|
|
發表於 2008-7-29 13:34:33
|
顯示全部樓層
First off, thanks to everybody who's been giving their opinions - we really do find these valuable and want to hear what you have to say. For one thing, it's clear that when choosing to announce these changes, we didn't give enough attention to explaining the core reasons behind them. It's not meant to equalize divisions, to be nicer to new teams, or as a change in philosophy.
There are two reasons for these changes. The most important one, by far, is simply the possibility of runaway inflation. The average team in Jan Itor's league grossed $6.7M last season. The average DI team netted a $3.7 million profit last season, not including any revenue from training. While players salaries continue to rise, they are simply not rising quickly enough. They will over time, which is why we need a temporary measure, not a permanent measure. But for the moment, the fact is that a DI or DII team is incapable of spending their income on players, which means that the economy is imbalanced.
So we either have to increase salaries or decrease revenues, but somehow we need to stop runaway inflation (which then would lead to runaway deflation, and a number of other nasty things to avoid).
With these changes, we still expect DI teams to be in much better shape than lower divisions, both in the short-term and in the long-term (when these changes are eliminated because player salaries are high enough for the best players). We expect the average DI team to have about a $1.5M profit this season. For comparison, the average DII team had a profit of $1.4M last season, and of course that would be reduced somewhat under this system as well.
So the goal is not to change the competitive balance, but rather to preserve the market while salaries are reaching their equilibrium level. Some of these other changes (making the attendance and TV money more predictable) are things that we feel will help teams plan more properly. The TV money is being reduced for higher divisions because the new attendance formula will mean that income comes back in slightly increased attendance (the overall global attendance will remain the same, but it will be slightly redistributed).
With all of that said, I've had a number of eloquent BB-mails and posts suggesting that we really shouldn't make quite so strong of a change without more warning than we have been able to give, and I think that's probably correct. Unfortunately, while we monitor the market regularly, the recent inflationary spike really caught us by surprise; the market has been moving more and more wildly, and we are worried that it will go out of control.
One other thing missed in this announcement is that in the Cup, teams will be earning more predictable revenue based upon their advancement.
I obviously wish that we had been able to do this more gradually, and certainly I think that the rationale behind it was not clear in our news post. The goal is always that DI is going to have a larger budget and more capability than DII, which will similarly be larger and more capable than DIII, and so forth. The underlying problem is that the players required to let DI teams reach their full potential do not yet exist, and as they start to exist, the gate money will return to being 100% given to the clubs. But in the interim, the end result is twofold: top division teams are able to buy the best players, and we get massive inflation. Our goal with these changes is to keep the former but to avoid the latter.
I'm going to make another news post to help clarify some of these issues, because I think we clearly missed the mark when it came to explaining things. And as always, I'll answer any criticism in the forums. Let's be honest - we're doing this in part because we didn't have the foresight to see this bubble coming as far away as we wanted to, and that's forcing our hand. So it's only fair that we face and accept the criticism that comes with it.
今日未食藥?  |
|
IP卡
狗仔卡
發表於 2008-7-29 08:35:20
提升卡
置頂卡
沉默卡
喧囂卡
變色å¡
顯身å¡
