|Allan (Memphis) - Saturday 10-08-05 17:26|
|Reading through some old emails (up to Sep 26!)...|
Jay is advocating a reduction in "more wins equals more money". Are there any folks interested on adjusting anything there. As an aside...perhaps one idea is...any team starting the season (before CP expenditure) with more than 2500k gets anything above it distributed out to rest of the teams equally. Its just an idea but I'm trying to think of ways to 'discuss' how we could do something with Jay's ideas. Again its a 'discussion' so its not necessarily me advocating it...just wanting to get some opinions out there...
|Steve (Asteria) - Saturday 10-08-05 18:30|
|As long as it isn't the Robin Hood rule as in other leagues where the poorest team gets it all.|
|Rob (Boston) - Saturday 10-08-05 20:48|
|I don't think I would be in favor of this. Currently, the Stars (these would be the real Stars, not those psuedo stars) have the 2nd lowest bank balance in D2, with most teams in the division having bank balances larger than the 2500k mentioned above. Any redistribution of cash would surely benefit myself and Captain Slog (Essex is the poorest team in the division) more than anyone else since we would be receiving monies without having to give any up.|
My issue with the proposal is simple: How is this fair?
|Carl (Hollywood) - Tuesday 10-11-05 4:43|
|I would rather have some sort of wages payout against total roster SL.|
Not sure what it would look like but it would hit the more powerful squads harder, as with real life.
To take and redistribute someone's wealth simply because they failed to get any players in the previous auctions, doesn't feel fair to me.
|Kevin (Kirksville) - Thursday 10-13-05 15:21|
|I agree with Carl and believe he hit on an important point. If a team misses out on picking up a good auction player one season, then they should have more cash available the following season to ensure getting a quality player early in that season. To penalize a team that carefully hoarded their money does not seem right.|
If the problem is in a few teams running away with the revenue streams, then we can either decrease the morale bonuses handed out, or else cap them lower to .25 or even .20 instead of .30. Alternatively, decrease the impact of the morale bonus on the match revenue to 75% of its current value. This would have the same final impact as decreasing the total bonus possible, only would still allow for continuing to have wide flexibility with the range of bonuses available so that a team finishing fourth in the Cup play and the team finishing first wouldn't be getting the same bonus.
|Phil (Missouri) - Friday 10-14-05 23:45|
|If a team is so bad off that revenue sharing is being considered, then that manager needs to consider an expansion team...If they need one, I own one. :-)|