NDL Forum

GeorgesGoons wrote:

shel311 wrote:

ajalves wrote:some teams get money every single season (a lot of it) simply because their owner is classified as charitable. Show me where to sign up to get a charitable owner....who essentially isn't really the owner, since as shel mentioned, we are the owners

Preach!!!

I am 100% on board with what AJ (and Shel) is saying here. Maybe instead of a hard cap we cap base it on the owners charitable ways.

Or we can just change the owners personalities to be the same to make them irrelevant.

The_Niddler wrote:So, let's have Corey make all owners so they don't give money, but let's take away the $50 Mil cap that Corey resets our cash to every season for teams that are over that amount, sound good?
If a team earns $100 Mil in a season, they should have the right to that money, shouldn't they?

That's what the option 2 was(at least that's what I thought), and why I lobbied so strongly for it on page 1.


Also why I told Rob i can't really propose a fix, that was the fix, but the owners voted, so we have to go with what was decided.

The_Niddler wrote:So, let's have Corey make all owners so they don't give money, but let's take away the $50 Mil cap that Corey resets our cash to every season for teams that are over that amount, sound good?
If a team earns $100 Mil in a season, they should have the right to that money, shouldn't they?

That will allow the rich to get richer will it not?

If you do that then maybe market size should be adjusted as well.

shel311 wrote: Honest question, would you be for a rule that states we can't go over budget because GMs don't get to make that call in real life?

Personally, I am all for that rule.
The game is flawed. I can make a trade for a player that puts me over my budget, but I can't sign a FA that puts me over.

But I will say, If we go this route and make it so owners cannot give money anymore, then why would we still have the cap for cash at $50 Mil?

The_Niddler wrote:

shel311 wrote: Honest question, would you be for a rule that states we can't go over budget because GMs don't get to make that call in real life?

Personally, I am all for that rule.
The game is flawed. I can make a trade for a player that puts me over my budget, but I can't sign a FA that puts me over.

But I will say, If we go this route and make it so owners cannot give money anymore, then why would we still have the cap for cash at $50 Mil?

Lets winter meetings this shit up! 110% Cap limit!

Boston_Rob wrote:

GeorgesGoons wrote:

shel311 wrote:

ajalves wrote:some teams get money every single season (a lot of it) simply because their owner is classified as charitable. Show me where to sign up to get a charitable owner....who essentially isn't really the owner, since as shel mentioned, we are the owners

Preach!!!

I am 100% on board with what AJ (and Shel) is saying here. Maybe instead of a hard cap we cap base it on the owners charitable ways.

Or we can just change the owners personalities to be the same to make them irrelevant.

This!

GeorgesGoons wrote:That will allow the rich to get richer will it not?

I'm not so sure.

Just a quick example, Boston lost about $39mil this season and Indy lost $88mil.

Can someone tell me how much my owner gave so I know where I am looking in the future?

The_Niddler wrote:

shel311 wrote: Honest question, would you be for a rule that states we can't go over budget because GMs don't get to make that call in real life?

Personally, I am all for that rule.
The game is flawed. I can make a trade for a player that puts me over my budget, but I can't sign a FA that puts me over.

But I will say, If we go this route and make it so owners cannot give money anymore, then why would we still have the cap for cash at $50 Mil?

Fwiw, i'm not for the budget rule, i was just asking for consistency's sake of the GM/owner relationship.

I'm for no money from owners, and if you want to go way over budget and it puts you in a huge hole, you pay for that in the end. Like Peay, he'll probably be in financial hell for a while, he won't be able to resign anyone i'm assuming for a pretty long time. It was certainly worth it for him getting the title, but it's just the whole risk/reward thing.

I would be all for 0 money given or taken by owners, leave the 50 mil cash cap, and PLEASE don't touch anything involving budget.

0 money from owners will change the way alot of teams have to operate and will level the field tremendously. The only problem is, Montreal and a few others I'm guessing will never get out of debt due to low budgets. Tough call really

dusters06 wrote:The only problem is, Montreal and a few others I'm guessing will never get out of debt due to low budgets. Tough call really

They'll get out eventually, but it'll be good for the future because there's a risk associated with going so far over budget and consistently losing money, even for the good teams.

I can agree to set it to where owners do not give money, then keep the cash cap at $50 Mil.
It will level the playing field some, but not as much as some think.

Then instill a rule where you can only go over budget by so much, say 25% over your team's budget or whatever number that may be.

shel311 wrote:

The_Niddler wrote:

shel311 wrote: Honest question, would you be for a rule that states we can't go over budget because GMs don't get to make that call in real life?

Personally, I am all for that rule.
The game is flawed. I can make a trade for a player that puts me over my budget, but I can't sign a FA that puts me over.

But I will say, If we go this route and make it so owners cannot give money anymore, then why would we still have the cap for cash at $50 Mil?

Fwiw, i'm not for the budget rule, i was just asking for consistency's sake of the GM/owner relationship.

I'm for no money from owners, and if you want to go way over budget and it puts you in a huge hole, you pay for that in the end. Like Peay, he'll probably be in financial hell for a while, he won't be able to resign anyone i'm assuming for a pretty long time. It was certainly worth it for him getting the title, but it's just the whole risk/reward thing.

I don't need to re-sign anybody this season except one guy who I never intended to re-sign. As I was making my moves I knew I would be way over but also that the way my contracts worked out that I would have virtually the same team again this year. I'm gambling that I can again get to the playoffs and make a deep run. If that works out I should be in good shape financially next season.

The_Niddler wrote:I can agree to set it to where owners do not give money, then keep the cash cap at $50 Mil.
It will level the playing field some, but not as much as some think.

Then instill a rule where you can only go over budget by so much, say 25% over your team's budget or whatever number that may be.

But why set a limit on going over budget if you're going to have to face the consequences afterwards?

LetsGoPeay wrote:

shel311 wrote:

The_Niddler wrote:

shel311 wrote: Honest question, would you be for a rule that states we can't go over budget because GMs don't get to make that call in real life?

Personally, I am all for that rule.
The game is flawed. I can make a trade for a player that puts me over my budget, but I can't sign a FA that puts me over.

But I will say, If we go this route and make it so owners cannot give money anymore, then why would we still have the cap for cash at $50 Mil?

Fwiw, i'm not for the budget rule, i was just asking for consistency's sake of the GM/owner relationship.

I'm for no money from owners, and if you want to go way over budget and it puts you in a huge hole, you pay for that in the end. Like Peay, he'll probably be in financial hell for a while, he won't be able to resign anyone i'm assuming for a pretty long time. It was certainly worth it for him getting the title, but it's just the whole risk/reward thing.

I don't need to re-sign anybody this season except one guy who I never intended to re-sign. As I was making my moves I knew I would be way over but also that the way my contracts worked out that I would have virtually the same team again this year. I'm gambling that I can again get to the playoffs and make a deep run. If that works out I should be in good shape financially next season.

Didn't you lose 88 million or something last season?

LetsGoPeay wrote:I don't need to re-sign anybody this season except one guy who I never intended to re-sign. As I was making my moves I knew I would be way over but also that the way my contracts worked out that I would have virtually the same team again this year. I'm gambling that I can again get to the playoffs and make a deep run. If that works out I should be in good shape financially next season.

I've been in your position before...minus that whole winning a title thing.

You're in good shape in the sense that you have no one really needing to be resigned, other than AA, for quite a while. But IMO, you'll be strapped with no money for free agents for a pretty long time going forward.

Your budget will be around $134 mil next season, and your payroll is $204 million.

Like I said, i've done it before so it's not a knock, and it paid off for you, and you're in position to contend for a few seasons. But it looks like 1 by 1 when guys become free agents, you won't be able to resign them or any lesser guys for depth.

(Peay listening to Shel's talk)

Can't see the ring but pretty good gif

shel311 wrote:But it looks like 1 by 1 when guys become free agents, you won't be able to resign them or any lesser guys for depth.

We just did this and it is exactly how it will happen. Then you lose money every year to where your debt just gets larger and larger. Luckily I was able to erase 100 mil in one year but look how my team dropped in one year. I was also fortunate to have so many comp guys for 2 years in a row and rebuild much faster which was planned. Either way I do not care what we/Corey decide to do but I will say a percentage of how much you can go over I hate. If we are saying we are owners and eliminate the impact of these "digital owners" then let guys go over however much they want in whatever creative ways they want and they suffer the consequences for it. I just did it, I learned my lesson and I will never do it again.

I'm sorry, I can't see what you guys posted. Between the ring on my finger and the world series trophy there's just so many shiny things around here now that I can't see my computer screen.