merchandising

[1998 Yankees]

Actually, I do have something to add to this discussion, perhaps. Let's say that I don't want to turn off financials, as I am tempted to do. I still want the give-and-take of player contract negotiations to deal with as GM. The other financial stuff I can take or leave. I know that's not realistic, but I want to play baseball, not finances.

Would it be advisable, then, for someone like me to ensure that market sizes are correct year-to-year (now that I read above that they seem to change over time, as I remember from 6.5), let fan interest and loyalty vary with team performance (they do, don't they?) and just hit that "Assign Fictional Financials to Teams" button in the preseason every year? That way, the NYC to KC advantage in market size is preserved, but each team is guaranteed a profit and I don't have to worry about editing the size of merchandising revenue myself to maintain a balance.

Isn't that what this button was designed to do, anyway?

Edit - I have that backwards; hit the button first, then edit the markets back to what they should be (in my estimation, of course - there was another recent thread on that topic). Still, if you do this every year, each team will have an appropriate amount of money (based on market) for new signings, I think.

[scefalu]

If you're looking to maintain a balance, then you could find (or create) a set of merchandising numbers you like and just plug them in. On the other hand, I don't know what effect editing the market size will have once the media contracts are set?

My concern is that it will go like this:
1 - at beginning of preseason, press the "Assign Fictional Financials" button
2 - AI assigns market size, media contracts and merchandising figures
3 - edit market sizes to appropriate size based on real world

Hasn't the damage already been done in #2? What else does market size affect?

Does anyone have some time to test this idea?

Oh, and here's a refill for you loyal fans of this thread ...

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by scefalu

If you're looking to maintain a balance, then you could find (or create) a set of merchandising numbers you like and just plug them in. On the other hand, I don't know what effect editing the market size will have once the media contracts are set?

My concern is that it will go like this:
1 - at beginning of preseason, press the "Assign Fictional Financials" button
2 - AI assigns market size, media contracts and merchandising figures
3 - edit market sizes to appropriate size based on real world

Hasn't the damage already been done in #2? What else does market size affect?

Does anyone have some time to test this idea?

Oh, and here's a refill for you loyal fans of this thread ...

Well, I'm thinking that at beginning of preseason, all of your player contracts are in place based on the last time you assigned fictional financials and reset market sizes (which, by the way, control media revenue as you said). So all you're doing in preseason is assuring that all teams have the money to cover the contracts that they have in place. Then, during the year to come, market affects media and gate revenue (the way I want them to) and gate revenue is also affected by fan interest and loyalty (the way I want it them to), but ultimately the arrangement gives more money over time to NY than KC (the way I want it to be for realism, not partisanship). Merchandising thus becomes the rug that finances are swept under, as you or someone else put it. Just a plug every year to ensure that no one goes bankrupt. Sound feasible?

[thepbl]

unfortunately in OOTP 2006 you NEED a degree in economics... or I just cant do simple math.

when looking at the Front Office screen I cant get the numbers to jive. Specifically with the Projected Balance being off.

On a note of merchandising.. I say just get rid of it. You want simple stick with Revenue from ticket sales and tv contracts MINUS payrolls to give a teams end financial result.

One League I am in, I have 137m budget, 96m current player payroll, 8mil current staff payroll... and my projected balance reads NEG 192m. What gives?

[Cras]

in 6.5, I never understood exactly how merchandising worked, but at lest I could add up the numbers and have them make sense. In 2006 this just isn't possible, and the fact that you can't see where the money is going and coming from, you get a sense that there are things the game isn't telling you.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Cras

in 6.5, I never understood exactly how merchandising worked, but at lest I could add up the numbers and have them make sense. In 2006 this just isn't possible, and the fact that you can't see where the money is going and coming from, you get a sense that there are things the game isn't telling you.

Right on, Cras. This is how I feel, and it bothers me. I may feel (and look) stupid dealing with VORP, but I know that if I cared to, I could sit down and figure VORP out if it was explained and laid out for me to examine. However, I am told that OOTP has its own proprietary VORP calculation, maybe, we think. Ssshhh.

The same idea applies to financials. You are handed your cash and budget figures by the same greenshade person that I used metaphorically in the VORP thread. You, as the GM, are supposed to say "Oh, is that all that I got to spend? OK," without asking or knowing how it got that way.

Such things bother me. The only consolation is that I do imagine myself as a GM dealing with the condescending organization egghead who produces such wizardry and then laughs up his sleeve at me. "Of course Smith won the MVP, any batboy could see he was way ahead in VORP. The boss has a problem with that? What do you expect from someone who can't figure out his own budget? Heh heh."

[battists]

FWIW, I personally am going to do my best to make sure this is clearer in the next version...

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by battists

FWIW, I personally am going to do my best to make sure this is clearer in the next version...

Go, Steve, go! Steve, Steve, Steve . . .