NDL Forum

Added a poll as I think both options cover what’s been brought up.

I have a question and you can call it a dumb question.

Given my situation with my team budget can someone explain what I will get or NOT get depending on a yes vs a no vote.

I would honestly appreciate it. The budget part of this game is not fun for me.

k

Your budget is a direct reflection of previous seasons revenue. The best way to have a high budget is to consistently put a good product on the field and you can eventually charge more for tickets and so on and that sets your budget, not the randomness of the owner.

The owners randomly give or take cash at the end of each season so voting no would get rid of that. Some guys complain about their owner personality (which does not mean anything) so it gets rid of that excuse.

For all intent and purposes we are the owners so I do not think you should get random cash because we chose to run up a debt or that it should be taken because we have plenty by a digital owner that doesn't do anything

wdoupis wrote:Your budget is a direct reflection of previous seasons revenue. The best way to have a high budget is to consistently put a good product on the field and you can eventually charge more for tickets and so on and that sets your budget, not the randomness of the owner.

The owners randomly give or take cash at the end of each season so voting no would get rid of that. Some guys complain about their owner personality (which does not mean anything) so it gets rid of that excuse.

For all intent and purposes we are the owners so I do not think you should get random cash because we chose to run up a debt or that it should be taken because we have plenty by a digital owner that doesn't do anything

It actually does. Owner can increase budget. You have a greedy owner he isn't going to increase as often as someone who is generous. Last season, Rob's owner gave him an additional $30m Durning spring, if I remember correctly. My owner has never given me extra money to try and compete

GeorgesGoons wrote:

wdoupis wrote:Your budget is a direct reflection of previous seasons revenue. The best way to have a high budget is to consistently put a good product on the field and you can eventually charge more for tickets and so on and that sets your budget, not the randomness of the owner.

The owners randomly give or take cash at the end of each season so voting no would get rid of that. Some guys complain about their owner personality (which does not mean anything) so it gets rid of that excuse.

For all intent and purposes we are the owners so I do not think you should get random cash because we chose to run up a debt or that it should be taken because we have plenty by a digital owner that doesn't do anything

It actually does. Owner can increase budget. You have a greedy owner he isn't going to increase as often as someone who is generous. Last season, Rob's owner gave him an additional $30m Durning spring, if I remember correctly. My owner has never given me extra money to try and compete

But from my understanding, this vote doesn't take care of that.

It does.

No one gets extra cash or cash taken away.

Every owner would be made the same personality. I’d back out any giving or taking as I have to still manually do that.

That’s for a no vote.

A yes vote we stay the same.

Voted

Which vote causes a faster rollover?

Uuaww wrote:Which vote causes a faster rollover?

I think you know the answer.

GeorgesGoons wrote:

wdoupis wrote:Your budget is a direct reflection of previous seasons revenue. The best way to have a high budget is to consistently put a good product on the field and you can eventually charge more for tickets and so on and that sets your budget, not the randomness of the owner.

The owners randomly give or take cash at the end of each season so voting no would get rid of that. Some guys complain about their owner personality (which does not mean anything) so it gets rid of that excuse.

For all intent and purposes we are the owners so I do not think you should get random cash because we chose to run up a debt or that it should be taken because we have plenty by a digital owner that doesn't do anything

It actually does. Owner can increase budget. You have a greedy owner he isn't going to increase as often as someone who is generous. Last season, Rob's owner gave him an additional $30m Durning spring, if I remember correctly. My owner has never given me extra money to try and compete

NO IT DOES NOT. Rob got an increase because his projected revenue changes based on interest, ticket prices, season ticket sales. This year see what your budget is at. Then change your ticket prices in an extreme manner one way or the other and immediately see next years projected budget change as your gate revenue changes and overall revenue changes. The only owner that matters is YOU

Wasted Memory wrote:Out of curiosity, I wonder if everyone's market size was set to the same, along with media revenue and merchandising would that have any type of impact on how much money each team was allowed to have? Maybe that's potentially a different route we can take since this seems to be a handful for you to have to deal with.

Not sure if those was just glossed over or no one knows, but I'll ask again.

wdoupis wrote:

GeorgesGoons wrote:

wdoupis wrote:Your budget is a direct reflection of previous seasons revenue. The best way to have a high budget is to consistently put a good product on the field and you can eventually charge more for tickets and so on and that sets your budget, not the randomness of the owner.

The owners randomly give or take cash at the end of each season so voting no would get rid of that. Some guys complain about their owner personality (which does not mean anything) so it gets rid of that excuse.

For all intent and purposes we are the owners so I do not think you should get random cash because we chose to run up a debt or that it should be taken because we have plenty by a digital owner that doesn't do anything

It actually does. Owner can increase budget. You have a greedy owner he isn't going to increase as often as someone who is generous. Last season, Rob's owner gave him an additional $30m Durning spring, if I remember correctly. My owner has never given me extra money to try and compete

NO IT DOES NOT. Rob got an increase because his projected revenue changes based on interest, ticket prices, season ticket sales. This year see what your budget is at. Then change your ticket prices in an extreme manner one way or the other and immediately see next years projected budget change as your gate revenue changes and overall revenue changes. The only owner that matters is YOU

Your budget is based off of what your last seasons revenue. An increase in $30m over your last seasons revenue based on speculation shows that owners do matter. Even when I made the playoffs and was able to put a good product on the field and had a projected increase in revenue my owner never increased my budget. That's the difference between greedy controlling penny pinchera and generous owners. And this is by no means a knock on Rob because he was just doing what he needed to get better

Wasted Memory wrote:

Wasted Memory wrote:Out of curiosity, I wonder if everyone's market size was set to the same, along with media revenue and merchandising would that have any type of impact on how much money each team was allowed to have? Maybe that's potentially a different route we can take since this seems to be a handful for you to have to deal with.

Not sure if those was just glossed over or no one knows, but I'll ask again.

Reign my be a good person to ask if Corey doesn't know

But making the playoffs once a decade and being .500 now and then is not enough. Right now my owner is labeled as shitty as you could be and mine just keeps climbing because of sustained success. Either way, make them all the same and this debate goes away

Seems to me that shel has the worst owner. He's the only one I've seen classified as a "Penny Pincher".

I'll go see if I can find any complaints from shel about him....

Let us know what you find, we'll be awaiting your review!!!

That's my point! Nothing there...

2/3 of the total vote will be the OOTP standard moving forward so everyone knows.

Wasted Memory wrote:Seems to me that shel has the worst owner. He's the only one I've seen classified as a "Penny Pincher".

I'll go see if I can find any complaints from shel about him....

Fiscal personality only shows half of it though. What is his priorities? Boggs is extreme profit. Wouldn't that play into account as well?

If passed, all would be made the exact same.

Whatever the term in the middle is for all.

Your budget and all those items are still determined by your performance.