 mark in Cincinnati since I started in this league but I'm not there yet. I'm close but not there. Despite that, I've been able to increase my budget significantly. that's the thing, If you can sell out at $32/seat with a 38,000 seat stadium you will likely also sell out (or close to it) at say $28/seat with 50,000 seats. That is more revenue. My point remains, if people are concerned about budgets then they should have voted no on removing the $40 per ticket cap. Now teams like LA, SF, CIN, BOS, PIT, N.Y. Mets/Yankees etc. can now generate even more revenue which will negate any benefit a small market team would receive by removing the cap. I don't think you can really confirm what you are saying. I think fan interest has more to do with it than ticket price necessarily.
|
|
|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Dec 13, 2017 16:26:27 GMT -5
that's the thing, If you can sell out at $32/seat with a 38,000 seat stadium you will likely also sell out (or close to it) at say $28/seat with 50,000 seats. That is more revenue. My point remains, if people are concerned about budgets then they should have voted no on removing the $40 per ticket cap. Now teams like LA, SF, CIN, BOS, PIT, N.Y. Mets/Yankees etc. can now generate even more revenue which will negate any benefit a small market team would receive by removing the cap. I don't think you can really confirm what you are saying. I think fan interest has more to do with it than ticket price necessarily. I did vote no for the exact reason you gave. This though can be negated by a much higher luxury cap rate (i personally would love to see a 75% rate!!!)
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Dec 13, 2017 17:53:50 GMT -5
Just as a discussion point, how would adjusting stadium capacities help only struggling franchises? I don't believe it would change much actually. I think it would actually help the large budget teams more. I'm curious, how many small market clubs are sold out at $40 per ticket? I've been working toward that $40 mark in Cincinnati since I started in this league but I'm not there yet. I'm close but not there. Despite that, I've been able to increase my budget significantly. Current ticket price settings can be found on the StatsPlus >> Finances page. At present, OAK is set at $60.00 (perhaps set at that level for the playoffs) and BOS, LAN, MIN, and SFN are set at $40.00. Note also that five teams have ticket prices set lower than $20.00. For several years, I have been working to increase the ticket price to $40.00. Last season I stepped up the pace of the increases as the season progressed. The fans kept flocking to the ballpark and fan interest remained at 100. Given that the capacity of Dodger Stadium is about 14,500 seats greater than AT&T Park, we absolutely needed to increase revenue via increased ticket prices just to compete with the Dodgers. Their ticket price also is at $40.00, but at least we're hanging close to them in terms of wins & losses. The Dodgers budget is insane, but Wilson worked to increase it to the current level. The deep runs in the playoffs translated into huge profits. The owner rewarded Wilson for generating net profits by granting budget increases. He earned the $264m budget. He should be complimented. Which brings me back to past discussions. Winning is important, but in order to be successful GMs MUST pay attention to the financials. Playoff teams are "winning" teams that generally earn a net profit. Playoff revenue can be very significant. My Giants earned nearly $24m in playoff revenue last season driving our net profit to nearly $40m for the season. The owner rewarded us with a budget increase of $12m. I'm sure (without looking) the Dodgers earned even more playoff revenue over the last several seasons. And I'm sure the Dodgers earned huge net profits. However, the results of past research told me that a GM of a team that does not make the playoffs still can work to increase the budget over time if the team continually generates a net profit. Earning a net profit is one significant key to the long-term success of any franchise, regardless of whether a budget is large or small. Remember that a budget amount only addresses expenses. It is a spending guide. It is an important guide, but a GM also must consider revenue. Strive to increase revenue by attempting to increase attendance and by adjusting ticket prices to increase revenue. Strive to earn a net profit by controlling expenses to be lower than revenue, even if it means spending less than budgeted expenses. Regarding the 75% differential topic, the discussion has been about budget levels, but I think we should focus on revenue, which directly influences net profit. Over time, this focus also should indirectly influence budget levels. I believe a revised revenue sharing formula may help. Also, revising the share of gate sales distributed to visiting teams could help (my other league just changed from 20% to 50% - no historical data yet). Either of these should direct more of total league revenue to teams in need of a boost to help them become playoff contenders. Each of these could be instrumental in developing and maintaining a 75% differential between high and low revenue earning teams.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Dec 13, 2017 18:04:38 GMT -5
I confess to a bit of bias for the same reasons as Sean, so take the following with a grain of salt.
1) Baseball is a game of skewed finances, which means that richer teams are generally better.
2) Ergo, playing as a small market team is harder than playing as a big market team. There are exceptions, but this is generally the case.
3) It is impossible to compete with a $250 million team as a $50 million team. However it is certainly possible to, over many years, build your $50 million team into a $120-150 million team. A $150 million team can definitely compete with a $250 million team. At a disadvantage. But still.
I suppose I'll use myself as an example. When I took over in 2036 the A's had a $90 million payroll. We had some down years and I did some trimming and payroll dropped as low as $59 million. But after several profitable years and some success, I've had five straight years with $100+ million payrolls, culminating in $151 million this most recent year. Now Oakland has more to work with market-wise than Montreal. And I don't know if Montreal's market, even with five-plus years at 100 fan interest, could support a payroll at $150 mill. But my point is, Oakland is now tied for the 6th biggest budget in the league and they sure as heck aren't the 6th biggest market in the league.
Any team can be competitive if they're managed well over a long enough period of time.
The above doesn't change the fact that success is harder to come the smaller your market is.
A claim that it is impossible to compete as a small market team is inaccurate.
The discussion, if one merits having, is whether it is too hard to compete as a smaller market team. I personally don't think so, but I confess to a bit of bias. And I like to play smaller-market teams because I like the challenge.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Dec 13, 2017 18:06:05 GMT -5
I don't believe it would change much actually. I think it would actually help the large budget teams more. I'm curious, how many small market clubs are sold out at $40 per ticket? I've been working toward that $40 mark in Cincinnati since I started in this league but I'm not there yet. I'm close but not there. Despite that, I've been able to increase my budget significantly. Current ticket price settings can be found on the StatsPlus >> Finances page. At present, OAK is set at $60.00 (perhaps set at that level for the playoffs) and BOS, LAN, MIN, and SFN are set at $40.00. Note also that five teams have ticket prices set lower than $20.00. I changed them in the offseason. I didn't think I would have been allowed to have them above $40, even for the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Dec 13, 2017 18:10:59 GMT -5
Current ticket price settings can be found on the StatsPlus >> Finances page. At present, OAK is set at $60.00 (perhaps set at that level for the playoffs) and BOS, LAN, MIN, and SFN are set at $40.00. Note also that five teams have ticket prices set lower than $20.00. I changed them in the offseason. I didn't think I would have been allowed to have them above $40, even for the playoffs. I believe the game engine automatically increases ticket prices by 50% for the playoffs - your $60.00 price. I thought you might have done so manually for the playoffs. Either way, it's all good.
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Dec 13, 2017 19:08:13 GMT -5
However, the results of past research told me that a GM of a team that does not make the playoffs still can work to increase the budget over time if the team continually generates a net profit. Earning a net profit is one significant key to the long-term success of any franchise, regardless of whether a budget is large or small. I'm not sure this is true. The Warhounds have generated a net profit each of the last 3 seasons but have had our budget cut after each season. My biggest problem is attendance and fan interest. Despite charging some of the lowest ticket prices in the league $21.50 and somewhat of competitive record ( 2 straight .500 records) I have been unable to increase attendance.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Dec 13, 2017 19:10:10 GMT -5
However, the results of past research told me that a GM of a team that does not make the playoffs still can work to increase the budget over time if the team continually generates a net profit. Earning a net profit is one significant key to the long-term success of any franchise, regardless of whether a budget is large or small. I'm not sure this is true. The Warhounds have generated a net profit each of the last 3 seasons but have had our budget cut after each season. My biggest problem is attendance and fan interest. Despite charging some of the lowest ticket prices in the league $21.50 and somewhat of competitive record ( 2 straight .500 records) I have been unable to increase attendance. What's your fan interest rating?
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Dec 13, 2017 19:55:59 GMT -5
However, the results of past research told me that a GM of a team that does not make the playoffs still can work to increase the budget over time if the team continually generates a net profit. Earning a net profit is one significant key to the long-term success of any franchise, regardless of whether a budget is large or small. I'm not sure this is true. The Warhounds have generated a net profit each of the last 3 seasons but have had our budget cut after each season. My biggest problem is attendance and fan interest. Despite charging some of the lowest ticket prices in the league $21.50 and somewhat of competitive record ( 2 straight .500 records) I have been unable to increase attendance. Mac, it doesn't always happen, but I simulated about 30 seasons and most of the time budgets remained about the same or increased the year after teams (playoff and non-playoff) earned a net profit. To the question Sean asked, I did not record fan interest. Fan interest probably plays a part, but I don't have a feel for the impact.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Dec 13, 2017 20:02:34 GMT -5
I'm not sure this is true. The Warhounds have generated a net profit each of the last 3 seasons but have had our budget cut after each season. My biggest problem is attendance and fan interest. Despite charging some of the lowest ticket prices in the league $21.50 and somewhat of competitive record ( 2 straight .500 records) I have been unable to increase attendance. Mac, it doesn't always happen, but I simulated about 30 seasons and most of the time budgets remained about the same or increased the year after teams (playoff and non-playoff) earned a net profit. To the question Sean asked, I did not record fan interest. Fan interest probably plays a part, but I don't have a feel for the impact. No problem Tim, the reason I was asking was because fan interest is also important too. It would be hard to stay interested if your team was floating around .500 for 3 years...just sayin... The reason I asked about ticket prices is because people were saying that removing the cap would help small market teams. Thanks for providing that link, I think it helps show that just really isn't true.
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Dec 13, 2017 20:36:15 GMT -5
My fan interest is the mid 50s and spend much of last year at 48-49
|
|
|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Dec 14, 2017 8:45:46 GMT -5
So how about we create a floor of at least average media market size. This will help get more butts in the seats for the small market teams?
Also the Luxury Tax, say increase it at a rate of 10% per year for the next three years?
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Dec 14, 2017 8:55:31 GMT -5
So how about we create a floor of at least average media market size. This will help get more butts in the seats for the small market teams? Also the Luxury Tax, say increase it at a rate of 10% per year for the next three years? We need to do something before upping the visitors share % for sure. Our division mates who don’t mind that part well will “tank” and drag your ass down with them.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Dec 14, 2017 9:48:59 GMT -5
As the person who started this, I am quite happy to continue working on the Expos to hopefully get them pointed in the right direction. In fact if we are NOT " just about there" over the next season or two, then I am not sure when ( or if ) we will be! If things begin to click, the fan interest rises, the market size possibly bumps back up - it just dropped on me - and the budget starts to go up, then I'm good with that. And, also as the person that started this thread, I personally think the last thing the league should do (as I mentioned a couple of times) is just take a wild stab at "trying to fix things". If there was a DO THIS and it would positively impact the lowest end teams without also helping the top teams get even bigger and badder, then obviously Ron could evaluate something like that as being a good thing for the league. Speaking only for myself, I'm not sure you'd want to do it change several settings and potentially send things even further out of alignment (top to bottom franchises). Ron has made several changes already this off-season. Let's just see how things play out!
|
|