Team owner controls budget

[dward1]

If this is set to yes, will teams spend more or less money than when it is set to no.

It's confusing me

[Bluenoser]

If it's set to yes, then your owner will control your budget, ie - how much $$$ you get.

Whether it's more or less depends on your owner.

If he's related to Ebenezer Scrooge, you probably won't get much.

If he's George Steinbrenner of the 70's and 80's, you'll probably get lots to spend.

[dward1]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

If it's set to yes, then your owner will control your budget, ie - how much $$$ you get.

Whether it's more or less depends on your owner.

If he's related to Ebenezer Scrooge, you probably won't get much.

If he's George Steinbrenner of the 70's and 80's, you'll probably get lots to spend.

I understand this but wondered how it actually plays out in practice

[slugga27]

If the owner doesn’t control the budget, all revenue is available to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dward1]

Originally Posted by slugga27

If the owner doesn’t control the budget, all revenue is available to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yes I understand this, but does anyone know if owners tend to add to revenue or take away revenue?

[progen]

Owners will definitely increase your budget. I've had this happen many times. You'll get an email, saying something like, after reviewing the teams finances, I'm increasing the budget from X to X.

I've had owners reduce my budget, but that is rare for me, as I keep my payroll on the lower side. You may have already seen this in the manual, but here's sort of an explanation.

Setting the Team Budget
By default, the team owner defines your annual team budget. As the GM, you have some influence over team finances - signing players and personnel, setting the scouting budget, setting ticket prices, etc. Generally, you cannot go over the budget that the owner has allotted. However, depending on the owner's personality, he or she may let you exceed your budget in certain circumstances. The team budget can be seen on the Finances page. The team budget is set each year on the day after the playoffs end. Owners set team budgets according to a combination of factors, including the team's financial state and the owner's personality.

[dward1]

Originally Posted by progen

Owners will definitely increase your budget. I've had this happen many times. You'll get an email, saying something like, after reviewing the teams finances, I'm increasing the budget from X to X.

I've had owners reduce my budget, but that is rare for me, as I keep my payroll on the lower side. You may have already seen this in the manual, but here's sort of an explanation.

Setting the Team Budget
By default, the team owner defines your annual team budget. As the GM, you have some influence over team finances - signing players and personnel, setting the scouting budget, setting ticket prices, etc. Generally, you cannot go over the budget that the owner has allotted. However, depending on the owner's personality, he or she may let you exceed your budget in certain circumstances. The team budget can be seen on the Finances page. The team budget is set each year on the day after the playoffs end. Owners set team budgets according to a combination of factors, including the team's financial state and the owner's personality.

yes but that's not clear as to whether owners will set budgets high or low. the other option "entire revenue available" seems to imply more money, but I just don't know how it plays out. the option isn't clear as to how it will effect the game

[jimmysthebestcop]

Originally Posted by dward1

yes but that's not clear as to whether owners will set budgets high or low. the other option "entire revenue available" seems to imply more money, but I just don't know how it plays out. the option isn't clear as to how it will effect the game

Too many owner types and without knowing them all you can't accurately state.

I would say if you have a happy generous owner the chances of going over budget increase. But if he is a penny pincher then you will have way less.

I'm not even sure of all the owner types. My "gut feeling" is entire revenue on the avg would give more while owner control could result in more or less. It would depend fully on owner personality and goals.

Example I've had a generous owner increase budget after a horrendous season but then make a future goal 3 years in advance to have a certain budget surplus. Which is kind of weird because the forecast had him increasing budget each year but then he wanted a surplus which would have overall been less budget. Then why increase budget 3 years?

But I guess that is more to do with the broken owner goals mechanics. I still leave them turned on for flavor. And owner goals might not be really "broken", it could be just that its implemented so basically that it can appear to broken.

It looks like most of them are just random I'm not sure what checks are involved. But it doesn't seem to check certain factors that should be considered. And it just spits out a goal that might have nothing to do with your organization really.

edit
setup a default league look at the Phillies and Padres. Phillies is generous while Padres is a penny pincher. Padres took in 220 million and their overall budget is 190 million. Phillies took in 230 million their budget is 264 million. I simmed 1 year. So if it was full budget the Padres would increase by 30 million while the Phillies would decrease by 30 million.

[jimmysthebestcop]

Sorry to keep adding stuff. Again if we are talking about a default MLB setup look at all of the small market teams most have awful owners. So all of their budgets are significantly lower then revenue.

Oakland had a 50 million difference in revenue and payroll. Their owner was "controlling". You also have economizer owner. So there is at least 3 owner types that reduce budget big time.

Baltimore has a generous owner so get about 10-20m more then revenue.

Economizer is really weird. Cubs and Red Sox have economizer. But red sox have higher budget then revenue while cubs goes the other way. So no idea how it works. It is also the most common owner type I just looked at every team.

The Dodgers revenue was 350 million in 2020 their budget being 3rd is only 286 million.Cards and Brewers both had generous owners but their budget was way lower then overall revenue. All the other charitable owners were slightly increased. These 2 seemed the only odd balls.

I would gather economizer is sometimes suppose to get you more and sometimes suppose to get you less it probably takes either other personality into account or something about city. Yankees was an economizer but had about 10-15 million more budget then revenue.

Overall the default setup has only a handful of teams getting their max budget all with generous or charitable owners. While the majority are economizers and other end are penny pinchers but both have severely reduced budgets against overall revenue.

So overall I would say to get more money into the payroll then you would either want all generous owners or "entire revenue available".

I'm assuming "owner control" is only there for MLB "Flavor" or extra challenge. Since most small markets have terrible owners. Not only is your overall revenue smaller but your owner is cutting off 10-30+ million on top of that. To me seems you would only want that for extra challenge.

As in real life each team gets 100 million from National TV deal but there isn't rule saying it has to go to payroll. But it can be used for other organizational costs.

That's my other problem with personnel cost. It comes out from the same budget number. Personnel cost 4 to 7 million. So not only are the small market teams making less revenue, have awful others that cut budget even further, they are forced to use their same budget to pay all of their minor league personnel. 4 to 7 million is 2 to 4 MLB starters the avg salary is around 3 million for mlb players.

I actually never looked into owner/budget that deeply. Now I'm not sure why it even exists. It gives a little flavor but cripples most teams and those teams are AI controlled. I could see if the option was owner controls budget for "HUMAN" teams. But why cripple the AI even more?

It makes perfect sense for human teams. Us players want more flavor and more challenge. While AI Tigers already have enough trouble should we really cripple them further by shaving off 20-30 million from payroll??????????

[jimmysthebestcop]

Ok so 1st is owner controlled while 2nd is full revenue.

[dward1]

Originally Posted by jimmysthebestcop

Ok so 1st is owner controlled while 2nd is full revenue.

excellent, thank you

[jimmysthebestcop]

Originally Posted by dward1

excellent, thank you

The brewer's had a 100 million swing. That's insane. Think I might switch to full revenue use.

I like the concept of owners for the human teams but for the AI why give them less money? It doesn't make much sense to me.

Before you brought this up I never paid that much attention to it. Figured the numbers would still be close but if you get a crazy number it's a gigantic difference.

I actually feel bad for the twins they won the 2020 series after I made a huge trade with them at the deadline to push them over the top. Their owner is shorting them about 80 million. I'm just about to start doing training the following year and they lost players cause they couldn't sign them. Well with 80 million less no wonder they couldn't extend their works series team. Pretty absurd.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by jimmysthebestcop

I actually feel bad for the twins they won the 2020 series after I made a huge trade with them at the deadline to push them over the top. Their owner is shorting them about 80 million. I'm just about to start doing training the following year and they lost players cause they couldn't sign them. Well with 80 million less no wonder they couldn't extend their works series team. Pretty absurd.

Maybe OOTP accurately models billionaires.

[dward1]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Maybe OOTP accurately models billionaires.

what's interesting is it's the opposite in soccer...billionaires sink millions into money-losing teams without return to try and improve teams

[jimmysthebestcop]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Maybe OOTP accurately models billionaires.

Doubtful. Its entire financials are completely outdated. The tv contracts make no sense. The team revenue and payroll are completely off.

Yankees revenue is almost 700 million in game it's 300M.

Ootp doesn't account for the teams own a huge portion of the local TV companies so it's local TV deals are enormous. That's the big difference between big and small market teams these days.

Plus certain revenue doesn't have to be used for payroll. Example the national TV doesn't have to be used for payroll. Every team gets 100 million.

And the majority of teams have less budget with the owner setting only handful more money. And less money could be 5 million to 100+ million. That sounds borderline broken.

For human teams who want extra challenge I get it. But not for AI teams.

So many things get implemented at the gm level and then it feels like they are forgotten.

Love ootp but sometimes it's like the more versions that cone out the more frustrating and disappointment follows

[ThePride87]

If I were to turn off budgets, that wouldn't break the game, right? I like the idea of rewarding the teams that profit with their full revenue instead of the owner taking some just to burn it out of existence (Like the Brewers example, nearly $100M gone because of a game mechanic). I play as the Tigers, so I wouldn't even feel like I'm cheating, my team isn't making $ right now. Would love to see a team like the Brewers not get their chances taken away like that.

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it....the whole budget idea is supposed to be seen as a challenge for the player, but in my case, I'm actually making it harder on myself by removing budgets...my team makes an extra $2M by doing so while others get $10M+.

[jimmysthebestcop]

Originally Posted by ThePride87

If I were to turn off budgets, that wouldn't break the game, right? I like the idea of rewarding the teams that profit with their full revenue instead of the owner taking some just to burn it out of existence (Like the Brewers example, nearly $100M gone because of a game mechanic). I play as the Tigers, so I wouldn't even feel like I'm cheating, my team isn't making $ right now. Would love to see a team like the Brewers not get their chances taken away like that.

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it....the whole budget idea is supposed to be seen as a challenge for the player, but in my case, I'm actually making it harder on myself by removing budgets...my team makes an extra $2M by doing so while others get $10M+.

Well you aren't turning off budgets just turning off the ability of the owner to control budgets.

Remember the the Detroit listed in my pic is the start of the 2021 season with the AI controlling the team. So that is why it is only 2 million difference. But say your 2nd or 3rd year with Detroit you make the playoffs and advance a round. Your team will generate several more million from those extra playoff games and typically if you are in a playoff race you have slightly higher interest which means more ticket sales in September. All that extra money you would never see in Detroit.

So maybe by 2023 it wouldn't be 2 million difference for but it could be 25+ million or maybe even more.

It is also half the reason some of the small market teams aren't as fun to do long term play throughs. Because if you do improve the owners just keep taking more money and your budget barely increases. Unless again you get a good owner. It might add to the challenge but it is certainly less fun for the human and def causes AI team budget problems.

The worst example is Tampa Bay the owner is charitable so should get more money while they actually get about 35 million less. So who is the owner generous too? He is also lenient and hands-off. So why is he destroying their budget. I mean a charitable owner to me seems like he should either give max money or money not 20%+ less money. Who is he charitable too?


Features like these get added and then are never looked at for versions and versions. So I'm not surprised about all of these little glitches or what have you.

Most teams have a huge budget difference. Look at #11 two different teams but its still a 50 million difference.

I am actually turning owner controls budget off on every league that its default on for. It makes no sense to me. The theory might be sound but again the execution is poor. Its the AI dictating things to the teams without any mechanics to effect the outcome. its an artificial difficulty increase for the human again no problem but its even worse for the AI.

I'm just frustrated that is took me like 4 versions to realize how bad this setting actually is.

[ThePride87]

I admit I'm not very educated on the ins and outs of OOTP's financials....I'm liking the idea of doing this. My only worry is would it cause certain teams to have too much surplus $ as time goes on? I've heard of certain settings that when handled incorrectly, it can greatly wreck the financial balance and sense of the league....my hope is that teams would go through the natural ups and downs in the standings and that financials would follow suit (example, Tigers were once one of the highest-spending teams. They've since fallen into the cellar, and now have one of the lower budgets due to expected loss of revenue).

[jimmysthebestcop]

Originally Posted by ThePride87

I admit I'm not very educated on the ins and outs of OOTP's financials....I'm liking the idea of doing this. My only worry is would it cause certain teams to have too much surplus $ as time goes on?

Max cash value has a hard cap in settings. I think 10 million is default I myself play with 30 million cash. So say the Cubs can't save 80 million a year in cash and just buy a dozen prospects the following year.

Some big teams might not get close to spending their budget but it all depends on how many pre arbitration players they have on their active squad that are good. The more of them teams have then the more surplus they will have but they can't carry to the next season.

But those BIG teams aren't really effected anyway. Notice the top 5 teams have basically the same money. Even teams 5-10 the difference isn't so big. And the bottom 5 get a little more money but they are still the bottom 5. So Its teams 11-25 that really change. After the top 10 teams there might only be 1 or 2 big market teams left. I think it gives those 11-25 teams a chance to be competitive with the big boys.

And once you get in several years in the future free agents ask for crazy money or extensions once arbitration ends.

[too_on_too_out]

Originally Posted by ThePride87

I admit I'm not very educated on the ins and outs of OOTP's financials....I'm liking the idea of doing this. My only worry is would it cause certain teams to have too much surplus $ as time goes on? I've heard of certain settings that when handled incorrectly, it can greatly wreck the financial balance and sense of the league.

Interesting you say this... I always play fictional leagues with owner decides for all teams. It seems too often what emerges is a team will just pull away after a bunch of seasons (20+ games over 2nd place). I didn't go into financials but maybe that's what causes it.