Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch Alexander
The financial situation in both versions is basically the same. Both show a starting balance of $4.036,054 and starting balance is all that matters. The budget estimates for the upcoming seasons (2032, 2033) is based on this years (2031) projected revenue. The difference is that in OOTP24 revenue sharing is added to the previous year, so the projected budgets for 2032 and 2033 also show no revenue sharing. This is what causes the difference in projected budgets between 22 and 24.
|
So lets just put aside all the questions for now. I get what you're saying. I get the function of the game and accounting has changed. But I still think something is wrong in a revenue share model where revenue dictates your budget.
OOTP24 calculates $ for free agents as Starting Balance + Revenue Subtotal - Expenses
So in the attached example it's
$3,776,184 + 6,568,819 - 7,595,000 = $2,750,003. Spot on.
Then shouldn't Money for Extensions be the same calculation?
OOTP24 calculates extension $ as Projected Budget - Expenses. But that projected budget is based entirely off of the assumption that there is no rev share.
If Revenue Sharing does not enter the budget process until the year is done, then every year a team like this who is receiving revenue share funds will have to operate on a year to year basis.
If this team's projected starting balance is $4,426,184 then shouldn't that be added to the revenue line of 6,568,819 to make a total of 10,995,003. And then subtract expenses $9,927,800 and you get $1,067,203 for extensions - instead of $0
I can't wrap my head around why Year 1 money uses balance + revenue minus expenses. A perfectly reasonable formula. But year 2 would use Budget - Expenses when that budget is based on revenue before revenue sharing.