I would vote, but I see no option for "Eliminate Budget Transfers."

Posted by damag on 8/16/2015 1:07:00 PM (view original):
I would vote, but I see no option for "Eliminate Budget Transfers."

That would be my vote.

I would vote to eliminate transfers to prospects, all other transfers I am ok with.

Why mess with it as it is now? Some owners thrive on it. Some owners mix it in. And some owners go the amateur draft route all the way. I really haven't seen how it is a definitive advantage for any of the three.

I agree. It's good the way it is.

The change I would like to see is once a particular budget is under $2M you would still be able to transfer it. If I have $5 in a budget I should be able to transfer $2.50 of it if I want to.

right now leave it like it is has 24 votes, no penalties has 7 votes, reduce penalties has 5, 1 budget has 1.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/17/2015 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Here's something to think about:

WifS decided to hide all budget items except payroll, prospect and coaching.   They're treated differently for a reason.   Ask yourself "Why?" and you might have a different viewpoint.

My viewpoint, which is a complete 180 from a few years ago, is that the money in those categories are used to hire specific workers.  Now, say you run a services company.   You hire maids, home builders, waitresses, electricians, bartenders and farm them out to various projects.   You budget 1m to each type of worker.    The housing market crashes so you lay off the home builders.   But, hey, the depressed people are drinking more.   Would you have to take a 500k penalty to hire more bartenders and waitresses?

My opinion is that payroll, coaching and prospects should be one category.

+1

The poll didn't include:

E)  Keep the transfer penalty, but add a cap on budget transfers (e.g. max $10 transferred into prospect budget)

F)  Graduated transfer penalties (e.g. 20% penalty for first 5M, 50% for second 5M, 200% for third 5M, 300% beyond that)


If the biggest abuse the transfer penalty is meant to curb is tanking to sign IFA prospects, either of these options caps the damage fast.  .  

What's particularly sad is that from what I've seen, regularly spending 30M or 40M on an IFA isn't a good way to build a team.  Losing the ability to bid on reasonably priced FAs on the market, or be nimble in picking up contracts from others, is not worth a single stud prospect.  And the number of seasons it takes to turn the jackpot IFA lottery into a genuine team is a long, long time, if it ever comes together at all.  And very few of your world-mates will enjoy playing against your crappy ML team.  Just depressing.