BuzzerBeater Forums

(...) invest on the arena or on the roster. Only now is completely clear that the first choice was much better, (...)

I disagree. All those that invested in roster without thinking about financial consequences (wages) are now happy. TV-Revenues are an immediate payback based on wages - and Arena revenues will be cut soon.

A very populist measure to keep everybody (who overspent) happy.

Once again, for me it's ok also to give a premium to everyone that invested in the arena but we should have a stop in the buildings, 60k, 100k but at the end we can't continue to raise the gap increasing the arena. As far as I know who has the big arena can now sell the seats and having back the money.

Once again, for me it's ok also to give a premium to everyone that invested in the arena but we should have a stop in the buildings

we had one, the tall blacks reached it for example in the VIP section(or nearly) with hundreds seats. And the investment was huge, for a small advantage against my 50 seats so i also don't expect much teams to build their arena to the end.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 7/27/2009 10:14:58 AM

Taking some action against huge Arenas was reasonable.

I just don't like the idea that two ways of extreme management (huge arenas or overspending on wages) are treated differently. Arena style is cut, wage style is subsidied.

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 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.