BuzzerBeater Forums

If i was a 1 or 2 year old team, I wouldn't be expecting to compete with teams that are 4-5 years old.

In the example above, the team with the large arena will always be penalized for less than the full amount of the gate receipt tax, while the team with the small arena will eat all of it.

It's a bad example of two extremes. Not every established team over-expanded their arena, and not every new team under-expanded. It doesn't make sense to double your arena in the first season, but it also doesn't make sense to not expand at all when there's so many established examples of where you attendance will go at that level.

Last edited by brian at 8/3/2008 10:25:23 AM

I'm failing to understand how you're coming to this conclusion.

This affects a 2 season old team in a top division that failed to expand at all slightly more then others, not exactly forward thinking there.

Last edited by brian at 8/3/2008 10:24:47 AM

If i was a 1 or 2 year old team, I wouldn't be expecting to compete with teams that are 4-5 years old.

Understood - so do you encourage them to hoard cash and then only spend when they can compete?

Getting knocked out in round 1 after shelling out a load of cash would hurt you but the objective wouldnt be to win it.... the objective might be 4 rounds of cash and extra training to get your roster developing faster than your main peers.

Bottom line is that for the forseeable future those that are in Div1 with small stadiums will find it more difficult to aspire to anything other than competing domestically and I think this is a shame.....

Everyone likes to see an underdog get a favourable draw and progress as much as possible - the new taxes have acted as a strong enough deterrent for this to now be impossible.

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 8/3/2008 10:31:43 AM

It's best to think long term for any team in any division, IMO. If shelling out money to win a few rounds in an extremely competitive tournament doesn't provide a good return on that money, then I wouldn't do it.

I'd have liked to sacrificed everything to go for it in the B3 (selling off trainees, ignoring league/cup games, etc), but I knew the US cup and league games were the "bread and butter" for my team in the long run.

It's too early to tell how these economic changes will effect everyone and the managers that adapt will do better.

I've had my team for 2 full seasons now. At maximum prices, I barely started tipping full attendance of my original arena midway to the season. I have been expanding ever since, and I am maintaining full attendance at maximum prices right now at 5700 seats or thereabout.

Apples to oranges, you've in lower divisions, and we're comparing teams in top divisions of new countries correct? STH growth at lower divisions isn't comparable to STH in top divisions, unless I'm vastly overestimating the growth of STH's for teams that start in new countries at the top level.

I just don't understand some of the dire end-of-the-world comments coming out here, and so far, there's little evidence that it's nothing more then hyperbole.

This is a big change, and fairly or not, some manager will be hit harder then others. I don't expect the BB's to refund portions transfer fees to managers that recently paid large sums for players at market rate, while the market rate is now set to take a steep decline due to these changes. Also, without good evidence of completely unlevel playing fields or economic environments that are impossible, I don't expect the BB's to make different rules for different countries.