All Topics
 Robin Hood, keep, abolish or modify?
David King - October 29th 2016 12:01

Using cash isn't the issue. Most managers are spending freely on auctions and so on. The cap isn't affecting that. If managers have a real glut of cash then that's when they look at trading.
At the moment though, that's not happening. If you look at the number of games left and the average income, most managers are going to be struggling to hit the 2000k mark which generally gets you 50CPs in the close season.

Also, boosting your morale?  Yeah, that's home bonus on the team tactics page. Only works for one match (at home) but it's pretty cheap!

Paul Roseblade - October 29th 2016 1:23
I don think I have ever or ever will come close to giving to the needy even with a couple of pistols at my head. Still think iterates a purpose. I would even like to see it come down from 4000k to 3750 or even more severe to 3500. Trading looks dead on its feet compared to what it used to be so that outlet for money being transferred is not really an option anymore. Is there a way to bring in an alternative way of using cash throughout the season? i.e. Morale Boosts 100/200k per 0.1 Charity Donation gets managers some sort of free fringe player for remainder of season then he retires I.e. 500k gets a 7/16 or something like that. Unable to be traded. Bring back the sponsorship at the start of the season but with targets tough to achieve but worth it if achieved I.e. Win League and Cup cost 200k morale boost of .5 Win League cost 200 morale .3 Giving managers something else to spend it on. Personally I like Dave's answer but substitute AYR for USL 😄
David King - October 12th 2016 11:44
If balance >= 4000k then let income = (income/2) Let balance = balance + income If team abb = USL then let balance = balance plus 1000k There, sorted. :-)
Adam Meney - October 6th 2016 8:56

Generally speaking it's the coaches who pay the least attention who breach the ceiling and lose out.  They have not been participating in trades or coaching as much and over time have built up a huge bank balance.  I have read everything that everyone has had to say and pleasing each and everyone of us will not be possible. However, I think a tweak to the system is in order.

I like the idea of a 50% taxation over 4000k.  A coach may save more money if they wish but will be taxed on it.  I am not sure yet how I would implement this other than to tax on each income that would result in their balance breaking 4000k.  This would take a while.

What to do with the lost funds or tax?  I think a poll would be intereting.  Options are poorest team, weakest t16 team, lost forever or shared to everyone,

Ellis Simpson - August 3rd 2016 10:45

I don't particularly like the redistribution of money, as it seems to penalize the successful and reward the unsuccessful. That may be the intent, of course, but I still do not like it. A tax system - flat rate or escalating - is my preference. However, at the same time, my main gripe in the game is the lack of any meaningful way of a manager to build up funds by selling assets. The free market prices are a joke. 

Paul Roseblade - August 1st 2016 10:47

This debate is very similar to what you experience in the drafts in the US for teams participating in the various NHL, NFL etc drafts. Teams that finsih at the bottom get a better draft pick. Why do they do this, well do you want the same team dominating the leagues and getting all the best players making it a dull affair. Look at the EPL, the rich teams get richer and the porr teams, well sorry, there are no poor teams in the EPL :)

I may be in the minority here but i like the cap and the fact the cash goes to the poorest team. There are arguments for both sides. Why should a well manged team lose cash to a team that isn't so well managed and why should the poor team take the hard earned cash of the richest team. The movie Brewster's Millions springs to mind :)

The poor team may have been mis-managed and a new manager is in place, so maybe the few kkk on offer will assist in the short term. I am not sure of the total amounts being discussed, but i am sure it is not that great. The poorest team only gets kkk until they are not the poorest team anymore from memory then the cash is then passed on the new poorest team etc etc. 

I see it as a part of the total management of the game. If you are getting to the ceiling then get rid of your cash and buy some extragavant purchases - a race horse, new ferrari or a player or 2. So if you don't want to let the game engine re-distribute your wealth you could quite easily re-distribute it with some trades :) :) SL 1 for 100k etc

I like some others on here will never be party to this share of the bounty from the rich and famous, but do think it has a purpose to help some of the teams in a not so healthy position. Maybe Adam can check to see how much is re-distributed over the seasons to see if maybe there is a reason for a new higher cap to be introduced if there is a big amount of cash being passed out to the poorer masses. 

Stewart Miller - July 31st 2016 7:27

I like the idea of a wealth cap but don't agree with giving the surplus to other teams. As others have pointed out previously, we all have the option on whether to spend or save our cash. Why should those who manage it better subsidise those who either chose to spend their cash or can't manage their cash effectively? For the sake of simplicity I'd propose removing any cash in excess of 4M from the game.

Steve Turner - July 30th 2016 21:10
I like the idea of a tax similar to United. I don't think cash should be given to the poorest team, if cash has to stay in the league then give it to the two teams that finish bottom of division three in each league.
Brian Beerman - July 25th 2016 13:30

I played MSWL-United for ~20 seasons. Many moons back, the league agreed to implement a tax on any bank value above a certain threshold (either $3k or $4k). If my memory serves, I think it worked out well. Might be worth it here. Can always evaluate after 2-3 seasons. 

Bill Bushby - July 24th 2016 7:47

Seems odd that the better(financially) run teams are penalised while the not so well run teams benefit. I have no problem with there being a wealth cap but i would prefer that money to go into an end of season pot that gets shared out among teams who have done something to claim a share and/or otherwise more deserving. 

Ed Hollox - July 19th 2016 13:13
David, it wasn't a dig, well only in jest maybe :) my point was that if some teams have a lot of cash they need to get rid of, this seriously distorts the market. Some teams may make a killing from accepting trades late in the season, others will make a killing from Robin Hood. It's swings and roundabouts really. I still don't like the hard ceiling, and think there should be a tax above 4000k with tax receipts going either to prize funds, if we are a meritocracy, or to several of the poorer clubs, if we are socialist. I don't like the idea of it bolstering the prize funds as it is more likely to separate the haves and have-nots. Perhaps the money should go towards parachute payments, in that they are split up between the eight relegated teams at the end of each season,
David Laird - July 16th 2016 22:49
I don't really care much about Robin Hood as I am unlikely to ever be a contributor or a beneficiary. For the most part it feels like people only care because the best team in the league made money out of it this season! I'm not sure if the "overpriced trade" point was a dig at me selling a player that was T11 for the receiving team for roughly 3 gate receipts that would only have ended up donated to CPR for hee haw or not (and for what it's worth I don't care, as even after that trade CPR made upwards of 300k) Keep Robin Hood, change Robin Hood or get rid of Robin Hood makes little to no difference to most teams in the game, so straight up seems like a decision for the Commish to make as to whether to have a mechanic that gives those teams a chance who have made themselves poor a chance at making some of it up through the failure to pay attention of others.
Bill Ramsay - July 11th 2016 22:16
I'm more interested in the thoughts of Adam and having Dave answer his questions! 😇 My thoughts are blogged and surely well read by now.
David King - July 10th 2016 1:41

What was the point of the Robin Hood rule?
Is that point still valid?

Does it tie in with the current economy at 4000k?

Should it be higher?

Have the expansions and the number of teams made a difference?

Adam Meney - July 8th 2016 10:27

Interested to see what emerges from this discussion.


Ed Hollox - July 5th 2016 21:42
So I'll start this one off, moving it over from the blog. To be honest it seems as strange rule, both the redistribution aspect and the hard cutoff at 4000k. Why implement such a hard ceiling? It just encourages overpriced trades, particularly after auctions have finished for that season. My suggestion would be to get rid of the hard ceiling and have a tax (maybe 50%) of all income above 4000. This would discourage accumulation of wealth above 4000 but would not be too punitive. The tax could either be removed from the game or redistributed to the poorest team. The poorest team would get a little lift of 50k per game but the rich team would not feel pressured into getting his team below the ceiling.
 All Topics
Copyright © 2001-2018 The Manager All Rights Reserved.
An Olmec inspired simulator is used to run all games.
Your browser type has been detected as .
This page loaded in 0.00752 seconds.
The Manager

Online: Adam [SIT], Richard [INB], Steve [AFC], Jon [ADE]
Recent: Colin [SPT], John [TOR], Paul [BAL], Jose [ORA], Les [NEI], David [USL], Bill [MVV], Brian [OLD], Ed [CPR], Daz [BIR], Willy [MVT], Bryce [CAS], James [FCG], David [SPA], Mike [HUA], Roy [SPP], Derek [ACU], James [ORP], Simon [ATC], Dean [QUE]