BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Typical Weekly Net Income

Typical Weekly Net Income (thread closed)

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
268634.10 in reply to 268634.9
Date: 4/8/2015 5:05:04 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
And I cannot help a manager who makes a half million dollars a game and still loses money.


Yes, because while the whole "costs" things applies to you, when you get to I.1 you get the secret executive washroom where player salaries no longer count and all that arena revenue and TV money is pure profit.


Gee, very constructive, hrudey. You certainly elevate the conversation.


I'm sorry. I just can't possibly believe you were being serious comparing "net" revenue to a single game's gross receipt as if that comparison had any more use than specialized chopsticks for left-handed ducks.

I think the real loss is that because of this, you're unable to help out the poor unfortunate user who is losing money despite a half million in game attendance revenue. What can we do to help you help him?

This Post:
11
268634.11 in reply to 268634.1
Date: 4/9/2015 12:16:13 AM
Edson Rush
II.3
Overall Posts Rated:
262262
It says I will lose $ -228 620 this week but if I win the Cup, I'll actually make money.
Shouldn't be punished I don't think because I didn't actually overspend at all
Just saying


That definitely doesn't make sense, especially since the over extension tax wasn't even designed to target this kind of behaviour. If I'm not mistaken, the tax was aimed specifically at B3 teams trying to buy the championship buy purchasing hugely expensive rosters and losing a ton of money each week.

This tax should really only apply in cases where expenses are significantly higher than revenue (ie 20%). The tax could then be calculated by taking the difference between a teams expenses and, to use my example, 120% of their revenue.

This Post:
00
268634.16 in reply to 268634.12
Date: 4/9/2015 2:31:30 PM
Edson Rush
II.3
Overall Posts Rated:
262262
It was aimed at any team spending more than they earn (without Cup revenue). Some B3 teams are part of the target, but it could concern a team in D4 too.


Your right, but wasn't the main reason it was introduced to target B3 teams?

Anyway, the revenue average idea definitely sounds preferable to the system in place now. I can't see what the BBs would have against it.

Last edited by Mountaineer at 4/9/2015 2:31:47 PM

This Post:
00
268634.17 in reply to 268634.16
Date: 4/9/2015 2:53:14 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
It was aimed at any team spending more than they earn (without Cup revenue). Some B3 teams are part of the target, but it could concern a team in D4 too.


Your right, but wasn't the main reason it was introduced to target B3 teams?

Anyway, the revenue average idea definitely sounds preferable to the system in place now. I can't see what the BBs would have against it.


I think it was more introduced to discourage teams from using accumulated wealth to support unsustainable wages in order to "buy" a championship and promotion at any level. It's still a strategy that can be done, but this at least makes it more expensive to do so. I think the idea of average revenue is probably a better idea than last home game, since that's something that can vary easily by 20% over the course of a few weeks, while presumably a team shouldn't have to make plans to adjust their roster that frequently.

This Post:
11
268634.18 in reply to 268634.17
Date: 4/11/2015 8:35:33 AM
Headless Thompson Gunners
Naismith
Overall Posts Rated:
708708
Second Team:
Canada Purple Haze BC
Yes the carry over from that one game is what has hurt me
instead of the average attendance
I do believe but may be wrong that the attendance number used in our economy update
does NOT change with playoff games

Punishment of that one game a little hard to take considering
I will go 20-2 (Best in Div I, make round of 16 in B3 and win my Country's National Tournament
My lowest att for any other game was 19041 and for this one was 17429
but my Economy and tax are based on the lowest possible number

This Post:
00
268634.19 in reply to 268634.18
Date: 4/13/2015 10:53:45 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Yes the carry over from that one game is what has hurt me
instead of the average attendance
I do believe but may be wrong that the attendance number used in our economy update
does NOT change with playoff games

Punishment of that one game a little hard to take considering
I will go 20-2 (Best in Div I, make round of 16 in B3 and win my Country's National Tournament
My lowest att for any other game was 19041 and for this one was 17429
but my Economy and tax are based on the lowest possible number


I'm almost certain it doesn't look at playoff games either. On the bright side it looks like BB-Marin is considering possible changes to this: (268744.1)

This Post:
00
268634.20 in reply to 268634.1
Date: 4/14/2015 9:46:35 PM
Headless Thompson Gunners
Naismith
Overall Posts Rated:
708708
Second Team:
Canada Purple Haze BC
My attendance revenue for the game was $ 558 240

And that's how it will stay

Just following up
Did win the Cup and the $300K that goes with it

My attendance for playoff game 1 was my highest of the season
$633935
Of course I only get half but I should expect at least that in my semi final
yet my attendance numbers won't change and won't be reflected in my typical weekly net income
and as I wrote earlier I will now pay the tax on ficticious numbers

Advertisement