Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch Alexander
In the OOTP 23 example the total expenses in your budget are $10,230,750. The available money for FA is $3,269,250. These two figures add up to exactly $13,500,000. This is your budget plus your starting balance. So available money is: (budget + starting balance) - total expenses. In OOTP 24 the listed available money is calculated differently: (revenue subtotal + starting balance) - total expenses.
The fact that the revenue sharing is listed under last year has zero bearing on the calculations. Revenue sharing is effectively received in the off season. In the past this figure was added to next year and in OOTP 24 it is added to last year. Both are fine, it doesn't matter where you add the total. The only thing that matters is your starting balance for the upcoming year. And as you can see in both OOTP23 and OOTP24 this is exactly the same: $500,000.
So your finances are exactly the same in both versions. The only thing that has changed is how the available money is calculated. The calculation in OOTP24 makes a lot more sense, the budget of $13,000,000 seems way too high, far exceeding the expected revenue.
And you haven't actually received revenue sharing: every last penny and more has gone into your owners pockets.
|
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment but perhaps I am not understanding it fully.
The budget of 13m is obviously higher than the revenue. But that is the point of revenue sharing right?
The total revenue for the team was: 9,937,723.
Without revenue sharing in place, the team could expect a budget of probably 9.9 or 10m.
But they gained $2,985,517 via revenue sharing as they were near the bottom of the overall revenue earners.
That 2.9 number plus the 9.9 number comes out to be 12,923,240. Which is how the budget of 13m occurs.
This is a "entire revenue available" league setting. So revenue sharing should go toward a revenue line item, not to the owner. Otherwise you're not accomplishing anything with revenue sharing within this type of setup.