BuzzerBeater Forums

Interestingly, replacing or firing a staff member requires paying one week's salary in severance, but that's not the case for players.
It seems like BB did this on purpose.
I wonder if there's a reason behind it?

I don't know the reason behind it.

I just thought that new teams might need to fire the players they started with, including star players.
If firing a player requires paying severance, that would be an extra cost for the new team.

Also, for teams that are close to going bankrupt, whether severance is needed might make a difference.
If severance is required, they might need to fire players one week earlier to avoid bankruptcy.

I notice that if we want to let a player leave the team, there are only two ways: sell or fire.
In normal situations, if firing a player still requires paying severance, it feels like a punishment compared to selling.

Back to tough's solution:

I propose a solution to this; any player that works for a team after their transfer acquisition commands to be paid, it’s only right since they need to make a livelihood. If player is let go before the economic update, the team that acquired him has to pay either their entire salary or a percentage (like 50%) of that salary for the week if they were to be let go before economic update.

For selling players, there's a rule: "You cannot offer a player for sale until he has been on your team for at least 4 days."
So there will definitely be at least one financial update.
Therefore, if a player is fired before the first financial update after joining the team, paying severance still seems reasonable.

However, I thought of a situation: when that financial update doesn't require paying the player's salary, it seems a bit unreasonable to still have to pay severance if the player is fired.

I came up with two other possible solutions, but neither is perfect.

1. Newly purchased players cannot be fired for 7 days.
This probably wouldn't affect the initial players when creating a new team (including star players).
However, it would make mistakes much more costly.
For example, if someone accidentally bids $1,000 for a player with a $400,000 salary.

2. Set a minimum starting bid for players, such as an amount equal to their salary.
Some people might dislike having restrictions on their bid prices.
Some might even wish the bid prices could be negative.

Last edited by little Guest at 10/20/2025 11:43:37 PM

I think the way it works for staff could be easily implemented for players too, so when you fire a player, you will pay this week's salary for them. Or has this been suggested previously and was not supported?

Oh true, I failed to navigate back to the previous page.

I such case I find your first suggestion of not being able to fire a bought player within the first 7 days quite well-balanced. I unterstand that mistakes might be more costly than before, but mistakes are an exception and not a rule in these cases, I would say. I general this would probably still even-out the negatives from the current system.

Currently we have three rules to fight this unpleasant habit:
- Team rank eligibility
- Playoff eligibility
- Penalty on Game shape for newly acquired players

Imo they work very well, but somewhat fail in D3 and lower divisions, especially the team rank eligibility.
Just look from my example.
My team (52418) is world rank 13 112 and I'm playing in D1. I'm not eligible to buy a player with a salary over $122,025.
Compare that with (49010) world rank 2 302 or (36437) world rank 1292 playing in Italy D3. The "worst team" in that league (current table) has world rank 5 145.

All of those D3 teams in Italy are eligible to buy a player with 150k salary. I'm not.
I would argue that a 150k player dropping down from respectable to mediocre game shape (or from proficient down to average) would have far larger impact in D3 in Italy than in D1 in Macedonia.
Also consider this. In D1 there are 16 teams. In D3 in Italy there are 256 teams. So yes, the system works fine for 16 managers in D1, or 64 in D2, but not as good for 256 managers competing in D3.

So far I like the idea that a newly acquired player can be sold after staying 7 days in the team. It is simple and elegant.

P.S. There might be other solutions to this problem:
- Enthusiasm drop after new acquisition or
- Introducing new mechanic: team chemistry which affects team performance only when the newly acquired player is in the lineup.

I'm aware that implementation of new mechanic demands additional coding which is always the hardest thing to afford, but maybe it's worth having that in the to-do list. In Hattrick they have some player "skill" for agreeability.


Last edited by LynxBK at 10/22/2025 5:21:19 AM

We want realistic things, as possible.

The players bought after the economic update are like the borrowed players, where their main team pays their salaries. So far, quite okay. But when those players are fired before the next economic update, they don't return to those teams that paid their salaries last time!

In my opinion, the best and simplest solution is to be like for the staff is and to pay a severance when they are fired. Even that means that those players receive more than one salary. But this can be the price because they remain without a contract, to say that.

You are in right, but, this topic was discussed thouands times since 2007.
It is 1 line of code and seem that the BB Managed ignore it.
So,you can use this "non sense feature" for your team.
Regards

Honestly, I doubt that's a viable strategy on the long term, so I'm not in favor of changing the fact that you don't have to pay salary for fired players.

I tried to present a situation that I believe is quite workable.

In division III,
the team has 5 main players and other low-salary players with a total salary of $250,000.
Each week, I spend an extra $1,000-$2,000 on each of three players with salaries over $100,000, and then fire them before the financial update.
If the opponent that week is weaker, I can choose weaker temporary players instead, adding flexibility.
Before the playoffs, I recruit players normally and keep them until the playoffs are over.

Let's assume there are two other teams:
Team A has 7 main players and other low-salary players with a total salary of $350,000, keeping the same roster all season.
Team B has 5 main players and other low-salary players with a total salary of $250,000, only recruiting players normally before the playoffs and keeping them until the end.

Compared with Team A,
the strength might be similar, but the economic advantage is clear.
Team A might end up with a net loss of around $1.4 million per season, while the “hire-and-fire” plan might result in less than half of that loss.

Compared with Team B,
both teams spend about the same amount, but the difference is in strength.
Team B's regular-season performance may be worse, while the "hire-and-fire" plan could perform closer to Team A.



Last edited by little Guest at 10/24/2025 8:25:56 AM

Thank you. Yes, imo it is the Div3 or lower who are mostly afected by the hire-and-fire strategy, where the skill points brute force > game shape. It is very likely I would consider working with a Sport Psychologist in my hire-and-fire season (for my Saturday game). I would do that for the most weeks in the season and then transform into Team B. The end result should be: as prepared as Team B for the Playoffs, but being a higher seeded.

To me it's a pretty simple solution if you buy a player and he plays in a league game or cup game, you have to pay at least one week salary before firing him. I would hate to see something implemented that would prevent people from buying scrimmage scrubs and having to choose finances over game shape.