Read this before you think we're just going to give you a $10million check.
Bryce and I have discussed a few options over the past few months regarding ways to help GM's earn money reasonably. Given the FHL finances matching with NHL relative salaries, we feel it would be best to offer ways of comping teams with money for activity.
Here is what we're going to do:
At the end of the year each team will receive funds in their account. These funds will be based on their league activity. Activity will be tracked, effective immediately.
These activity tasks are based on a wide range of different topics. The tasks all have have different amounts of payouts and are separate from other payouts these topics could warrant.
If you couldn't already tell, these tasks will be hidden from you the GM. Only Bryce and I know what they are. They probably won't even be released in the off-season. What *probably* will be announced is the amount each team receives.
This is a trial system that might only last for the rest of the season or it could be a constant system in place from here on out. This is being looked at as a current short-term plan with potential long-term qualities. We're looking to supplement teams correctly so that teams can stay afloat even if they're not spending much. We understand that there are a couple ways that the GM's themselves can remedy the situation. But it can be tricky to get a full grasp of how to correctly manage finances when we're changing the salary cap/floor's, and forcing teams to spend relative to what NHL teams are without making as much as they do. We're not doing this to just hand out money. Teams will receive money only when they deserve it.
I can tell you that these tasks will be tracked, and I'm not wasting your time. I'll be keeping an excel sheet from this point on tracking everything. Over the past few years I've had a great idea of how active GM's are publicly and behind-the-scenes. Big brother is watching.
If I could sum this all up into a short phrase: We're going to be paying for activty.
__________________
"As long as those gnome elite molecules emerge, we certainly can reduce casualties. Their warplanes troops would be nice."
I know I am just new to the league this year and I'm not looking to create any controversy, but this appears WAY too much like the US Bailout? The FHL/STHS is not going through an economic crisis. This has happened mainly because teams have spent way too much on free agents. I suggest instead of "bailing-out" teams in financial hardship, maybe the league can run off of an inflation rate? Things that aren't factored into the sim like the real world is merchandise and things to this extent. Maybe we can factor in how teams have faired in the past 3 seasons to determine how much money a team will make annually in merchandise sales or so much per player rated over 80 or rookie thats rated above 76? Just like the real world, we're using the jump-to-conclusions mat without jumping on "moot" because we're jumping on "go wild"
(reference office space)
If i'm to get warned or fined for this, so be it. I just feel there are better options than to create a league activity spreadsheet and potentially rewarding teams that do not wish to have the same team intact they had at the beginning of the season till the stanley cup.
I know I am just new to the league this year and I'm not looking to create any controversy, but this appears WAY too much like the US Bailout? The FHL/STHS is not going through an economic crisis. This has happened mainly because teams have spent way too much on free agents. I suggest instead of "bailing-out" teams in financial hardship, maybe the league can run off of an inflation rate? Things that aren't factored into the sim like the real world is merchandise and things to this extent. Maybe we can factor in how teams have faired in the past 3 seasons to determine how much money a team will make annually in merchandise sales or so much per player rated over 80 or rookie thats rated above 76? Just like the real world, we're using the jump-to-conclusions mat without jumping on "moot" because we're jumping on "go wild"
(reference office space)
If i'm to get warned or fined for this, so be it. I just feel there are better options than to create a league activity spreadsheet and potentially rewarding teams that do not wish to have the same team intact they had at the beginning of the season till the stanley cup.
-- Edited by chimoty at 22:47, 2009-01-15
Points are all well-taken and understood. But activity isn't something that is measured soley on trades and posts. These tasks are putting pen to paper tabs that I've kept on GM's throughout the existance of the league. Being the day-to-day commish, I've got what I feel is a strong grasp on who is active and to what extent their activity goes. This isn't black and white to the point where if team A had 4000 posts at the end of the year, they'll be handsomely rewarded.
What we're doing here isn't much different than what we've done in the past. To give an example, we've paid GM's who write articles. Which is a level of activity that is very much appreciated.
What I feel is possibly being lost from your comment above, is that this is open to everyone. Rich and poor, activity can be found within both. We're rewarding everyone on a level playing field.
__________________
"As long as those gnome elite molecules emerge, we certainly can reduce casualties. Their warplanes troops would be nice."
I agree with Steve in referring that this should be considered rewarding league activity rather than a bailout....
I would be annoyed at a bailout plan for teams struggling, I made trades last year and in the off-season to acquire cash. Finances are supposed to be one aspect of a GM's control over a team, I would suggest instead of a bailout plan. That all teams that are taken over by a new GM should have a respectable amount of funds in the bank (say 3-5 million depending on the team) so teams don't go bankrupt.
When I took over the St Louis Blues, I didn't have a lot of money left. I believe somewhere around 1-2 million, now I have just over 2 million in funds, with 5 million in sponsorships (all I am currently on pace to get). This excludes the signing bonuses I spent on Smyth and Smith. I take pride in maintaining a team that is profitable.
I'm a little puzzled why this plan is needed, I'm under the impression that there are already ways for struggling teams to make money. If teams are struggling and do not take note of finances then I believe it's their own fault and should exchange cash for a draft pick instead.
Currently Atlanta, New York Islanders and Pittsburgh are technically bankrupt. With Pittsburgh in the worst situation as they don't look like having any chance of getting into the post-season and New York dropping down. While Boston, Nashville, St Louis, New York Rangers and Washington has under 3 million, but over 2 million.
As Eric (with Bryce helping out) runs the sim, I would welcome New York Islanders getting cash for that (feel it's worth at least a big salary a year for New York.
Atlanta will be making the playoffs and should make a bit of money out of it, they also have sponsorships as well.
Instead of having another incentive, why don't you institute a cash-for-picks method? Only for teams that have less than 2 million and did not make the playoffs. 7th Round pick = 500k 6th Round pick = 750k 5th Round pick = 1 million 4th Round pick = 2 million 3rd Round pick = 4 million 2nd Round pick = 7 million 1st Round pick = 10 million
That way if a team needs to get money, they have an option of either sacrificing the pick for league money, or trade it for more to another team.
If we are solely looking to hand out more $, could we not just slide the finances slider up a few notches?
If we are looking to reward league activity, then perhaps we should call this something other than a "bailout plan".
The Finances slider has been maxed for the past 2 years.
And you're probably right. Calling this a bailout was a little "mission accomplished-esque", I should call it a comp system. Which to my credit, I did in the e-mail. :)
It's a comp system. No one will get anything for free.
__________________
"As long as those gnome elite molecules emerge, we certainly can reduce casualties. Their warplanes troops would be nice."
All I know is that I've done a pretty good job (as well as many other teams), at making sure I had a large surplus this year. However, I'm not sure it means all that much if I no longer have any trade leverage. I guess 20 million plus every year will just go towards nothing.
__________________
"With Sid on your team, anything is possible" - Mario lemieux
Is the sim including the 80+ bonus? Using Colorado as an example, 4th in the league, 5 80+ players and ticket prices at $30. Yet they are losing money this season, despite averaging a sell-out every game. Maybe the $50 million cap is too high for FHL. I'm sure Colorado should consider raising their ticket prices because of selling out every game, but 80+ players don't make as much impact as they should.
Carolina, Colorado, Columbus, Detroit, Florida, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Nashville, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Ottawa, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Tampa Bay and Vancouver are all teams that are currently losing money this season.
Comparing Carolina with Detroit for example. Both have two 80+ players, both have ticket prices of $30. Yet Carolina is averaging 17,071 people while Detroit's struggling to get past 13,000.
Buffalo is a profitable team, 8 80+ players and $50 per ticket and averaging almost 18,000....
Team, # of 80+ players - Average Attendence Carolina - 2 - 17,071 Colorado - 5 - 18,000 Columbus - 0 - 15,235 Detroit - 2 - 13,420 Florida - 1 - 14,691 ($29/ticket) Los Angeles - 1 - 14,712 Minnesota - 2 - 17,052 Nashville - 1 - 14,826 New York Islanders - 0 - 17,985 ($22/ticket) New York Rangers - 1 - 16,816 ($28/ticket) Ottawa - 1 - 13,164 Phoenix - 2 - 16,819 ($28/ticket) Pittsburgh - 1 - 13,449 San Jose - 4 - 18,000 Tampa Bay - 2 - 16,123 ($32/ticket) Vancouver - 1 - 12,488 ($35/ticket)
For teams to make money, they now need at least 3 80+ players on their team. I actually believe putting the finances up to the max will only continue to separate the gap between financially strong teams like Buffalo and the poor teams.
Buffalo are able to basically sell-out every home game despite a ticket price nearly double the rest of the league's. Putting the finances on max has allowed this to happen, if you institute this incentive, I would suggest lowering the finances. It would lower attendance at all arenas, but most likely be felt at the top arenas forcing them to lower ticket prices and allowing poorer teams to catch up.
The base problem really is that FHL is not setup to support teams at a good fiscal level at really anything salary wise over 42 million. That is the problem (thats why I originally set the BRHL cap at 42 million, it seems to be the magic number). With a cap floor and acap ceiling that is over 8 million above that, unless your team is stacked or in the top percentile, you will not be making money unless your team salary is super low, which the floor doesnt allow.
How about a system where teams get funding based on their position at the end of the season?
each conference 9th place team gets the most, then 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th... then 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st...
that way, teams that don't get into the playoffs get funding, but there's more for those attempting to be competitive that don't make the playoffs as playoff teams already get playoff revenue...
How about a system where teams get funding based on their position at the end of the season?
each conference 9th place team gets the most, then 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th... then 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st...
that way, teams that don't get into the playoffs get funding, but there's more for those attempting to be competitive that don't make the playoffs as playoff teams already get playoff revenue...
What, so the rich get richer?
Some more thoughts of mine...
42 = magic number salary cap X = current salary cap P = league average percentage of cap spent P = average[(team salary)/X] Y = Total League-wide cap amount over magic number Y = 30*P*(X-42)
So essentially the league is over-spending by "Y" as a whole.
So, somehow we need to distribute an amount "Y" to all teams.
I am fine with distributing that amound based on activity
Alternatively we could distribute it based on something else like attendance, or could have it proportional or inversely proportional to team profit or standings... (it is a tough balance of letting the rich get richer or rewarding irresponsibility)
O but the suggestions we're seeing now are strictly handouts, which we are not doing, we're rewarding activity, and participation, not handing things out for just losing money. A side benefit, is that since Eric sent that out, we've had 2 GMs tell us that theydo not have the time to put into their teams and we can begin looking for potential replacements.
Bottom line, is we want activity, be active as a GM and your team will get a stipend to help with the "variable Y" that is in place because of FHL being a substandard product.
