Revenue Sharing Not Working Properly?

[coljesep]

My league has budgets that are controlled by revenue and we have a 35% revenue sharing process.

There is an issue with this regarding playoff revenue, but for now I want to share a point that I think OOTP24 does wrong and needs to be fixed to improve gameplay.

In the attached image, that is a screenshot of 22 versus 24. Same team, same time etc.

What I believe is being done wrong here is, the amount to spend is not treating the money received via budgeting as gained revenue in the budget.

So in 22, the team would have 3,258,750 to spend in free agent money due to the revenue sharing.

But in 24, they are in the negative because that revenue-sharing payment is not allocated to the budget and essentially is not useable.

This is a big gameplay issue. I don't think I am missing something here in terms of logistics.

[coljesep]

Another example.

You can see here the team gained 2.9m in revenue sharing in 22 but in 24 that money is only in the budget, its not anywhere in the accounting field as usable revenue for this year or impacting next year.

So the revenue shared in 24 is worthless.

The opposite happens also. Teams that gave up a bunch in revenue share, are able to spend $ like they didn't.

[coljesep]

Doing more digging it just seems pretty simple that, at least in a "Entire Revenue Available" budgeting system, that the accounting tab and budget process are not aligned.

Revenue Gained from sharing is not counted anywhere as "revenue available" for the current year OR projected for the next year which would impact extensions etc.

I am wondering if the new way Cash is baked into the budget is impacting things, if the cash max is lower than what was received via revenue sharing?

This is a pretty critical feature that needs attention.

[coljesep]

I ran a new test, and re-processed everything just to make things perfectly clear that from 23 to 24 something doesn't add up and it's the Revenue Share total is not baked into the revenue that controls the budget.

Here are 3 shots on the same date, from each version 22 to 23 to 24. You can see in 24 pretty clearly that the Revenue Sharing line is gone and so is the useable money.

The first screenshot is OOTP22 the day before the 2031 offseason. There was no revenue sharing in 2030.
The second image is OOTP22 on the first day of the 2031 offseason, with a 35% revenue share in place.
The third image is what that team has to spend in OOTP22 after the revenue sharing. As you can see the revenue gain: 2.985m is being added to the available spending for the current and future seasons.

The fourth screenshot is OOTP23, on the same day as the second and third image above. As you can see, the revenue share add of 2.985m is being applied to the available spend for the current and future seasons.

Finally, the last group is OOTP24 on the same day. As you can see the revenue sharing is listed in 2030 (which as mentioned, we didn't have rev sharing in 2030), and then it is not being carried over to 2031 or future years.

[kidd_05_u2]

In the one screenshot without revenue sharing you are still in 2030 for accounting purposes. In the others you are in 2031, and when you are in 2031, revenue-sharing is counted in each case and the budget+cash balance is the same.

I suggest you label the screenshots so we can tell better which is which, provide screenshots that are all from the 2031 season, and also take a screenshot from the finances options page if you can.

Also, there may be a visual bug when it says you have very little money for free agents. I have been following the bugs for 2024, but it may be worth testing if you can actually spend up to your budget or not.

[coljesep]

As you can see in the final screenshot which is from 24, the Revenue Sharing $ amount of 2.9m is idling in the 2030 accounting line.

But it should be moved over to 2031 and then future budgets as well. It shouldn't be in 2030.

For starters, we didn't have rev sharing in 2030. But secondly, even if we did - that $ should still be represented in the 2031 new season revenue.

[coljesep]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

In the one screenshot without revenue sharing you are still in 2030 for accounting purposes. In the others you are in 2031, and when you are in 2031, revenue-sharing is counted in each case and the budget+cash balance is the same.

I suggest you label the screenshots so we can tell better which is which, provide screenshots that are all from the 2031 season, and also take a screenshot from the finances options page if you can.

Also, there may be a visual bug when it says you have very little money for free agents. I have been following the bugs for 2024, but it may be worth testing if you can actually spend up to your budget or not.

See above, I added explainers to each screenshot in the post above this one.

[coljesep]

I did check to see if it was purely visual. It's not. I am editing this because I was in another test file where I switched budgets to be owner controlled.

When I go to offer a free agent money, the $ available matches the front office page.

It seems to be the issue is specific to

1. Revenue Sharing funds not being applies to revenue for the current and projected years
2. Leagues where entire revenue is available

Because in the "owner controls budget" the $ received and being applied to the prior year's books is fine because at the end of the day the owner is deciding what the budget should be anyway.

But applying it to last year's books for revenue available, doesn't work because right now the game is saying that team does not have the revenue in the current year, nor are they projected to get it in the future.

[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.

[Dutch Alexander]

The issue is not the available money, it is the budget: $13,000,000 makes no sense. Look at your budgets from last year and next year (projected) with the same starting balance. These budgets make a lot more sense in regard to total revenue.

[Dutch Alexander]

With a more realistic budget of around $10,000,000 the available money in the OOTP23 calculations would be about the same as in OOTP24. As long as the budget is correct it doesn't matter how you calculate the available money, it will be about the same. In your game somehow the budget is wrong resulting in a wrong calculation of the available money. The OOTP24 calculation of $176,223 is correct, the OOTP23 calculation of $3,269,250 is wrong caused by a wrong budget. Not sure what happened to your budget.

[kidd_05_u2]

I guess the problem here is: why is the owner taking cash out when the entire revenue (presumably including revenue sharing) is being made available?

Coljesep, I think it is worth simming a full year with OOTP24 to see how that shakes out. My guess is that you changed settings too late, which creates a conflict with how financials changed for OOTP24

[coljesep]

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.

[coljesep]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

There were some changes in financials that may create problems for imported games, especially if you changed the settings too late (you changed both revenue-sharing rules and "owner sets budget" right?).

It may be worth simming a full season on OOTP24 to see how the revenue sharing impacts the budget for the following year. I think the owner shouldn't be taking cash out if entire revenue is made available

No, all we did is add revenue sharing before the offseason began. We have always been "entire revenue available"

[coljesep]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

I guess the problem here is: why is the owner taking cash out when the entire revenue (presumably including revenue sharing) is being made available?

Right - and that issue being created by attributing the revenue share to the prior year's line item rather than the current new year.

We have a cash max of $500,000. So any dollar over $500,000 in the remaining balance is going to go away from the game - or "in the owners pocket."

So because OOTP24 is applying that revenue share gain to the prior year's budget, the owner is taking it instead of applying it to the available spending in the upcoming year.

And in a "entire revenue available" league, taking revenue away that is gained, or not taking it away when its lost - makes revenue sharing obsolete.

[Dutch Alexander]

Originally Posted by coljesep

We have a cash max of $500,000. So any dollar over $500,000 in the remaining balance is going to go away from the game - or "in the owners pocket."

That is your problem then. Revenue sharing is extra cash to spend. If you limit the maximum ammount of cash you immediately lose it again. The only time your owner will take away money with "entire revenue available" is when you have a cash limit. The owner takes away the ammount needed to arrive at $500,000.

The only way to make revenue sharing work is to get rid of a cash limit or to raise the maximum amount.

[coljesep]

Originally Posted by Dutch Alexander

That is your problem then. Revenue sharing is extra cash to spend. If you limit the maximum ammount of cash you immediately lose it again. The only time your owner will take away money with "entire revenue available" is when you have a cash limit. The owner takes away the ammount needed to arrive at $500,000.

The only way to make revenue sharing work is to get rid of a cash limit or to raise the maximum amount.

So, leagues who have been active for years with certain settings will have to drastically change how they play?

Removing a cash max/min creates a host of other situations that could be less than ideal.

Also - even if that is the solution, which I find to be iffy at best because anyone who was playing in 22/23 now have to totally change their financial structure...

It still doesn't work for future budget projections because the projected budget is still based solely on revenue.

So in the example above, if I take away the cash max/min - that teams has their 13m budget and has about 3.7m (would be 3.2 but the cash max is removed so they got an extra 500k) to spend in this year's budget. But they have $0 for extensions because it's basing projected budgets off the revenue instead of the revenue plus or minus the share.

So a team with 13m to spend this year, is only able to spend up to that amount for 1 year rather than for years ahead

[coljesep]

Originally Posted by Dutch Alexander

That is your problem then. Revenue sharing is extra cash to spend. If you limit the maximum ammount of cash you immediately lose it again. The only time your owner will take away money with "entire revenue available" is when you have a cash limit. The owner takes away the ammount needed to arrive at $500,000.

The only way to make revenue sharing work is to get rid of a cash limit or to raise the maximum amount.

Revenue Sharing $ was and should be applicable to revenue earned or lost by the team in the upcoming and future seasons. Otherwise, for leagues where the budget is based on revenue - it doesn't work anymore.

If you eliminate the cash max/floor, you're allowing more money to be in your game than there was previously for starters.

Secondly, cash can still be based on your balance Current Cash + Revenue - Expenses and then apply the cash max rules.

If you force shared revenue to be applied to cash, then teams receiving that revenue can't use it for anything but 1 year of spending as opposed to previous versions where that money was projected in future budgets.

[Dutch Alexander]

In your example your starting balance for 2031 would be $1,050,537 (previous balance) + $2,985,517 (revenue sharing) = $4.036,054. With an expected revenue in 2031 of $9,937,723 this brings the total revenue to $13,973,777. The budget for 2031 is based on this last figure.

The problem is you have a cash limit in your league. Which means the starting balance can never be more than $500,000. This is why your owner takes away just the correct ammount to arrive at a starting balance of $500,000 ($4.036,054 - $500,000 = $3,536,054). Your owner is forced to do this because the league rules state the starting balance may not exceed $500,000.

[coljesep]

Originally Posted by Dutch Alexander

In your example your starting balance for 2031 would be $1,050,537 (previous balance) + $2,985,517 (revenue sharing) = $4.036,054. With an expected revenue in 2031 of $9,937,723 this brings the total revenue to $13,973,777. The budget for 2031 is based on this last figure.

The problem is you have a cash limit in your league. Which means the starting balance can never be more than $500,000. This is why your owner takes away just the correct ammount to arrive at a starting balance of $500,000 ($4.036,054 - $500,000 = $3,536,054). Your owner is forced to do this because the league rules state the starting balance may not exceed $500,000.

I removed the cash max/min, and two things I notice:

#1 - Despite the balance + rev share creating what should be a budget of 13,973,777 or 13.9 to use rounded numbers, the budget remains at 13m.

#2 the projected budget for the following year is based solely on revenue again, as if revenue sharing is not a thing.

I get what you're saying re cash max. But in a league where it's solely about the revenue, and controlling the amount of $ in the game - I don't agree that this format is producing results that players have likely been utilizing for several years.

If OOTP22 and OOTP23 can project a budget based on revenue sharing so that teams do not have to operate on year to year spending then I am failing to see how this can be viewed as 24 doing things right.

Attached is how the team's financial situation is different between 22 and 24 with the same setting, no cash max.