I would like to know if anyone has ever submitted a ticket to allow veteran owners more leeway in budgeting. For instance, after 4 seasons, you have access to advanced roster option to make multiple transactions. Would it be prudent to let owners that have, say 10 complete seasons, to have unlimited budget movement. I find it frustrating to have to wait 3 seasons to get my budget to where it should be. I believe most veteran owners know where they want their budgets to be when they take over a new team. I realize the reasons for the way it is set up now is to protect new owners from making mistakes while learning the game. That's understandable, but also feel that veteran owners should be allowed more latitude in their decisions and have an "advanced budget" option as well as the "advanced roster" option. Anyone else agree or disagree with this??

I believe you should be allowed to max out your medical and training to 20 right away if you want to. I'd be for that. 

100 % on that. But I never bid on IFA's, so I would want to zero that right away as well.

Tickets have been sent.   The most logical explanation is this:

If you allow me to go from 0 to 20 or 20 to 0, my overall strategy will change greatly.   I set my pre-season budget based on where I pick.   If I have a top 5, I'm 20m in HS or college.   If I have a bottom 5, I'm 0 in both and 20m in IFA.    As it stands now, I usually keep my amateur budget at 8-16 and accept, if I want to be in/out IFA, that it will take me a couple of seasons to get there. 

Actually it takes 5 seasons to get from 20 to 0. I rarely rely on the draft and prefer to stay if the open FA market and trades to improve my teams. I have one team right now that won't get a pick until the 6th round, so my budget in scouting is entirely wasted.

Okay, so leave the scouting budgets the same, but I would still want to be able to max out training and medical the first season. It is an established fact that maxed out training directly affects the growth and decline of your players. Since I sign a lot of Free Agents in their mid 30's, I would want to slow their decline as much as possible. Also, if you get a really good draft pick, being able to max your training would definitely affect his growth potential. If you leave it at the default of 10 the first season, it would take 3 seasons to max it out and therefore you would lose some of his potential no matter how good the coaches are.

Maybe increments of 5M would work..

I don't really have an issue with allowing free rein on the non-scouting categories(like we have with payroll, prospect, coaching) but it just doesn't work with the scouting portions of the game.

Good luck getting WifS to address it. 

What Mike says about the scouting makes a lot of sense and could be taken advantage of easily, however I still believe the option for training and medical should be there since it is crucial to the players. It would definitely cut down the DL count for every team and what owner wouldn't want that??

The logic behind the $4m limit in changing budgets from season to season is to mimic "real life" in the game, i.e. it's not realistic to be able to "build" a scouting department from the ground up (from $0m to $20m) in a single season.  But it certainly is possible to tear down a scouting department almost immediately.  Remember in the early 90's when Marge "Should Be" Schott fired all the Reds scouts because "all they do is watch games"?

So a compromise would be to allow an unlimited decrement of the scouting/medical/training budgets, but still constrain the increment of said budgets by $4m a season.

In your scenario, you could be at max for say, 3 seasons, then overnight, go from a 40m player payroll to 120m in 1 click. So I still agree with Mike on the scouting part. It's just too powerful to allow that much movement in scouting.

Truth is, none of it is going to get done.   But it's nice to discuss how to improve the game.

Well, I took the first step and submitted a ticket. I'll let you guys know the result when it gets answered.