Trade Deadline(s)

[HFNHL PIT GM]

Originally Posted by They call me Tytan

nice discussion .... if anyone can tell me why i am bleeding despite adding millions in cash from trades and dumping millions in salary, i would be appreciative!

i am pretty sure i made round 2 of the playoffs last season and the day this season started, I was projected to lose 17m, before even 1 game was played.

Originally Posted by MatthewFlames

....

I agree. Its' gambling. But, one of the teams that had money but now doesn't is the Penguins. Why? Because he doesn't do endorsements because of the gambling element. So every year his peers were making 5 - 15 million and he wasn't. Its the system we have in place and so far haven't come up with a better one. The changes we made a few seasons ago have helped. .

thats my problem? I didnt gamble? i figure by not spending any money on endorsements for the last how many years, i am automatically up. does everyone make money or is it fair to say i am probably in the middle of the pack in the endorsement race?

Originally Posted by MatthewFlames

Your revenue was projected to be about 37 million. You were spending close to the cap. You needed to have 17 million in the bank to start the season just to survive.

so i am doomed for next season too .?.?.

[MatthewFlames]

Originally Posted by They call me Tytan

thats my problem? I didnt gamble? i figure by not spending any money on endorsements for the last how many years, i am automatically up. does everyone make money or is it fair to say i am probably in the middle of the pack in the endorsement race?

You ended up saving 3-5 million but losing 5-20 that others were getting. And yes, if you pick the right ones and you have a team finishing top 10 in the conference with some players getting good stats and some good prospects, pretty much you make money....

so i am doomed for next season too .?.?.

Unless you drop your payroll below 40 million, then I would say yes you are. Presently I think we will be in the zero to 4 or 5 million TV range (which is historically what we are) - so if you make it through the season you will have that in the bank. Plus whatever you trade for. If you make 970K per game (what you're making now) you will make 40.7 million. If you don't make the playoffs then that is all you will have to spend on salaries - about 45 million. That's if you don't want to try and save some money.

If you buy some endorsements (say 4 millions worth) - you will be in the red again during the season.

EDIT - but if you don't buy endorsements you'll never get out of the hole.

[Ohio Jones]

For the record, even in my worst year in endorsements I broke even, after getting money back on my cancellations. There's no excuse for not making at the very least the attendance endorsement, since we can now tweak our ticket prices to attract however many fans we want regardless of our performance. 2/3rds of the league's goalies would win the Save% endorsement. And most teams have enough decent prospects to earn at least $2m ($1m profit) from Mountain Dew.

The categories that I consider gambling are the Merch endorsements -- I'll have this home record, or win the first round of the playoffs, etc... but you can steer clear of those entirely, or know that you'll make enough off your other endorsements to more than cover any losses from making a poor choice there.

But all this aside, any team with a payroll under $40m will make good money on the season, independent of performance. Any team with payroll over $50m will lose a fair bit of money on the season. The rest will break even to varying degrees. I know where I am on that spectrum, and my bank balance proves it (although it's worse than it should be because I moved Zidlicky before the All Star Game. Silly bugger.)

I'll need all that revenue from the TV deal, my endorsements and - Sim God willing - a nice long playoff run to build up my war chest for another nail-biting season of will-i-go-broke-with-a-capped-team! (Answer: yes).

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

I agree. Its' gambling. But, one of the teams that had money but now doesn't is the Penguins. Why? Because he doesn't do endorsements because of the gambling element. So every year his peers were making 5 - 15 million and he wasn't. Its the system we have in place and so far haven't come up with a better one. The changes we made a few seasons ago have helped.

Not all the endorsements loose money... some are pretty reliable. i think though a lot are designed for Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin.

Actually - that's not quite correct for me. Its' 36 million ticket revenue. ZERO TV revenue (this season) or TWO million (last season). I will make one endorsement since my team sucked. It's worth 5 million. Thats a total of 41 million dollars TO BREAK EVEN. Most teams with a payroll of 41 million won't make the playoffs. No team is making 50 million and has a sub 40 million dollar budget. That's a dream I'd like to come to fruition for me.

I forgot about the TV revenue changes not with the cap but based on cash in the league... yah that does put things out of whack. we should be balancing revenue for 60Mil cap not cash. Still, to me the problem is spread... a team hitting 500 should be making more then 40M... team at the top of the charts should be making more then 5M over the worst team in the league.

If a team spends at 5 mil below the cap (54 mil) and makes the playoffs (lets say one round) and makes 8 million in endorsements (about the average last year) then they will have made (45 tickets, 4 home playoffs, 8 mil in endorsements, zero tv) 58 million. They will break even or make a couple million. If they go to the cap, they will lose a few million. If they win some other stuff (all stars) and go deep and get 12-15 endorsements, then they can make money. Its' the only way.

Not the cap. The average spend of each team, which is quite a bit lower. The cap is too high.

I don't agree with this... the cap is set by the NHL which is needed since we follow the NHL for salary guidelines. The cap seems too high for the HFNHL based on the distribution of revenue in the league. we should be pegging revenue so that a competing team breaks even at the cap. A loosing team running at the cap should loose money... regardless of the stupidity of the sim. A 500 team in the NHL is at/close to the cap.

SOME poor teams. If I'd have had enough in the bank to ride out this one bad season I would be fine as you suggest. My problem has more to do with MO or whatever makes the sim so unrealistic rather than the approach I took to make money (see your earlier comment about how the Leafs got into the good financial position)....

I don't think the NHL montreal canadians thought they'd be in the spot they are in now, and neither were the washington capitals.. you take bad seasons as part of the game. The sim changing for the last couple of years has thrown alot of GM's out of whack and that's added volatility to the standings. Having money in the bank allows for a team to take that chance and loose... that's the reward for having lots of money. I agree with you though that success should lead to financial stability... you should be able to run a cap team and break even.

Sim was killing us until we made some changes. Hopefully its enough for us to break into the playoffs and not kill our nest egg.

[MatthewFlames]

Originally Posted by Ohio Jones

But all this aside, any team with a payroll under $40m will make good money on the season, independent of performance. .

How exactly?

A team with 40 mill payroll will have a mediocre non playoff team. Those teams make LESS than 40 million revenue. I'm making 37.8 million in ticket revenue. I'm making 5 million in endorsements. 3 million IS NOT GOOD MONEY on the season. It will take 5 YEARS of this to get 15 million. FIVE YEARS. And 15 million can all be gone in one season with a team still 5 million below the cap (at 54 million I am standing to lose 16 million this season.... or 11 million with my endorsement.)

A sub 40 mil payroll is a WAY to make MONEY, but not GOOD money. The only thing it guarantees is that you may not go broke, and even that is borderline at best.

[MatthewFlames]

Originally Posted by Toronto_AGM_Adil

Not all the endorsements loose money... some are pretty reliable. i think though a lot are designed for Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin.

Right. Which is why Pitt and SJS and some others who haven't really done the endorsements are in deeper trouble.

I forgot about the TV revenue changes not with the cap but based on cash in the league... yah that does put things out of whack. we should be balancing revenue for 60Mil cap not cash. Still, to me the problem is spread... a team hitting 500 should be making more then 40M... team at the top of the charts should be making more then 5M over the worst team in the league.

To put it into perspective. If we finish with 910 million in the league bank accounts (our number from two years ago) - we would add 60 million, or 2 million per team into TV revenue. Your proposal, balancing to 60 million, not 32.3 (which we presently do, per team, since we started with 35 million per team but with only 28 teams (pre expansion)) - then we would balance to 1.8 billion. That's roughly 900 million additional TV revenue in the league. That means TV revenue would be SIXTY (60) MILLION PER TEAM.

I would propose a MUCH smaller number like 45 million per team (instead of 32.33) - which would give teams around 10-12 million of TV revenue (and that would fluctuate per season as it does now...)

I don't agree with this... the cap is set by the NHL which is needed since we follow the NHL for salary guidelines. The cap seems too high for the HFNHL based on the distribution of revenue in the league. we should be pegging revenue so that a competing team breaks even at the cap. A loosing team running at the cap should loose money... regardless of the stupidity of the sim. A 500 team in the NHL is at/close to the cap.

Not much we can do about this. The cap is set by our mechanism to follow the NHL, along with salaries.

Revenue WITHIN the sim is the problem. And not one we can fix. And yes, there isn't enough disparity but there also just isn't enough realistic revenue. Even when the Flames lose they sell out. There is loyalty and market and beer and parking. And revenue from other sports teams and the Dome etc.

Having money in the bank allows for a team to take that chance and loose... that's the reward for having lots of money. I agree with you though that success should lead to financial stability... you should be able to run a cap team and break even.
.

Right now you can only run a cap team and break even if you make the playoffs and win a round AND make 10 mil or more on endorsements.

And well yes - having money so you can survive some bad seasons makes total sense. Just remember I've never had that luxury. When I took over the Flames the first thing that happened was that I lost Kovalchuk and Luongo to RFA bids because I couldn't sign them because I didn't have an money to pay the signing bonus (before we got rid of them... the Flamettes rule I call it So I've battled every year with having no money. I finished 9th for a bunch of season running a low low salary. Then I went into the red and got the league not to take away my team so I could make the playoffs with a more expensive team. It worked - I made the conf finals. But in the arms race i still wasn't making enough to build a nest egg. I figure if I'd made the playoffs and my endorsements this year I would have started next year with 24 mil Plus. What one little season can do if you're on the knife edge of finances as we have it...

[Ohio Jones]

Originally Posted by MatthewFlames

How exactly?

A team with 40 mill payroll will have a mediocre non playoff team. Those teams make LESS than 40 million revenue. I'm making 37.8 million in ticket revenue. I'm making 5 million in endorsements. 3 million IS NOT GOOD MONEY on the season. It will take 5 YEARS of this to get 15 million. FIVE YEARS. And 15 million can all be gone in one season with a team still 5 million below the cap (at 54 million I am standing to lose 16 million this season.... or 11 million with my endorsement.)

A sub 40 mil payroll is a WAY to make MONEY, but not GOOD money. The only thing it guarantees is that you may not go broke, and even that is borderline at best.

I hear your pain - I do. But you're not factoring in the $10 million in TV revenues you also receive. $13 million in profit isn't bad at all. But it's only good money BECAUSE we've artificially inflated it with "TV revenues" to address the fact that the sim engine does not keep up with NHL inflation. (It seems permanently stuck in... what? 2002?).

And yes, it can still go poof in a single season if you increase your spending but have a sub-par performance. Actually, it WILL go poof in a single season if you increase your spending, REGARDLESS of your performance. And there's the rub: the fundamental foolishness with the current sim engine failing to allow revenues to a) be scaleable to reflect inflation, and b) grow meaningfully with performance.

[MatthewFlames]

Originally Posted by Ohio Jones

I hear your pain - I do. But you're not factoring in the $10 million in TV revenues you also receive. $13 million in profit isn't bad at all. But it's only good money BECAUSE we've artificially inflated it with "TV revenues" to address the fact that the sim engine does not keep up with NHL inflation. (It seems permanently stuck in... what? 2002?).

Where do teams get 10 million in TV revenue? This season we had none. Last season we had 2 million.



EDIT: We had no TV revenue this past season because the money in the league exceeded the 970 million benchmark (due to some stellar money making by certain teams in endorsements...)

EDIT EDIT: Not only is the sim not keeping up with NHL inflation - but I think our level of the benchmark is also stuck in the past, in pre-expansion past even. Which is why in my previous post I suggest we bring it up from 32.3 per team to a higher number like 45 million, a more reasonable number at which a team can operate its payroll. And a number still 20 million below the cap (and one that would give 10 million in TV revenue)

[Ohio Jones]

Originally Posted by MatthewFlames

Where do teams get 10 million in TV revenue? This season we had none. Last season we had 2 million.



EDIT: We had no TV revenue this past season because the money in the league exceeded the 970 million benchmark (due to some stellar money making by certain teams in endorsements...)

EDIT EDIT: Not only is the sim not keeping up with NHL inflation - but I think our level of the benchmark is also stuck in the past, in pre-expansion past even. Which is why in my previous post I suggest we bring it up from 32.3 per team to a higher number like 45 million, a more reasonable number at which a team can operate its payroll. And a number still 20 million below the cap (and one that would give 10 million in TV revenue)

Ah, that makes more sense. Thought the TV payout was higher, but that might have been when it was first introduced. I agree that if the sim engine is frozen in time, our revenue equalizer needs to be updated to keep pace with inflation.

[MatthewFlames]

Ooh. Had an idea. Why don't we just get rid of paying for endorsements? That would allow poor teams to apply for them without penalty. They would still need to achieve objectives to get the money. But it wouldn't be a gamble of any hard earned money in the bank. We could lower the payouts if they seem too high

[Brock]

Originally Posted by MatthewFlames

Ooh. Had an idea. Why don't we just get rid of paying for endorsements? That would allow poor teams to apply for them without penalty. They would still need to achieve objectives to get the money. But it wouldn't be a gamble of any hard earned money in the bank. We could lower the payouts if they seem too high

This is something that I have suggested before.

Or...having some risk/reward attached to it, but in a different way.

Like having them be free to sign up, but if you DON'T make the endorsement, you'd have to owe a certain amount of money for failing to reach it.

[Vagrant]

Perhaps some achievements that aren't as unattainable for the teams that perpetually stink at the HFNHL level would help to balance the ledger. I have largely ignored the endorsements in all honesty because I assumed them to be "winning based". Since attendance, individual awards at the HFNHL level, and team based milestones like PP proficiency and PK proficiency are inherently linked to winners, for the sake of argument cannot be foreseen without a strong one, it leaves little incentive for small market clubs to participate.

I remember an old league of mine, and perhaps it even went on here as well, offered up cash for "articles" on their team posted to the website or even here on the boards. Minimum word limit, limit two per week, etc. Perhaps not only would it be conducive to creating content and interest for the league but it could also be a good way to keep the whole league active.

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

Originally Posted by MatthewFlames

Ooh. Had an idea. Why don't we just get rid of paying for endorsements? That would allow poor teams to apply for them without penalty. They would still need to achieve objectives to get the money. But it wouldn't be a gamble of any hard earned money in the bank. We could lower the payouts if they seem too high

The rich will get richer and well have injected a lot of money into the system... endorsement payout are geared heavily towards top teams.

I don't think endorsement is the solution...
If its a problem with revenue you fix revenue, not make stuff free

[Dryden]

2007-2008 I had $2 mil in the bank. This season started and I was around $30 million. Even with making moves for some high salaried players I will still have around $17 mil at the end of the season. With endorsements and hopefully playoffs I should be above where I started. Mind you this is the first season I've been competitive in a very long time.

[Ohio Jones]

As frustrating as our endless revenue debates are, it must be even more frustrating to be at the NHL Board of Governors' meetings, and know that your multi-billion dollar business is just as screwed up.

The NHL had 6 or 7 teams that posted significant profits in 2009-10 (last season I've seen fingers for), and 16 teams in the red. And that's real money, not imaginary money for Matthew's imaginary friends.

I guess I just find it reassuring that we take our realism so seriously that we've got a business model in place that's just as broken (albeit differently broken) as the real thing.

[MatthewFlames]

Originally Posted by Toronto_AGM_Adil

The rich will get richer and well have injected a lot of money into the system... endorsement payout are geared heavily towards top teams.

I don't think endorsement is the solution...
If its a problem with revenue you fix revenue, not make stuff free

Well Adil. Suggest away. How do we fix revenue? I have no idea besides re-programming the sim (or switching to a new one.)

The endorsement change (removing the payment aspect and therefore the 'gambling' aspect) will at least accomplish a couple things:

1: it would open revenue sources to teams that have no money and in the present system punishes teams that already don't have money.
2: endorsements still wouldn't be free money. they would still be based on achievements. we could even toughen them up though I suggest we allow a broad range of they types of achievements that can be reached.

For example, I'm on track to win only the one endorsement this year. Its 5 million. However due to the fact that I've already paid 2 million just to take part the endorsement, so the real value is 3 million.

The cost of the other failed endorsements are 3.5 million. THE FLAMES ARE LOSING HALF A MILLION IN ENDORSEMENTS THIS YEAR. I'm worse off because I played the endorsements. I would be better off not participating.

If we just removed the payment aspect, I would be up 3 million instead of down half. Trust me - that would make a substantial difference.

Here are the teams in financial trouble (LESS Than 20 Million Projected at seasons end)


BRUINS:
Projected Finish: 700K
Salary: 57 Mil.
Total Season EXPENSES: 41.6 (so far) + 15.7 (remaining) = 57.3 (this includes coaches, minors etc. - this is found by adding up expenses so far and expected expenses for the rest of the season)
Started the season with: 14 Million.
Revenue Loss: 13.7 Million. This is the number within the sim itself.
Playoff Revenue Projected: Zero.
Max Endorsements: 3.5 Million (having pulled out of 2 to get money back)
Estimated TV Revenue: 1 Million (the average of the last two season)
Profit/Loss: LOSS 9.2 Million
BRUINS Starting point for 2012: 5.2 Million

SENATORS:
Projected Finish: Minus 1.7 Mil.
Salary: 60 Mil.
Total Expenses: 42.8 + 16 = 58.8 Million
Started: 12.3 Million.
[COLOR="red"]Revenue Loss: 14 Million./COLOR]
Max Endorsements: 8 Million
Playoff Revenue: At least one home series, probably more. It will take a deep deep run to get back into the teens, winning the cup is what it will take to add 20 million. I'm going to average out for all playoff teams and say two rounds, total of 6 home games @ 1.3 Million per game. = 7.8
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: PROFIT 1.8
SENS Start 2012 with: 14 Million

DEVILS:
Projected Finish: 9 Million
Salary: 43 Million (after selling off from 56 Mil)
Total Expenses: 39.9 + 12.6 = 52.5 Million
Started: 21.9 Million.
Net Loss: 13 Million
Max Endorsements: 4 Million
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Playoff Revenue: Zero.
Profit/Loss: LOSS 8 Million
DEVILS 2012: 14 Million

PENGUINS:
Projected Finish: 1.4 Million
Salary: 51.9 Mil
Total Expenses: 41.1 + 15.1 = 56.2 Million
Started: 11.7 Million
Net Loss: 10 Million (not counting the half dozen trades for money)
Max Endorsements: Zero
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Playoff Revenue: Zero right now but still in with a chance. Lets be generous and say he makes the 2nd round. 7.8 Million.
Profit/Loss: LOSS 1 million + assets traded for money
PENGUINS 2012: 10.4 Million

RANGERS:
Projected Finish: 6.6 Million
Salary: 50.2 Million
Total Expenses: 40 + 14.6 = 54.6 Million
Started: 19.2 Million
Revenue Loss: 13.4 Million
Max Endorsements: 6 Million
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Playoff Revenue: Zero
Profit/Loss: LOSS 7.4 Million
RANGERS 2012: 13.7 Million

CAPITALS:
Projected Finish: 4.1 Million
Salary: 57.3 Million
Total Expenses: 39 + 16.3 = 55.3 Million
Started: 19. 8 Million
Revenue Loss: 15.7 Million
Max Endorsements: Zero
Playoff Revenue: Zero
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: LOSS 14.7 Million
CAPITALS 2012: 5.1 Million

HURRICANES:
Projected Finish: 9.3 Million
Salary: 65 Million
Total Expenses: 39.7 + 19.1 = 58.8 Million
Started: 21.3 Million
Revenue Loss: 12 Million
Max Endorsements: 10.5
Playoff Revenue: Like the Sens they're in a good position to profit. = 7.8
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: PROFIT 19.3 Million
HURRICANES 2012: 28.6 Million

JETS:
Projected Finish: 7.5 Million
Salary: 48.8 Million
Total Expenses: 38.4 + 13.9 = 52.3 Million
Started: 21.2 Million
Revenue Loss: 13.5 Million
Playoff Revenue: Zero
Max Endorsements: Zero
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: LOSS 12.5 Million
JETS 2012: 8.5 Million

LIGHTNING:
Projected Finish: 15 Million
Salary: 36 Million
Total Expenses: 37 + 11 = 48 Million
Started: 21.7 Million
Revenue Loss: 6.7 Million
Max Endorsements: Zero
Playoff Revenue: Zero
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: LOSS 5.7 Million
LIGHTNING 2012: 16 Million

BLUE JACKETS:
Projected Finish: 2.2 Million
Salary: 62 Million
Total Expenses: 42 + 18.3 = 60.3 Million
Started: 24 Million
Revenue Loss: 20 Million
Max Endorsements: 16.5 Million
Playoff Revenue: Looks like a lot. = 7.8
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: PROFIT 25.3 Million
COLUMBUS 2012: 27.3 Million

FLAMES:
Projected Revenue: - 200K
Salary: 45 Million
Total Expenses: 42.5 Million + 13.6 Million = 56.1 Million
Started: 15.3 Million
Revenue Loss: 15.5 Mil (not counting several for money trades)
Max Endorsements: 5 Million
Playoff Revenue: Zero
TV Revenue: Million
Profit/Loss: LOSS 10.5 Million
FLAMES 2012: 4.7 Million

WILD:
Projected Revenue: 8.7 Million
Salary: 46 Million
Total Expenses: 34 + 13.7 = 47.7 Million
Started: 17 Million
Revenue Loss: 9 Million
Playoff Revenue: Zero
Max Endorsements: Zero
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: LOSS 8 Million
WILD 2012: 9.7 Million


COYOTES
Projected Revenue: 15 Million
Salary: 58 Million
Total Expenses: 39.5 + 16.9 = 56.4
Started: 30.2 Million
Revenue Loss: 15.2 Million
Max Endorsements: 2.5
Playoff Revenue: Some chance at making the playoffs = 7.8
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: LOSS 4 Million
COYOTES 2012: 26 Million

DUCKS
Projected Revenue: 15.2 Million
Salary: 50.8 Million
Total Expenses: 37.7 + 15.1 = 52.8 Million
Started: 24.7 Million
Revenue Loss: 9.5 Million
Max Endorsements: 10 Million
Playoff Revenue: 7.8 Million
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: PROFIT 9.2 Million
DUCKS 2012: 34.4 Million

SHARKS
Projected Revenue: 7.6 Million
Salary: 39 Million
Total Expenses: 34.7 + 11.9 = 46.6 Million
Started: 11.4 Million
Revenue Loss: 3.8 Million:
Max Endorsements: 4 Million
Playoff Revenue: Zero
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: PROFIT 1.2 Million
SHARKS 2012: 13.6 Million



MYTH BUSTING #1: Changing the Endorsement system will flood the game with money. No it won't. The Flames would make 3 million as opposed to losing half a million. This is not flooding the market by any stretch. I'm would be punished financially for my poor performance by not making the endorsements. In the present system I'm punished twice by losing the money I gambled.

MYTH BUSTING #2: TEAMS with AHL Rosters ARE Making Tons of Money (or ANY money at all). Please show me one example of this. It's not happening.

The Lightning will have a 36 million dollar roster and will show a net loss (after everything, including endorsements) of 5.7 Million. If he'd been allowed to keep his Mountain Dew (which he was late for applying) then he would have lost 1.7 Million (WITH a 36 million dollar roster.)

The Sharks have a 39 Million dollar payroll. They will have a net loss of 3.8 Million. After endorsements of 5 million he will have a net gain of 1.2 Million.

The Wild compete a little more. They have a payroll of 46 Million. They're losing 8 Million. The average endorsements won are less than 8 million. The Wild, even with better financial management in our system, would still lose money this year.


MYTH BUSTING #3: TEAMS are becoming bankrupt because they are blowing tons of money unrealistically on huge payrolls.

This is not true. Its actually the inverse. In fact, the two teams with the biggest payrolls of this group are the two who will make the MOST PROFIT (the Blue Jackets & Hurricanes)

MYTH BUSTING #4 Making the playoffs (and wining a round) and getting your endorsements means you're making a ton of money even when you're close to the cap.

The Senators will, barring going to the Conf Finals (which only 4 teams will do) will barely eek out a profit. There is no doubt that YOU HAVE TO SPEND MONEY to make money, the examples above show it, but its no guarantee.

MYTH BUSTING #5 Making the playoffs and endorsements will get teams out of financial trouble

See the Senators.

MYTH BUSTING #6 Poor teams have to keep salaries low in order to get out of financial trouble

If I hear this one more time I will shoot myself. Or if I hear that aiding these poor teams by changing the endorsements or adding TV revenue will unbalance the league. THE LEAGUE IS ALREADY UNBALANCED.

By keeping an AHL payroll you need the luck of the FLYERS (the only team succeeding in this way). Otherwise its' a LOOONG slow climb doing it this way. So PLEASE stop repeating the myth that these teams are making money. THE ONLY TEAMS MAKING MONEY AND THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE MONEY IS TO BLOW YOUR BRAINS OUT WITH A PLUS 50 MILLION DOLLAR PAYROLL. Only ONE TEAM is making money with less than 53 million Expenses and its the FLYERS. The evidence is above!

And this list doesn't even include the Oilers, Predators, BlackHawks, Panthers, Islanders, Maple Leafs and Canadiens (also below 20 mil) who are living pay check to pay check - one bad season and any of these will join the above list as all these teams have less money now than the Hurricanes had (they are all below 27 million). THATS TWENTY TWO TEAMS -----

[Ohio Jones]

The Rangers, Tampa, Detroit, Edmonton, Minnesota, San Jose and Dallas are all making a profit right now. Edmonton and Detroit are doing so with payrolls in the high 40s. Everyone else is south of 40m. (The real anomaly in the league is Vancouver, which is barely losing any money despite a payroll over 60.).

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I think the teams with the least money should have to give their 1st round draft picks to the team with the most money. This would be capitalism at it's finest.

Overall, I think the idea of normalizing the league cash flow at an average of $30 million per team ($960M total or whatever) is a way to always account for faults in the sim, which are difficult to anticipate season to season in terms of $'s. Perhaps we can do a mid-season top-up based on the run rate, otherwise, individual teams need to manage their balance as always. That includes doing financial deals.

[islanders]

Originally Posted by MatthewFlames

Well Adil. Suggest away. How do we fix revenue? I have no idea besides re-programming the sim (or switching to a new one.)

The endorsement change (removing the payment aspect and therefore the 'gambling' aspect) will at least accomplish a couple things:

1: it would open revenue sources to teams that have no money and in the present system punishes teams that already don't have money.
2: endorsements still wouldn't be free money. they would still be based on achievements. we could even toughen them up though I suggest we allow a broad range of they types of achievements that can be reached.

For example, I'm on track to win only the one endorsement this year. Its 5 million. However due to the fact that I've already paid 2 million just to take part the endorsement, so the real value is 3 million.

The cost of the other failed endorsements are 3.5 million. THE FLAMES ARE LOSING HALF A MILLION IN ENDORSEMENTS THIS YEAR. I'm worse off because I played the endorsements. I would be better off not participating.

If we just removed the payment aspect, I would be up 3 million instead of down half. Trust me - that would make a substantial difference.

Here are the teams in financial trouble (LESS Than 20 Million Projected at seasons end)


BRUINS:
Projected Finish: 700K
Salary: 57 Mil.
Total Season EXPENSES: 41.6 (so far) + 15.7 (remaining) = 57.3 (this includes coaches, minors etc. - this is found by adding up expenses so far and expected expenses for the rest of the season)
Started the season with: 14 Million.
Revenue Loss: 13.7 Million. This is the number within the sim itself.
Playoff Revenue Projected: Zero.
Max Endorsements: 3.5 Million (having pulled out of 2 to get money back)
Estimated TV Revenue: 1 Million (the average of the last two season)
Profit/Loss: LOSS 9.2 Million
BRUINS Starting point for 2012: 5.2 Million

SENATORS:
Projected Finish: Minus 1.7 Mil.
Salary: 60 Mil.
Total Expenses: 42.8 + 16 = 58.8 Million
Started: 12.3 Million.
[COLOR="red"]Revenue Loss: 14 Million./COLOR]
Max Endorsements: 8 Million
Playoff Revenue: At least one home series, probably more. It will take a deep deep run to get back into the teens, winning the cup is what it will take to add 20 million. I'm going to average out for all playoff teams and say two rounds, total of 6 home games @ 1.3 Million per game. = 7.8
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: PROFIT 1.8
SENS Start 2012 with: 14 Million

DEVILS:
Projected Finish: 9 Million
Salary: 43 Million (after selling off from 56 Mil)
Total Expenses: 39.9 + 12.6 = 52.5 Million
Started: 21.9 Million.
Net Loss: 13 Million
Max Endorsements: 4 Million
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Playoff Revenue: Zero.
Profit/Loss: LOSS 8 Million
DEVILS 2012: 14 Million

PENGUINS:
Projected Finish: 1.4 Million
Salary: 51.9 Mil
Total Expenses: 41.1 + 15.1 = 56.2 Million
Started: 11.7 Million
Net Loss: 10 Million (not counting the half dozen trades for money)
Max Endorsements: Zero
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Playoff Revenue: Zero right now but still in with a chance. Lets be generous and say he makes the 2nd round. 7.8 Million.
Profit/Loss: LOSS 1 million + assets traded for money
PENGUINS 2012: 10.4 Million

RANGERS:
Projected Finish: 6.6 Million
Salary: 50.2 Million
Total Expenses: 40 + 14.6 = 54.6 Million
Started: 19.2 Million
Revenue Loss: 13.4 Million
Max Endorsements: 6 Million
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Playoff Revenue: Zero
Profit/Loss: LOSS 7.4 Million
RANGERS 2012: 13.7 Million

CAPITALS:
Projected Finish: 4.1 Million
Salary: 57.3 Million
Total Expenses: 39 + 16.3 = 55.3 Million
Started: 19. 8 Million
Revenue Loss: 15.7 Million
Max Endorsements: Zero
Playoff Revenue: Zero
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: LOSS 14.7 Million
CAPITALS 2012: 5.1 Million

HURRICANES:
Projected Finish: 9.3 Million
Salary: 65 Million
Total Expenses: 39.7 + 19.1 = 58.8 Million
Started: 21.3 Million
Revenue Loss: 12 Million
Max Endorsements: 10.5
Playoff Revenue: Like the Sens they're in a good position to profit. = 7.8
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: PROFIT 19.3 Million
HURRICANES 2012: 28.6 Million

JETS:
Projected Finish: 7.5 Million
Salary: 48.8 Million
Total Expenses: 38.4 + 13.9 = 52.3 Million
Started: 21.2 Million
Revenue Loss: 13.5 Million
Playoff Revenue: Zero
Max Endorsements: Zero
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: LOSS 12.5 Million
JETS 2012: 8.5 Million

LIGHTNING:
Projected Finish: 15 Million
Salary: 36 Million
Total Expenses: 37 + 11 = 48 Million
Started: 21.7 Million
Revenue Loss: 6.7 Million
Max Endorsements: Zero
Playoff Revenue: Zero
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: LOSS 5.7 Million
LIGHTNING 2012: 16 Million

BLUE JACKETS:
Projected Finish: 2.2 Million
Salary: 62 Million
Total Expenses: 42 + 18.3 = 60.3 Million
Started: 24 Million
Revenue Loss: 20 Million
Max Endorsements: 16.5 Million
Playoff Revenue: Looks like a lot. = 7.8
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: PROFIT 25.3 Million
COLUMBUS 2012: 27.3 Million

FLAMES:
Projected Revenue: - 200K
Salary: 45 Million
Total Expenses: 42.5 Million + 13.6 Million = 56.1 Million
Started: 15.3 Million
Revenue Loss: 15.5 Mil (not counting several for money trades)
Max Endorsements: 5 Million
Playoff Revenue: Zero
TV Revenue: Million
Profit/Loss: LOSS 10.5 Million
FLAMES 2012: 4.7 Million

WILD:
Projected Revenue: 8.7 Million
Salary: 46 Million
Total Expenses: 34 + 13.7 = 47.7 Million
Started: 17 Million
Revenue Loss: 9 Million
Playoff Revenue: Zero
Max Endorsements: Zero
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: LOSS 8 Million
WILD 2012: 9.7 Million


COYOTES
Projected Revenue: 15 Million
Salary: 58 Million
Total Expenses: 39.5 + 16.9 = 56.4
Started: 30.2 Million
Revenue Loss: 15.2 Million
Max Endorsements: 2.5
Playoff Revenue: Some chance at making the playoffs = 7.8
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: LOSS 4 Million
COYOTES 2012: 26 Million

DUCKS
Projected Revenue: 15.2 Million
Salary: 50.8 Million
Total Expenses: 37.7 + 15.1 = 52.8 Million
Started: 24.7 Million
Revenue Loss: 9.5 Million
Max Endorsements: 10 Million
Playoff Revenue: 7.8 Million
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: PROFIT 9.2 Million
DUCKS 2012: 34.4 Million

SHARKS
Projected Revenue: 7.6 Million
Salary: 39 Million
Total Expenses: 34.7 + 11.9 = 46.6 Million
Started: 11.4 Million
Revenue Loss: 3.8 Million:
Max Endorsements: 4 Million
Playoff Revenue: Zero
TV Revenue: 1 Million
Profit/Loss: PROFIT 1.2 Million
SHARKS 2012: 13.6 Million



MYTH BUSTING #1: Changing the Endorsement system will flood the game with money. No it won't. The Flames would make 3 million as opposed to losing half a million. This is not flooding the market by any stretch. I'm would be punished financially for my poor performance by not making the endorsements. In the present system I'm punished twice by losing the money I gambled.

MYTH BUSTING #2: TEAMS with AHL Rosters ARE Making Tons of Money (or ANY money at all). Please show me one example of this. It's not happening.

The Lightning will have a 36 million dollar roster and will show a net loss (after everything, including endorsements) of 5.7 Million. If he'd been allowed to keep his Mountain Dew (which he was late for applying) then he would have lost 1.7 Million (WITH a 36 million dollar roster.)

The Sharks have a 39 Million dollar payroll. They will have a net loss of 3.8 Million. After endorsements of 5 million he will have a net gain of 1.2 Million.

The Wild compete a little more. They have a payroll of 46 Million. They're losing 8 Million. The average endorsements won are less than 8 million. The Wild, even with better financial management in our system, would still lose money this year.


MYTH BUSTING #3: TEAMS are becoming bankrupt because they are blowing tons of money unrealistically on huge payrolls.

This is not true. Its actually the inverse. In fact, the two teams with the biggest payrolls of this group are the two who will make the MOST PROFIT (the Blue Jackets & Hurricanes)

MYTH BUSTING #4 Making the playoffs (and wining a round) and getting your endorsements means you're making a ton of money even when you're close to the cap.

The Senators will, barring going to the Conf Finals (which only 4 teams will do) will barely eek out a profit. There is no doubt that YOU HAVE TO SPEND MONEY to make money, the examples above show it, but its no guarantee.

MYTH BUSTING #5 Making the playoffs and endorsements will get teams out of financial trouble

See the Senators.

MYTH BUSTING #6 Poor teams have to keep salaries low in order to get out of financial trouble

If I hear this one more time I will shoot myself. Or if I hear that aiding these poor teams by changing the endorsements or adding TV revenue will unbalance the league. THE LEAGUE IS ALREADY UNBALANCED.

By keeping an AHL payroll you need the luck of the FLYERS (the only team succeeding in this way). Otherwise its' a LOOONG slow climb doing it this way. So PLEASE stop repeating the myth that these teams are making money. THE ONLY TEAMS MAKING MONEY AND THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE MONEY IS TO BLOW YOUR BRAINS OUT WITH A PLUS 50 MILLION DOLLAR PAYROLL. Only ONE TEAM is making money with less than 53 million Expenses and its the FLYERS. The evidence is above!

And this list doesn't even include the Oilers, Predators, BlackHawks, Panthers, Islanders, Maple Leafs and Canadiens (also below 20 mil) who are living pay check to pay check - one bad season and any of these will join the above list as all these teams have less money now than the Hurricanes had (they are all below 27 million). THATS TWENTY TWO TEAMS -----

Perhaps a better way of looking at this is payroll and talent level. Maybe some of the teams you indicated above are paying top dollars for mediocre talent and the end result is missing the playoffs and/or blowing the bank. As a player agent, I know teams like Colorado, Vancouver, St Louis are hardest to bargain with and somehow they know how to move expensive players for cheaper players. Maybe we need to learn a thing a two from them.

[Canuck09]

Originally Posted by Ohio Jones

The Rangers, Tampa, Detroit, Edmonton, Minnesota, San Jose and Dallas are all making a profit right now. Edmonton and Detroit are doing so with payrolls in the high 40s. Everyone else is south of 40m. (The real anomaly in the league is Vancouver, which is barely losing any money despite a payroll over 60.).

My inclusion on this list is very strange, because as far as I can remember, I started the year with more money than I have now and have been projected to lose money almost all year. Not sure how I show a $2M profit for the remainder of the season. Is it the remaining schedule? Lots of games in a short period of time perhaps?

My average revenue/game is $1.077M which is $44.17M for the season. That's covering a $46.9M payroll right now. Pretty darn close, but I've forced myself to run at a lower payroll to make sure my finances don't get away from me.

[Ohio Jones]

I look at a team's current and projected balances to know if they're making money.

The Rangers, Tampa, Detroit, Edmonton, Minnesota, San Jose and Dallas are all making a profit right now. Edmonton and Detroit are doing so with payrolls in the high 40s. Everyone else is south of 40m. That's what I mean when I say that the only way to make a profit in the sim is to gear your payroll to the revenues the sim allows you to generate.

(The real anomaly in the league is Vancouver, which is barely losing any money despite a payroll over 60. I have no freaking clue how that's possible.)

The teams losing the most money are the teams who spent to the cap but didn't see get the performance they were counting on. They're the same teams who are losing on endorsements, for the same reason.

I wholeheartedly agree that the endorsement system needs to be revamped to reduce barriers to entry as introduce targets that struggling teams can reasonably attain. Currently the attendance and Mountain Dew endorsements are the only ones teams can pretty reliably attain, because they are independent of the team's actual performance in the sim. (The relationship between ticket prices and attendance is scaled in the sim do that you make close to the same gate regardless of your ticket prices. Drop prices and enough more people will attend to make up for the loss in revenue per ticket. I keep attendance as close to 100% as I can manage without hitting 100%, because if I'm selling out it means my prices are too low and I'm leaving money on the table.)

But I agree with Adil that the underlying issue is the way the sim calculates and generates attendance and revenue. For argument's sake, let's say the sim generates an average revenue of $40m. We need a reliable and equitable means of covering the gap between that figure and the average payroll. If the average payroll is $50 million, then each team gets $10m in league/TV revenues. Maybe we break it up into two calcs - one at the start of the year, and one at the midpoint, so that teams don't blow their brains out at the start of the year and the find themselves in trouble come spring.

We wanted to avoid flooding the system with cash before because of the inevitable inflation in the FA market that ensued. But in a cap system, I think we are effectively governed by what is reasonable within that cap to pay a star player, a second liner, a bottom-6 guy. Anyone go wants to have a third line earning much over 8-10 million combined is going to have a hard time competing long term. So I think player overvaluing will correct itself over time. I think it's more critical that we ensure our teams can remain solvent, both at the top and the bottom of the payroll and competitive spectra.

[MatthewFlames]

Originally Posted by Ohio Jones

The Rangers, Tampa, Detroit, Edmonton, Minnesota, San Jose and Dallas are all making a profit right now. Edmonton and Detroit are doing so with payrolls in the high 40s. Everyone else is south of 40m. (The real anomaly in the league is Vancouver, which is barely losing any money despite a payroll over 60.).

Doug. You are wildly incorrect. Look at my post. The sharks, TB, Wild, Rangers are NOT making a profit. Where do you get that they are?

I haven't looked at the other three so I don't know if they are

[Ohio Jones]

Originally Posted by MatthewFlames

Doug. You are wildly incorrect. Look at my post. The sharks, TB, Wild, Rangers are NOT making a profit. Where do you get that they are?

I haven't looked at the other three so I don't know if they are

Wouldn't be the first time, especially when it comes to numbers.

However, it seems to me that of course those teams aren't making a profit over the whole year. Because they didn't have these low payrolls for the whole season. They are making a profit NOW because they have drastically cut their payrolls. Any team with a projected balance above their current balance is making a profit.

Or am I missing something?

[MatthewFlames]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sens(e)

I think the teams with the least money should have to give their 1st round draft picks to the team with the most money. This would be capitalism at it's finest.

Overall, I think the idea of normalizing the league cash flow at an average of $30 million per team ($960M total or whatever) is a way to always account for faults in the sim, which are difficult to anticipate season to season in terms of $'s. Perhaps we can do a mid-season top-up based on the run rate, otherwise, individual teams need to manage their balance as always. That includes doing financial deals.

Setting aside the insulting nature o your comment and the wonderful insight and ideas about how to fix the problem.... The balancing to 30 million per team does absolutely nothing about nothing. As I've shown in this thread.

[kasper11]

There are 9 teams on your list losing money this season...

Bruins - Started season with $59M payroll (based on cap checkpoint), will miss playoffs
Devils - Started season with $55M payroll, suck
Capitals - Have a $55M payroll, will miss playoffs
Rangers - Started season with $57M payroll, will miss playoffs
Penguins - $51M payroll, may make playoffs
Lightning - Started season with $52M payroll, will finish dead last
Flames - Started season with $60M payroll, will miss playoffs
Wild - Started season with $45M payroll, will miss playoffs
Coyotes - Currently have $58M payroll, may make playoffs

Out of these 9 teams, 6 started with a payroll over $55M and are bad. These teams should be losing money. The Coyotes currently have a $58M payroll and are mediocre.

The only teams I am really concerned about on this list are Pittsburgh (payroll isn't that high, and they are at least competitive) and TB (payroll can't go any lower). And neither of these teams participated in endorsements, so getting rid of the entry fee would not have helped.

I don't really see much of a revenue problem. I see more of a spending problem.

The Devils are on your troubled list, but I blame myself (and the quirky sim), not a lack of opportunity for revenue. You can't spend to the Cap without reaching at least the second round of the playoffs or losing money.