BuzzerBeater Forums

I see your point about salary floor protection being intended to help new teams get started, but I'm not entirely convinced it's necessary.. You mentioned it's meant to prevent new teams from being bankrupted by the salary floor before they can upgrade their arena and build their economy.

However, to my understandings the game is more focused on the competitive aspect of team management rather than financial struggles. With a 6,000-seat arena being a standard and effective setup for new teams, I believe they should be able to compete fairly from the start without needing special protection. My team is proof of that .

Your point about the first 28 weeks being a critical period for new teams is well-heard ., Again perhaps the game's design already accounts for the challenges new teams face. By not having salary floor protection for so long , teams would need to be strategic with their roster building and finances from the outset, which could lead to more competitive and engaging gameplay.

It's training manager not a finance manager . 28 weeks is too long .it lead over priced team.playoff boosting . I have been here 2 season my league 4 team went bankrupt by salary floor



Last edited by Big city at 6/28/2025 5:07:05 PM

You are basing this on USA and bigger leagues where you start in division 4. In smaller nations many teams start in division 2 and salary floor will be nearly 300k, salary floor exemption is necessary for a couple of seasons.

You raise a valid point about the differences in league structures between larger nations like the USA and smaller nations. You've expressed In smaller nations, where teams often start in Division 2 and face a significant salary floor, the exemption can indeed be crucial for their financial sustainability.

However, I'd argue that this highlights an opportunity for the game to consider more nuanced and context-specific solutions. Perhaps the game could implement a dynamic salary floor system that takes into account the specific league structure, division, and nation-specific economic factors. This way, teams in smaller nations or lower divisions wouldn't be overly burdened by an inflexible salary floor, while still maintaining competitive balance.

i still will hold firm.that 28 weeks is too long. And leads to bankruptcy and playoff boosting teams. It not singly restricted to USA or bigger nations.. bankruptcy happen in.higher leagues and smaller nations as well .

Salary floor is the main culprit as well.

Last edited by Big city at 6/28/2025 9:11:53 PM

Could you please explain more about the connection between a long salary floor protection period and bankruptcy?
I don’t quite understand that part.

Yes, I'd be happy to elaborate on the connection between a long salary floor protection period and the potential for financial strain on teams.

When a team is subject to a lengthy salary floor protection period, it can lead to a situation where they're forced to allocate a significant portion of their resources towards player salaries, even if it's not sustainable for their current financial situation. This can result in a "living on borrowed time" scenario, where teams are essentially mortga
ging their future financial stability to meet the short-term demands of the salary floor.

As a result, teams may struggle to invest in other critical areas, such as youth development, scouting, and arena upgrades, which can ultimately impact their competitiveness and long-term success. In extreme cases, this can lead to financial difficulties, including bankruptcy, as teams struggle to manage their finances and meet their salary obligations.

In essence, a long salary floor protection period can create a situation where teams are prioritizing short-term compliance over long-term sustainability, which can have unintended consequences for their financial health and overall performance.

Does that clarify the connection?

Except you have it exactly backwards.

Salary floor protection means the teams don't have to allocate resources to player salaries, because they only pay the actual salaries they employ, not the floor (minimum) relevant to their current division level.

Once protection runs out, then they are "forced to allocate a significant portion of their resources toward player salaries", and if they haven't built up enough arena and other economic infrastructure by that point then they'll be in that unsustainable position.

Kindly ,I think you mis read. My point of view.

In my context it meant they are not doing anything positive for the team beyond buy expensive players.. i.e. build arena. Train youth . Do the draft

28 week of no salary floor penalty .. you can buy a player up 350k . 65k a week. Just mortgaging players.

Once this period ends, teams are forced to allocate significant resources toward player salaries, which can be unsustainable if they haven't built up sufficient economic infrastructure. It's crucial for teams to balance short-term gains with long-term financial planning to avoid financial pitfalls.

In this context, buying expensive players within the cap can provide temporary advantages, but teams need to prioritize sustainable financial management to achieve consistent success.

So removing that exemption makes them go bankrupt faster? Or are you advocating for removing the salary floor? Becuase the latter won't (and shouldn't) happen, as the salary floor is a key component to reducing the effectiveness of established teams deliberately tanking down the division ladder to build up a large war chest.

What you are saying makes no sense. How would removing the salary cap exemption for 2 seasons stop the above? I don't think you understand what the salary floor exemption is. It is not a penalty. You are talking about teams not building up a sustainable infrastructure which defeats your argument. The salary floor exemption is there for new teams to allow them to do that by keeping salaries very low and tank to build a strong base. If a team chooses not to do that then you can't help them and they are in no worse of a position than if there was no exemption for new teams.

What you are describing where someone buys a high salary player would happen more if there was no exemption as you might as well get a decent player if you are paying the salary anyway.

I’m asking to shorten it in time frame only.(14 weeks)

But some have expressed small nation and etc. It’s something buzzerbeater admin will have to figure out in systematics.

I can't understand why,

When a team is subject to a lengthy salary floor protection period, it can lead to a situation where they're forced to allocate a significant portion of their resources towards player salaries, even if it's not sustainable for their current financial situation.

Or do you mean you're not referring to regular teams here, but rather those teams that bought a lot of high-salary players before the playoffs?

I agree that a 28-week salary floor protection period encourages teams to keep their player salaries low and then buy a lot of high-salary players right before the playoffs.
But I guess (though I might be wrong) that most new managers usually don’t use this kind of high-risk strategy.
This kind of strategy is more common among returning experienced managers or new managers who were taught to do it this way.
So we might need to be careful not to teach new managers with this kind of experienced-player mindset, or it might ruin their gaming experience.