Budget? Owner or Projected Revenue?

[Larryk007]

We can toggle Yes or No on "Team owner decides over budget". I have it checked for Yes, allowing the Owner to set the budget. But is there a downside to playing with "no" and just having the projected revenue being the budget amount?

[panda234]

I never even thought about that parameter. It strikes me that the Dodgers would be a candidate for budget based on revenue and the Marlins based on the owner setting tne budget.

[omg_pwnasaurus]

Originally Posted by Larryk007

We can toggle Yes or No on "Team owner decides over budget". I have it checked for Yes, allowing the Owner to set the budget. But is there a downside to playing with "no" and just having the projected revenue being the budget amount?

I've always wondered this myself. Curious to know how most people play actually. I usually just use owner sets budget.

[Sweed]

It takes away challenge. It also puts more money into game meaning inflated contract demands and salaries.

[Larryk007]

If you take the owner out of the budget, does it take the owner out of all budgets, setting scouting, draft and development budgets too?

What is meant by "takes away challenge"?

[Carplos]

What is meant by "takes away challenge"?

Owners have ratings so even if you're making tons of money, they could set a lower budget due to not being willing to spend, prioritization, etc.

I don't know that it truly removes a challenge, because the opposite could be true as well (they spend more than they would with budgets turned off).

[snepp]

I'll run leagues both ways. My smaller, regional type saves will just run full revenue, and generally have less complex rules overall.

The larger "more professional" league setups will have the owner oversight and all the extra league rules.

[omg_pwnasaurus]

Originally Posted by Carplos

Owners have ratings so even if you're making tons of money, they could set a lower budget due to not being willing to spend, prioritization, etc.

I don't know that it truly removes a challenge, because the opposite could be true as well (they spend more than they would with budgets turned off).

Yeah my assumption was more the other way. Not having the owner in charge of the budget and having the entire revenue available would make things easier? Especially if like you mentioned they are a tightwad/meddling, etc.

[Pelican]

I think your choice on yes versus no depends on whether you want to mimic the real MLB ("yes") with all its inequality, or manage finances in a way that promotes league parity ("no"). You would be surprised how quickly the Rockies or White Sox or Pirates can become competitive, if they spend like the Mutts or Yanks or Dodgers. I routinely choose "no" and it's a lot more fun to avoid perpetual 100-game losers who won't spend the money they have.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Larryk007

If you take the owner out of the budget, does it take the owner out of all budgets, setting scouting, draft and development budgets too?

What is meant by "takes away challenge"?

One example is my on going game where my generous owner died and was replaced by his penny pinching son. Budget was $256 mil and the son has cut it to $208 mil. Contracts I could afford before are now problems as I have no available funds to sign extensions.

Having to find ways to work within this new penny pinching world has been both a pain and fun. I've had to cut scouting and development budgets, trade players with reasonable contracts when I can, and even take note of what kind of signing bonus players in the draft are asking for, etc. etc.

Money under my generous owner was not unlimited, but at the same time wasn't making it very hard to cover almost any expense I wanted to. Tons of flexability. Not so with the penny pinching son that has taken over.