Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange
Bit of a difficult question since the financial system is a highly interconnected entity, but the biggest general change is to bring revenue and expenses into balance.
Right now, you either have to choose between realistic revenue numbers or realistic payroll numbers; you can't have both because OOTP does not model at all the myriad of other expenses real clubs have. These real expenses would be such things as spring training, club travel, stadium operations, advertising and marketing, minor league operations, general and administrative costs, etc. In OOTP nearly all of a team's expenses are its players; in real life, on average, player payroll is closer to roughly 50% on average. This mismatch between revenue and expenses makes it a lot harder to tune OOTP's financial world against real-life examples.
The question is, which, if any, of these other areas of expense should be directly controllable by the user? Even if one answers 'none' (an answer I'd agree with, other than perhaps minor league operations) these expenses can still be abstracted based on real data so as to provide realistic levels of revenue against which player expenses can be adjusted.
When both revenues and expenses have realistic-looking values, whether for today's baseball environment or that of sixty years ago, it becomes a lot easier to see if everything is balanced and working correctly.
|
The minor financials however are conflated a bit, because there are independent revenue streams associated with those operations, right?
And I agree, I wouldn't want control over those other expenses. And to that, another question is when you are given your budget from ownership, it never squares with revenue; so that being the case, the question: is it a matter of you getting that budget, which already incorporates those costs, and further, you are only allowed control over direct "baseball-operations" such as payroll, development, scouting, etc...once you do get that budget?