|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Aug 20, 2015 20:07:06 GMT -5
I'm new and just took over the Tigers. Am I over budget? If so how long do I have to fix it? Check the Projected Budget Room amount found on the Team >> Front Office >> Finances >> Budget Information display. If it is a positive amount you are fine.
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Aug 20, 2015 20:08:09 GMT -5
How about this as an idea?
We just let the endgame financials do their thing people can do whatever they want.
But at the end of the year if your team had a loss then you have to get your team in the green in the projected lost balance column and until you do that that team cannot make any transactions including minor-league extensions etc.
If at the end of the year your team made a profit then great all is well who cares what all the other stuff is
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Aug 20, 2015 20:11:42 GMT -5
How about this as an idea? We just let the endgame financials do their thing people can do whatever they want. But at the end of the year if your team had a loss then you have to get your team in the green in the projected lost balance column and until you do that that team cannot make any transactions including minor-league extensions etc. If at the end of the year your team made a profit then great all is well who cares what all the other stuff is How about this...we enforce the rules as they are written? If you don't like them, discuss in the offseason. I've complied by the rules, why should anyone else not have to? If you're over budget, you are at a clear advantage over the teams that are following the rules.
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Aug 20, 2015 20:13:13 GMT -5
How about this as an idea? We just let the endgame financials do their thing people can do whatever they want. But at the end of the year if your team had a loss then you have to get your team in the green in the projected lost balance column and until you do that that team cannot make any transactions including minor-league extensions etc. If at the end of the year your team made a profit then great all is well who cares what all the other stuff is How about this...we enforce the rules as they are written? If you don't like them, discuss in the offseason. I've complied by the rules, why should anyone else not have to? If you're over budget, you are at a clear advantage over the teams that are following the rules. I'm not suggesting a rule change this year I'm suggesting something for next year man.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Aug 20, 2015 20:17:04 GMT -5
When did projected loss of profit become a factor in this rule? It isn't a factor when determining whether or not a GM is in compliance with the rule. Net profit/loss is, however, what the owner is concerned with. When a team earns a profit the owner invariably is happy. When a team loses money the owner is not happy and the GM is subject to his wrath via a reduced budget and sometimes negative cash (i.e., debt) that make it difficult to sign free agents, sign extensions, etc. So how does that have anything to do with the discussion of the current rule? In the past, Derek has made teams dump players to meet the rule and penalized ones who didn't comply. We have about a third of the league according to Derek that have complied with the rule. Those teams shouldn't be penalized by not enforcing the rules that they followed but the rest of the league didnt. Yes, I realize scouting budgets got change for some people and I feel like they should have leeway in terms of the $3.5 mil range if their budget amount was changed. That being said, if they are at $6 mil over budget, they shouldn't be able to not have to balance their budget (get rid of $2.5mil).
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Aug 20, 2015 20:19:36 GMT -5
How about this...we enforce the rules as they are written? If you don't like them, discuss in the offseason. I've complied by the rules, why should anyone else not have to? If you're over budget, you are at a clear advantage over the teams that are following the rules. I'm not suggesting a rule change this year I'm suggesting something for next year man. Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant. Totally, fine with discussing this idea in the offseason. Just concerned here for this season and having an level playing field.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Aug 20, 2015 21:59:07 GMT -5
There is a clear problem here and one that needs to be fixed but we have to be realistic and put our egos aside and do whats best for the entire league.
We have had teams over budget before but not to this level.
When 21 of the 32 teams are OVER budget this means there is a disconnect somewhere.
To tell teams its simple to get under budget, we need to be realistic as well. Of the 11 teams UNDER budget, they are a combined $95,157,828 under. So there is money there for them to take some contracts on, IF there are contracts they deem worthy BUT....
Of the 21 teams over budget, they are a combined -$189,928,706 over budget.
So even if the teams with budget space MAX OUT their budgets to get good players to help them win now, teams will still be over budget by a combined 95 million.
Put the egos aside here and the I followed the rule so punish those who didn't and lets realize this is a concern that needs to be addressed NOW, not when off-season is here and we 'can change a rule'. There is most certainly some confusion and looking at teams over budget, I completely believe that even more so.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Aug 20, 2015 22:16:48 GMT -5
There is a clear problem here and one that needs to be fixed but we have to be realistic and put our egos aside and do whats best for the entire league. We have had teams over budget before but not to this level. When 21 of the 32 teams are OVER budget this means there is a disconnect somewhere. To tell teams its simple to get under budget, we need to be realistic as well. Of the 11 teams UNDER budget, they are a combined $95,157,828 under. So there is money there for them to take some contracts on, IF there are contracts they deem worthy BUT.... Of the 21 teams over budget, they are a combined -$189,928,706 over budget. So even if the teams with budget space MAX OUT their budgets to get good players to help them win now, teams will still be over budget by a combined 95 million. Put the egos aside here and the I followed the rule so punish those who didn't and lets realize this is a concern that needs to be addressed NOW, not when off-season is here and we 'can change a rule'. There is most certainly some confusion and looking at teams over budget, I completely believe that even more so. Can you specifically say what number you are looking at? Based on your earlier posts I am guessing it is the Season Profit/Loss on the Accounting page. That matches the "Project Balance" on the financial reports on the website. That has never been the number we have used. We have always used "Projected Budget Room" in the Budget information section in Front Office/Finances. That number is not viewable on the reports. You say 21 teams are over budget but I have to believe the number is much lower. Am I wrong? Have you looked at that number for each individual team?
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Aug 20, 2015 22:40:14 GMT -5
There is a clear problem here and one that needs to be fixed but we have to be realistic and put our egos aside and do whats best for the entire league. We have had teams over budget before but not to this level. When 21 of the 32 teams are OVER budget this means there is a disconnect somewhere. To tell teams its simple to get under budget, we need to be realistic as well. Of the 11 teams UNDER budget, they are a combined $95,157,828 under. So there is money there for them to take some contracts on, IF there are contracts they deem worthy BUT.... Of the 21 teams over budget, they are a combined -$189,928,706 over budget. So even if the teams with budget space MAX OUT their budgets to get good players to help them win now, teams will still be over budget by a combined 95 million. Put the egos aside here and the I followed the rule so punish those who didn't and lets realize this is a concern that needs to be addressed NOW, not when off-season is here and we 'can change a rule'. There is most certainly some confusion and looking at teams over budget, I completely believe that even more so. Egos aside? Really? It's not that hard to check your financials. Why should you or any other gm for that matter get the benefit of out bidding other gms for players or the ability to keep a player instead of following a rule? The bigger question is why have people stopped following the rules?
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Aug 20, 2015 22:44:27 GMT -5
Don't make it a battle man. People are obviously confused by the rules. And by The new system in the game.
A solution will be found it always is.
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Aug 20, 2015 22:59:02 GMT -5
I call bullshit on that. It's not as confusing as its being made out to be. Especially the part where player salaries exceed team budgets. I don't see the debate there. Is there verification of 21 team being over?
Just looking off reports and even adding on 10-15 million for scouting/development there aren't that many teams over. KC and Tampa are receiving 10+ mil towards player salaries so that lessens theirs
Unless it was stated before this offseason that we were scrapping the under budget rule, which we discussed, and decided to keep it as usual. To switch it now does a massive disservice to the league not only for this year but as I've previously stated teams make moves years in advance to adhere to this rule.
Can we atleast take a league vote instead of the teams over budget telling everyone else to hush up?
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Aug 20, 2015 23:03:43 GMT -5
By the way I'm not a team over budget.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Aug 20, 2015 23:20:50 GMT -5
Don't make it a battle man. People are obviously confused by the rules. And by The new system in the game. A solution will be found it always is. Don't make this a battle? There is no battle. You either enforce the rules or you don't. No one should be above following the basic rules of a league. There's a difference between being $3.5 over because of the scouting budget and being higher than that. You can't argue that the teams that are over budget don't have an advantage over the teams that are under.
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Aug 20, 2015 23:58:03 GMT -5
If we moved Cash from $10mil max down to $2mil max could we not just let the game run it?
If teams continue to run deficits year after year their owners will just lower their budgets. But if a team decides to go into the red trying to "go for it" and wins I'm sure the playoff will makeup for any losses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 0:11:12 GMT -5
Here is how the Dodgers budget is broken down.
2035 budget from owner = 146,000,000m Projected expenses subtotal = 129,385,261 Projected budget room = +16,614,739m Projected profit/loss = -9,645,406
The way I look at it my owner gave me 146m that I can spend and i am projected to spend 129m of it so it doesn't matter if I make a profit or not. I will be punished by my owner if he doesn't like that we are not making a profit by lowering my budget for the next year. In the end all that should matter is that we stay under what our owners gave us as a budget or what is the purpose of having a budget at all. If I wanted to make a profit I would have a total expense of 118.1m this year just to break even. That means I would have to be 27.9m below the budget I was given. That is a massive amount. You could sign 2-3 impact players or max out player development If your in rebuild mode. I believe I have been responsible with my team being 16m under my budget even though I won't make a profit due to rebuilding my team which my owner set for me under team focus.
|
|