BuzzerBeater Forums

I would have preferred a more subtle handling of the issue as well. What you describe shows that the former economy was able to deal with different Arena sizes.

I see the entire changes as a tribute to teams ignoring wages and then complain about the economy. We had a wage issue, not an Arena issue. Exceptions to the rule can be found of course.

Few users have big wage(fanesi,cardenas,ecc...) issues,who have a huge arenas
Many users,also with a good gestion of economy have incomes issues because only to stay in a certain division they can not invest a great amount of money for palace

I didn't know such a manager. I guess bad management in matches caused their problems to stay. And if they were top level (I.1) teams I don't think these changes will change that.

Few users have the problem of big wages,because the others users cannot think to buy players like romagnoli,fanesi,cardenas,ikstens,ecc :D

Well this injection of money should be balanced in some way otherwise it will create only inflaction and the raises of the price market, I think you can agree on that.
I will try to find out the discussion were BBs said that something has to be done against the mega arena, if nothing will be done no problem, much money for everyone = inflaction but the economy shoudn't change a lot, if instead the "good" arena will be fixed around 30k seats, there will be few teams that will have suddenly 3,4,5 millions cash to keep it in store or to invest on the market, in any case the strategy to invest in the arena was and it is now really good.

Having a lot of money now should be really good cause the merchandising seems to be related to the strong of our players. This is an aspect of the economy that seems not interested, from my point of view it will be really important cause is "ad personam" and this matter can change the economy inside every single tournament. How to improve this matter is very important and if the BBs don't want to make a big mistake I suggest them to not keep as parameter the presence of the players in a roster of a National team.

I don't agree that taking action against huge Arenas was reasonable. Because building too large arenas wasn't reasonable, bacause of lower ticket prices.

For example comparing my team and Tall Blacks. He invest to the arena about 9M $ dollars more than me. This month he gains 673k for match with good Fan Survey, 543k for match with worse Fan Survey. I earned 555k for match with good Fan Survey.
This season I have had all the matches fans in good mood (except of round 1 after Fan Survey reset). He plays 3 times (tomorrow next one) with bad mood and 4 times with good mood. Last season he plays 6 times in good fans mood and 5 times in bad mood. And in playoff he plays only 1 away match.
My team played only 1 match in bad mood (and again 1 match in reseted mood) and 9 times in good mood. And I played 4 home and 1 away match in playoff.
So it takes him very long time to give his 9M $ back. Maybe he would not gain him at all.

In my eyes even without planned changes it wasn't reasonable to build arena larger than something around 30k.

I'm going back to the arenas
Dude, there are some things that you didn't consider in your answer. The first one is that in the good mood you pay 120k/match and this money aren't so bad considering the market situation we had till now and in any case at the end of the seaons he earned more than 1 m more than you. Then you must consider that with all the respect, the bundesliga is a very difficult tournament, hard than yours it means that a record as you've at the moment is not easy to reach in bundesliga = less money. Third point; if no one excluding Tall blacks invested on the arena, soon Tall Blacks can easily win some championships thanks to the money coming from arena, otherwise if all the other teams invested in the arena you are forced to invested too if you want to keep high your competition level. Last, if he invested 9M more than you, now he has the possibility to have this money back and if I'm not wrong it means that he will have 9M more than you :p

I'm going back to the arenas :)
Dude, there are some things that you didn't consider in your answer. The first one is that in the good mood you pay 120k/match and this money aren't so bad considering the market situation we had till now and in any case at the end of the seaons he earned more than 1 m more than you. Then you must consider that with all the respect, the bundesliga is a very difficult tournament, hard than yours it means that a record as you've at the moment is not easy to reach in bundesliga = less money. Third point; if no one excluding Tall blacks invested on the arena, soon Tall Blacks can easily win some championships thanks to the money coming from arena, otherwise if all the other teams invested in the arena you are forced to invested too if you want to keep high your competition level. Last, if he invested 9M more than you, now he has the possibility to have this money back and if I'm not wrong it means that he will have 9M more than you :p

I don't know wehat are talking about. Rwystyrk's team spends 5k more on salaries than Tall Blacks, which 120K?! Oh Tv contract, till now it was same for everyone. Now the differnce is around 18 for those teams. I won't argue about toughness of top german league but you can't compare those simply by payrolls. And check B3 (last year there was another czech team in semifinals). Of course he would have more money he started two seasons earlier... very valid argument.

Pay 120k/match it means that he loose in the better case this amount every single game. For the second part, I'm not saying Mr. Rw has a weak team, I'm saying exactly the opposite, he's so strong that he can keep a great record in his championship it means that he has a little (for me is not little...) advantage in the income when he plays the home games.

Last edited by ned at 7/27/2009 5:49:22 PM

Well this injection of money should be balanced in some way otherwise it will create only inflaction and the raises of the price market, I think you can agree on that.

Rising prices are not a problem in themselves.

Well this injection of money should be balanced in some way otherwise it will create only inflaction and the raises of the price market, I think you can agree on that.

Rising prices are not a problem in themselves.

But it doens't change the problems if more money cause an indiscriminate rise of the prices

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 7/28/2009 7:00:10 AM

Well this injection of money should be balanced in some way otherwise it will create only inflaction and the raises of the price market, I think you can agree on that.

Rising prices are not a problem in themselves.

But it doens't change the problems if more money cause an indiscriminate rise of the prices

So what is the problem with rising incomes and rising prices?