Subject: [DEV] International Cup

You are full right. Based on ticket and sponsorship incomes you can survive in the game, based on transfer incomes you can build strong team. Depends on your abilities how strong ...

I'm really surprised it takes so long time to explain ;).

This is known, but one of my points is, unlike Borkos, you don't have the massive positive transfer balance one would need to sustain a team of your caliber in TODAY's economics.

If Borkos has an 80 caliber team it is understandable he could run at a deficit each season - because over his 20 years here, he's cleared 400 million in net sales.
You, however, have cleared only 11 million in the same time period. That's what...a profit of 150k a season at best?

That would be completely unsustainable in most other countries. If I had a 600k team salary, on top of the 200k in coaches (assuming we use brilliant assistants, because it's pretty wasteful to do more), I would be running a deficit of 550k/week before stadium income. In a best case scenario in ML, with fans extremely happy, playing an opponent whose fans are also happy, and guessing the ticket prices right...I'm looking at breaking even as a best case scenario. This is assuming you spent nothing on players.

We just had two long standing dominant teams fall off because of this (Vegas, Atlantic).

If you had a transfer balance of +200 million, I would have never said a thing.

I got this in my first match in a middle size country (half table 1st div)
Tickets 1 036 982 k.$

I can assume a small country size team can get 800k and in a big size country, I would get 1.6M $, so the difference is 800k$ per week. So it means getting almost 10M more per season (and more if assuming 2 more rounds in National cup)
on top of that you have the extra sponsorship but lets keep ir rounded 10M

So basically each trainee for the small team nation would need to have 1M more appreciation per season than a big country team.
Is it possible? yes, but would be a great deviation, what would be the average price increase per season per trainee? I guess around 2M

If trainees are forced to play in offical games (as before 50% of them had to to it unless pace), then maybe yes, small teams can get youngs at cheaper price and top teams wouldnt get as big revenue per trainee

hehe we were going to similar points
(edited)

If you had a transfer balance of +200 million, I would have never said a thing.

If I needed PLN 200 million, I would have it. I would train the current generation for profit, not for myself. However, I decided that I don't need that money. It's simple.

My goal was not to dominate the Ekstraklasa for many years, but to get promoted to it, then sell the players (I will probably do that next season) and start another cycle from 16-year-olds to Ekstraklasa players. That's my style of sokker game. If I wanted to, I could have hundreds of millions, but I don't need them. For me, the game would be boring if I had hundreds millions on my account...
(edited)

main difference in income come from cup games probably 4-5 good cup games more
last season first 3 rounds i had less income in cup game than in friendlies ....
when our cup is over you still have 3-4 good income cup games so more money mor flexible on market

so the point is if all have same trading skills is that differance is fair so do not twist the point

i train NT players that always is not profitable with bad transfers and training them till age of 30 but that is my issue

but when im enforced to risk those players in usles cup in which that i do not play will lose fans and chance to survive of course im mad !!!

on other point when wensday game is too much for people that work full time game another game on monday it gets annoying

As I good see you have the same ticket incomes as I when I had rating around 70-74 and I have played in III polish league.

But yes, as Borkos said before

it's actually easier to create a top team in a small country than in a big one, LATER it might be harder to finance the wages of already created 80+ team ...

In general - Ticket incomes in better leagues are higher :)
(edited)

And there have been international teams trying to come to Australia and dominate (can tell from IPs, team names, poor use of google translate etc.). Eventually they get banned but some have lasted a long time and not a single one has ever been able to dominate Australia, let alone become a powerhouse on the world stage.
I know this because outside of the first 5-10 seasons of the game, I have either met in person, or have on Facebook, all the major managers Australia has had, and all those managers are Australian.

If I was in charge I would most definitely allow strong teams to create second team in a country of their choice.
There is less and less of us and we have to make this game stronger.

but when im enforced to risk those players in usles cup in which that i do not play will lose fans and chance to survive of course im mad !!!

I understand your point of view. In my opinion IC should be always arcade mode.

The fact you don't have to just illustrates my point.

You're just not able to wrap your head around this concept, and it's understandable - really.
You're just in a better economy of scale then most of us. For us to sustain what you are, we'd need a net transfer profit of 5-8 million a season, every season, AFTER acquiring said NT players.

There's a massive difference in expenses between a 70 team and an 80 one...and even a 70 team is not particularly easy in USA ML. Doable, for sure.
(edited)

main difference in income come from cup games probably 4-5 good cup games more
last season first 3 rounds i had less income in cup game than in friendlies ....
when our cup is over you still have 3-4 good income cup games so more money mor flexible on market

so the point is if all have same trading skills is that differance is fair so do not twist the point

you should also acknowledge that a big difference is that you can train young players and stay in your top league at the same time, which is impossible in big countries

combined with International cup you are in a perfect situation, where you can play 1st team in one competition and train youngsters for 96%+ in other competitions

you only look at disadvantages and not at advantages that weaker leagues have... 2-3 weeks more of 50% tickets in cup being a major difference, when you can easily train younger players and never go down from 1st league, seriously? :))

But the big difference is that you don't need a 70+ team to maintain a position in 1st tier in USA. And that is why the difference in sponsorship exists. Because it's not necessary to pay 700k for wages to maintain your team among the best of your country. You can do that with half of those costs.
If you want to play CC, it's another thing, but the game economics could not be based on the best 0.2% of teams in this game, does it?

You're just in a better economy of scale then most of us. For us to sustain what you are, we'd need a net transfer profit of 5-8 million a season, every season, AFTER acquiring said NT players.

you do realise that you cannot sustain a top team in Poland, right? you are losing team value massively and you are losing money from your account every week.

that's the same situation. you must make money beforehand. the only difference is that due to lower stable incomes you'd maybe need to spend one more season more on creating money reserve. on the other hand this is current level of USA top league:

70.3 PARADISE UTD
69.5 Las vegas city
68.7 FC Harambe
67.2 Pittsburgh FC
66.7 Balls of Steel
65.8 Island Spirit Tigers
65.1 USA Fighters
64.6 Atlantic FC
64.5 Dinamo T
61.0 Cytadela Varsovia (L)
56.6 FC Nippon
49.6 Volcers

it's a league where you can play a top team AND still train young players for profit simply by putting them on for last 22min [+Friday 90] = 96%.

you could easily make a much higher transfer profit than the margin of sponsor/ticket difference between the leagues, while in big countries you would not be able to train anyone young (except for 85% on Friday, but that doesn't make that much sense in terms of training for profit). I can promise you that with such league I'd be able to have a 80+ team and easily make an overall profit every season with training youngsters.

The INT cup is in fact a blessing for such countries, also financially.

If you create a ~80 rank team, then in friendly/cup + league you can still win & train for profit + you can play at top level in Int Cup getting top money from tickets & having high level rivalry.
(edited)

The only issue is creating a ~80 team. And honestly it's not even that hard, you don't need 200m euro to do that, you don't even need 50m euro, you can do that with much, much less.

The main problem is that in most cases people just don't want to spend enough time understanding the market, training nuances and they don't create a good starting point for a team. Most teams - and I'm not talking about small/medium countries, I'm talking also about most teams in Poland - simply do nothing to improve, they just spend all the money that they get from tickets/sponsors and buy players using that money. From time to time they get a lucky youth and "get rich" so for a short time they have a bit more money to spend.

All of those teams could be successful, but they don't put their time & energy to do that. And that's fine, but then you can't expect to magically become a 80+ team. Teams in Poland, Italy or Romania don't become 75 or 80 rank teams magically because of sponsors because 90% or more of their users play at a very low or average level.

In this game you improve by training, transfers or training and transfers. That's the only way. You can buy a player for 100k euro and turn him into a 10m euro player. And that's available to everyone. But if people prefer to spend 90% of their money on buying already trained, older players? Well they won't improve, they will stay at their level. And that's what most teams do.
(edited)

But if people prefer to spend 90% of their money on buying already trained, older players? Well they won't improve, they will stay at their level. And that's what most teams do.

Yes and no. It will depend on that player situation. But I would take 60-70% accumulated money on last player (IF he is worth it) to be a decent investment.