Can we get a way to just turn budgets off?

[Cliche]

Even when owner budgets are turned off, each team still gets a wildly different budget for the next season (and a projected budget for the season after that, etc).

I play in a very competitive league where we like to have the financial freedom to make the moves you want to make, but you must of course live with the consequences. So maybe you can sign your star player to that insane contract he wants, but it will restrict you in other ways.

We just want the ability to spend in accordance to the revenue generated by the teams, rather than an arbitrary budget set by the game.

In older versions, there were work-arounds to this. They were a pain, but it was doable. Now with the "projected future budget" factoring directly in to contract math, that isn't really possible.

Why is OOTP so hell bent on enforcing imaginary budgets, even when you turn them off?

[mikev]

+p90x

[mad0die]

+1

Or at the very least allow us to edit the projected future budget amount.

TheGUBA hardcodes a high budget for everyone because we can't turn them off, but now we have a mess with these future predicted budgets that impact how much you have available to spend on extensions.

[Green & Gold Heart]

Originally Posted by mad0die

Or at the very least allow us to edit the projected future budget amount.

This x 1,000,0000

[als799]

yup

[JohnHoward]

Well, here's a case where things are "realistic". In the real world, no, you just can't "turn budgets off".

On the other hand, if it's too tight for you, just go into commisioner mode and adjust the budget yourself to whatever you want. Easy to do.

[mikev]

Originally Posted by JohnHoward

Well, here's a case where things are "realistic". In the real world, no, you just can't "turn budgets off".

On the other hand, if it's too tight for you, just go into commisioner mode and adjust the budget yourself to whatever you want. Easy to do.

1. It's an online league, not a solo league.

2. There is simply no reason that turning budgets off should be an impossible thing to do.

[JohnHoward]

Originally Posted by mikev

1. It's an online league, not a solo league.

2. There is simply no reason that turning budgets off should be an impossible thing to do.

1. Yes, I understand.

2. Except that is "unrealistic". Mind you, the "unrealistic" arguments always bug me. I happen to agree with you. I'm just making a separate point about what people usually complain about. I'm on your side.

[Cooleyvol]

JH, as commish, you cannot adjust next year's projected budget.


+1 on this thread's request.

[JohnHoward]

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

JH, as commish, you cannot adjust next year's projected budget.


+1 on this thread's request.

Right, you can only do this year's, got it.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

JH, as commish, you cannot adjust next year's projected budget.


+1 on this thread's request.

Just submitted this as a feature/bug report. Control, especially in the online league setting, certainly seems appropriate looking into future budgets.

I don't 'think' the online area and online central will be tackled in the very near future, but likely after Markus' retreat. Regardless, at least it's there waiting for him at that time.

[Charlie Hough]

OOTP is actually calculating REAL budgets and not fictional ones. It's taking into account the future value of player contracts. Since they tend to rise as each year progresses, your payroll will increase each year. Plus you have to pay out any bonuses as well. So OOTP is calculating the REAL value of your payroll for subsequent seasons, and it's budgeting accordingly.

This is realistic. The way that this should be addressed is that there should be a feature added to request additional investment by the ownership beyond the current and projected funds that are available. An owner has the option to approve that kind of spending in real life, but a GM does NOT have the authority to write checks for more than the current and projected costs on the books. That requires permission and possible investment from the ownership.

So even if the game is set up so the owner does NOT determine the budget, the human GM should still have to seek approval to go beyond the full budget. Think about it: you're asking the game to allow you to use MORE than the club's entire funds available to spend on players. This is literally impossible in the real world without seeking a loan or asking for a cash injection by the ownership.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Why not simply use the option to make the total budget available and not based on the owner setting it? Or are you already doing that?

I get the impression that doing that still doesn't control or account for the future variance in budget projections. I get your thoughts on it, though, Charlie. I've linked the thread, but maybe you could add those ideas to the PT?

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by endgame

Charlie. I've linked the thread, but maybe you could add those ideas to the PT?

Done. I've also included warnings about what will happen if you simply make it possible for leagues to turn off budgets. When their GM's drive spending to astronomical heights and then get poor results and plunge their teams into financial ruin, those GM's will simply quit the league and leave the commissioner with the task of finding replacements. And you're not going to find many people willing to invest their time in a team that could take several seasons to get out of the red.

It's a shortsighted idea. But if it's regulated by realistic requirements and the AI owner gets to make the final judgment based on team finances, the GM's track record, and the team's performance trends on the field, then I would endorse it.

[Cliche]

I'm not trying to build a "realistic" relationship between myself as a GM and an imaginary ownership entity.

I'm trying to run the team that I essentially own and GM (GM's do not set ticket prices, for example) in the way that I choose. That's the way we play in the GUBA. Sink or swim, you make your own financial choices. You run the franchise as you see fit, and if you can't extend a guy, or sign free agents, or pay for scouting... on your head be it.

To me the easiest thing would seem to be to either make projected budget's editable just like current year budgets... or just have budgets actually get turned off when you opt to turn off owner budgets.

We have a well-established base of owners, many of whom have been playing together for a decade. We're not worried about a rogue GM leaving a team in a lurch. We just want the financial freedom to make our own choices and live with them.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by Cliche

I'm not trying to build a "realistic" relationship between myself as a GM and an imaginary ownership entity.

I'm trying to run the team that I essentially own and GM (GM's do not set ticket prices, for example) in the way that I choose. That's the way we play in the GUBA. Sink or swim, you make your own financial choices. You run the franchise as you see fit, and if you can't extend a guy, or sign free agents, or pay for scouting... on your head be it.

To me the easiest thing would seem to be to either make projected budget's editable just like current year budgets... or just have budgets actually get turned off when you opt to turn off owner budgets.

We have a well-established base of owners, many of whom have been playing together for a decade. We're not worried about a rogue GM leaving a team in a lurch. We just want the financial freedom to make our own choices and live with them.

Have to forgive my ignorance of online protocol when I ask, what extra pressures does this imply for your commish? Doesn't he, as a result, end up assuming, essentially, the role of owner? How does he mitigate with a sense of fairness- or for that matter knowledge -to each team? What, in a range of payrolls and budgets, constitutes a reasonable ceiling to succeed or fail within? Isn't it natural that, regardless, the financials eventually will rise to that ceiling, even it were uniform across the league?

[Cliche]

Originally Posted by endgame

Have to forgive my ignorance of online protocol when I ask, what extra pressures does this imply for your commish? Doesn't he, as a result, end up assuming, essentially, the role of owner? How does he mitigate with a sense of fairness- or for that matter knowledge -to each team? What, in a range of payrolls and budgets, constitutes a reasonable ceiling to succeed or fail within? Isn't it natural that, regardless, the financials eventually will rise to that ceiling, even it were uniform across the league?

Every team gets the same "budget" under the current OOTP (we've been using 130 million). It's set up that way to allow every team to spend how they want to. Teams spending is governed by the revenue they can generate for themselves. We don't acknowledge the imaginary role of "owner". That's why we turn owner budgets off.

That allows every team to compete from the same starting point. Whether you're a rebuilding team with low revenue and low payroll, or a contender with high revenue and high payroll. If you have the revenue to spend, you can spend. If you don't, then you can't. Bear in mind that the league has been running for about 27 seasons now, so everybody is quite comfortable with the way things are run. We've only really ever had one owner screw a team and bail, and that was back when OOTP2007 came out when the GUBA started.

Really, if there was just a way to turn budgets off or edit the projected budget stuff, we could continue as we always have. As of now, we are having to explore new work-arounds.

I'm not sure if I really answered all your questions... certainly payrolls will eventually rise towards (and above) that 130 million dollar mark. But at that point, teams are already past their revenue ceiling so they are in a place where they have to make decisions about their team, or face financial restrictions (like not being able to sign extensions, or have a scouting budget, etc). The last few seasons we've had a few teams in the 120-130 range. They generally don't stay there more than a season or two because it's not financially sustainable for the long-term. The max revenue you can really generate with our league is in the 110 million range, with some cash added possible due to the fact that we are a writing league that rewards participation. So even spending to 130 million is not realistic long-term. That's why we picked the number actually.

[CatKnight]

Question - and I may be completely on the wrong track:

Couldn't you just edit everyone to maximum market size, fan base and loyalty? Wouldn't that boost everyone's "available" budget well above the $130m threshold?

For that matter, and again I may be completely off, if the 'owner' says no to a certain deal could the commissioner force it through?

[mad0die]

Originally Posted by CatKnight

Question - and I may be completely on the wrong track:

Couldn't you just edit everyone to maximum market size, fan base and loyalty? Wouldn't that boost everyone's "available" budget well above the $130m threshold?

For that matter, and again I may be completely off, if the 'owner' says no to a certain deal could the commissioner force it through?

None of those are the problem at hand.

OOTP allows us to edit team budgets.

OOTP does not allow us to edit future projected team budgets.

Therefore there is a disconnect and your ability to extend players is severely compromised.

[Cooleyvol]

The only fix is to add cash to the club. Merely a band-aid, IMO however.


I'd love to play with a cap # bumped against gates/merchandising without all this budget interference.