Zach
Other 
Posts: 574 
|
Post by Zach on Oct 5, 2016 11:58:11 GMT -5
I was thinking of proposing a rule that negatively effects older stadiums to team's fan interest rating. Since having an old stadium makes no difference to your team interest, i was thinking of adding that if a stadium is x amount of years, your fan interest will start to be negativly effective. Ex. If a stadium is considered old (30 years lets say) on year 31, your fan interest will be -1(67 goes to 66) and a max goes to 99. In year 2, it goes to -2 and so on. Once you want to renovate/rebuild your stadium, you can either renovate, which is cheaper to do but you only get x amount of your fan interest back. But if you rebuild, it completely resets. I thought of this for teams that have an old stadium with high capacity to not hog the stadium fun money so they end up having to use it at least at some point. What do you guys think?
|
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Oct 5, 2016 12:04:54 GMT -5
That isn't a bad idea, only problem is you hamstring some of the other teams (like me) who spend the money to compete and wouldn't have enough money to build a new stadium.
Maybe something about when they get to the max in the stadium account they have to spend it?
|
|
Zach
Other
Posts: 574
|
Post by Zach on Oct 5, 2016 12:15:09 GMT -5
That isn't a bad idea, only problem is you hamstring some of the other teams (like me) who spend the money to compete and wouldn't have enough money to build a new stadium. Maybe something about when they get to the max in the stadium account they have to spend it? I guess one thing is look at the 2012 Marlins and their stadium. They were rebuilding up until their stadium was built. During those years, they were saying money (by saving money i mean steal tax payers money) so when a team is rebuilding, they have a chance to save up for the stadium to come. Once the new stadium is there, you can start to compete again. So if you are a good team, your fan interest will be up so going from 90-80 wont be that bad. But once you start to hit a wall, you can start to save up money for the stadium. |
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Oct 5, 2016 12:30:33 GMT -5
My stadium is 96 years old. I'd obviously have to build a new stadium when this rule came into play. I couldn't afford it. I absolutely hate rebuilding, so I'd have to come up with money somehow to build. My payroll is very close to my income every season, so I rarely make huge amounts of money (except for my playoff years).
I like the idea behind some of the hoarders having to spend money, just don't like what you've advertised at this point.
|
|
Zach
Other
Posts: 574
|
Post by Zach on Oct 5, 2016 12:32:39 GMT -5
How about grandfathering it in. So next season, If your season is over 30,40,50 etc, you only go -1 rather then all the way to the number of years over you are. So since Busch is 96 years old, if we did 30, you would still only be -1 rather then -66.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Oct 5, 2016 13:19:22 GMT -5
It's a good idea in theory, but I think it creates too many issues for the small market teams.
And with the limited participation this league already has, adding something like that that would require planning and thought (and saving), I just think it would make things less enjoyable. This league probably doesn't need any more rules like that, again, based mostly on the limited participation.
|
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Oct 5, 2016 13:22:40 GMT -5
It's a good idea in theory, but I think it creates too many issues for the small market teams. And with the limited participation this league already has, adding something like that that would require planning and thought (and saving), I just think it would make things less enjoyable. This league probably doesn't need any more rules like that, again, based mostly on the limited participation. Which is where my idea comes in to play. If you're a team that sits at the 50 mil cash cap and a full stadium account, then you've got to spend it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2016 13:52:26 GMT -5
That, and the fact that I'm not tearing down Wrigley Field.
|
|
Darryl
New Member
California Angels
Posts: 2,412
|
Post by Darryl on Oct 5, 2016 15:40:37 GMT -5
Interesting idea but I agree with the thoughts above about the affect on small markets and spenders.
|
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Oct 5, 2016 15:50:26 GMT -5
That, and the fact that I'm not tearing down Wrigley Field. Agreed, but if you've got max money in your stadium account, spend it for upgrades, seats, moving fences, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Oct 5, 2016 18:19:52 GMT -5
That, and the fact that I'm not tearing down Wrigley Field. Agreed, but if you've got max money in your stadium account, spend it for upgrades, seats, moving fences, etc. I don't disagree with you, I'd just rather Chris work with the owner to get it done, as opposed to having a rule that the teams it (the rule) affects don't follow, thus leaving Chris to make his own decisions. Kind of like spending your points to get below 150 before the season starts. Never fails that Chris ends up making those decisions for 1-2 teams a year. |
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Oct 5, 2016 18:40:12 GMT -5
Agreed, but if you've got max money in your stadium account, spend it for upgrades, seats, moving fences, etc. I don't disagree with you, I'd just rather Chris work with the owner to get it done, as opposed to having a rule that the teams it (the rule) affects don't follow, thus leaving Chris to make his own decisions. Kind of like spending your points to get below 150 before the season starts. Never fails that Chris ends up making those decisions for 1-2 teams a year. Easy solution. Use it or lose it. Start a thread with stadium accounts posted. It's the owner's responsibility to check and use. If you're maxed out for more than 2 seasons, you lose $25 million (or a different amount). If you're that close you'll probably make it back anyway, but still a punishment. Sucks, but people would probably pay attention. If not, it's on them. Doesn't hurt the active people and starts eliminating a bunch of excess cash floating around. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 5, 2016 21:57:12 GMT -5
I like the idea but needs to be refined. I would say that whenever a stadium is "renovated", the effects of the "old" stadium are reset. I would also make it only apply to stadiums with 45,000 or more seats. That way teams with small stadiums are not effected, but should consider expanding seats anyway.
|
|
bigmark
General Manager 
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by bigmark on Oct 12, 2016 14:14:29 GMT -5
Some teams dont make new stadiums they just renovate. I didnt make a new one I just renovated and changed the name. Some of these teams have high stadium seating because we paid and renovated already when we started to compete because we managed for the higher revenue from competed. Gms shouldnt be punished for doing smart things. Do you expect the Red Sox to tear down Fenway or the Cubs to tear down Wrigley. ...I don't. Interesting idea but a very unnecessary rule.
|
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Oct 12, 2016 14:24:05 GMT -5
Some teams dont make new stadiums they just renovate. I didnt make a new one I just renovated and changed the name. Some of these teams have high stadium seating because we paid and renovated already when we started to compete because we managed for the higher revenue from competed. Gms shouldnt be punished for doing smart things. Do you expect the Red Sox to tear down Fenway or the Cubs to tear down Wrigley. ...I don't. Interesting idea but a very unnecessary rule. Which I totally understand. I just get annoyed when teams sit on ungodly amounts of money for no reason. If your stadium fund is maxed out, you've got 3 seasons to spend money out of it, otherwise you lose it. Keep Wrigley, but spend money to upgrade it. Keep Fenway, but keep adding seats to it. I've got no intentions to get rid of the current Busch Stadium that I've got and it's the oldest stadium in the league. |
|
bigmark
General Manager
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by bigmark on Oct 12, 2016 14:36:16 GMT -5
Some teams dont make new stadiums they just renovate. I didnt make a new one I just renovated and changed the name. Some of these teams have high stadium seating because we paid and renovated already when we started to compete because we managed for the higher revenue from competed. Gms shouldnt be punished for doing smart things. Do you expect the Red Sox to tear down Fenway or the Cubs to tear down Wrigley. ...I don't. Interesting idea but a very unnecessary rule. Which I totally understand. I just get annoyed when teams sit on ungodly amounts of money for no reason. If your stadium fund is maxed out, you've got 3 seasons to spend money out of it, otherwise you lose it. Keep Wrigley, but spend money to upgrade it. Keep Fenway, but keep adding seats to it. I've got no intentions to get rid of the current Busch Stadium that I've got and it's the oldest stadium in the league. What does it really matter tho? The most they can have is 100,000,000 otherwise it disappears. they choose not to use it. it only hurts them. it can only be used for stadiums. literally them sitting on that money and not using it only affects their team in a negative manner. So I don't see how its any other gms business if they use it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Danny Glover on Oct 12, 2016 21:19:54 GMT -5
How will this effect a team like the Angels?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Oct 13, 2016 0:05:48 GMT -5
How will this effect a team like the Angels? Your stadium is 1 of the newest due to expansion so probably not much effect if any for you |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 13, 2016 6:45:18 GMT -5
As I understand it, it would have NO effect whatsoever to teams who built a new stadium or renovated it.
I think the intent is to force teams who have large seating capacities and sit on max cash and funding and force spending. Smaller stadiums need not apply.
|
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Oct 13, 2016 21:59:53 GMT -5
OK, if this isn't a good idea, then how about another one.
Lower the cash cap from $50 million to $35 million. Less money flying around, spend money or lose it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 15, 2016 7:12:40 GMT -5
Why not 30M?
|
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Oct 15, 2016 12:13:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Oct 15, 2016 17:33:01 GMT -5
That only hurts the small market teams. I say leave it where it is.
How bout we focus on getting more active owners? Guessing there is no way to convert this league to a newer OOTP version, without just manually inputting everything (which wouldn't be an option)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Oct 15, 2016 17:34:33 GMT -5
That only hurts the small market teams. I say leave it where it is. How bout we focus on getting more active owners? Guessing there is no way to convert this league to a newer OOTP version, without just manually inputting everything (which wouldn't be an option)? I completely agree with the point on small market teams |
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Oct 15, 2016 17:39:15 GMT -5
That only hurts the small market teams. I say leave it where it is. How bout we focus on getting more active owners? Guessing there is no way to convert this league to a newer OOTP version, without just manually inputting everything (which wouldn't be an option)? How? Which small market teams that are competing have 50 million in cash? |
|
