Salaries

[Colin]

Am I the only one who finds it a little strange that you pay a player's salary when first hired and then he is your slave for the rest of his career? I think if you had to pay a player's salary at the start of every season (with reductions for those leagues who play shorter seasons, let's say less than 10 games) and had the player's salary increase with each SPP level, +10K for normal skill or att increase and +20K for anything taken on a doubles roll. Players would be forced to retire if teams could not make enough money during the season to rehire the more expensive players. If you added a retirement roll at the end of the season, 1 on a d6, +1 per niggle, for players who have gained Star status (3levels). If you wanted more of a turnover in players you could add a retirement roll after every niggling inj suffered and/or every game missed due to niggle. This would eliminate the need for an aging table as there would be a natural attrition rate. Just a thought.

[Mestari]

The player salaries are incorporated into the gate income: what you get after the game is what is left after all the normal expenses such as player salaries.

The current system is far superior to the version where you pay salaries yourself because it takes focus from micromanaging the team into playing the game itself. There's simply no reason why coaches should be concerned about the details of player salaries and such.

BTW. If the players should be rehired, how do you think they could gather enough money to buy their players in hte beginning of the next season? They couldn't hire more players because they need to save the money in order to have a team in the beginning of the next season. Unless additional sources of income are introduced, this wouldn't work.

[Thadrin]

I heard of a system once, where by teams sold off all their players at the end of a season, recieving the position's standard purchase cost. They could then immediately hire back their players using that treasury, plus whatever treasury they had saved. The thing was, each player was now worth 10k per skill roll extra (or something similar)! So if I had a Longbeard with three skill rolls he'd cost 100k instead of 70k to buy back.

This system meant teams had to save their pennies through the season to be sure they could buy back their best players at the end of the year, or they had to drop the really expensive ones (who were obviously getting courted by the big league teams who COULD pay the price!).

I thought it sounded interesting...and was certainly a post season leveller...but I'm not sure I'd want to use it myself.

[Trambi]

or seasonal appareance fees.

SPP salaries for a new season
0-30 nothing
31-50 10kgp
51-125 20kgp
126+ 30kgp

At the start of the season.

Until the salaries are not payed for a player, he will not play.

[Lucien Swift]

again, though, systems like this require that a "season" be of a defined lenght in order for the balance to take proper effect... if there was a rules that said 'you have to repay salary at the end of the season' (or, in another thread, roll for aging at the end of the season), think about how much different a league with a 10-game season and a league with a 20 game season will be...

you can only handle these situations _in the official rules_ (you can house rule in or out whatever the hell you want) in a game-by-game manner... hence, salary _is_ figured into the winnings table... that's why the mods go down as you gain TR.... and aging has to be based on spp's.... otherwise, you wouldn't be able to balance the game internal to the mechanics while the structure of play outside of those mechanics varried... and we can't well go saying "in order to play bloodbowl you must have 8 team divisions playing a 12-game schedule"

big picture people, big picture!

[Trambi]

I agree this rule is used only for your tournament teams, not in friendly matchs.
The modification of winning is good in friendly match.

PS : Lustria is a country without elves.