Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
dbfinch

[1.0.2] Board limiting money on UFA renewals but not RFA renewals

Recommended Posts

This is a new one to me, at least in terms of how the bug itself is showing up.

I've two pending UFAs who, upon trying to negotiate a new contract, I'm finding the board is limiting what I can offer them to the salary they're currently receiving. It doesn't matter if I change their team status or try and offer them more or less years, I can't go above what they're already receiving. Now I thought this might be because I'm 2.2m over the cap for next year - and perhaps it is, although I'm still under my player budget - but once I reached December 31st and got the 'expiring contracts' news item, I found that I can actually approach any of my pending RFAs and offer them anything up to at least 10.3m, and in some cases, 13.8m. So for some reason the board are limiting me on the two UFAs but not any of the RFAs, which seems like a pretty big (and rather annoying!) bug.

Save file is uploaded (Stars_crash_2.sav) and here are two screenshots with one each of the UFA and RFAs:

2ahczev.jpg

axmp8w.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a bug. The board is limiting the salary to what they think the player is worth. You're the GM - NOT the owner, you don't have a free reign to do as you wish. The game has worked exactly the same since the first version.

Whether the board will change their mind will depend on the team finances (the actual finances, not the budget) and the status of the player compared to how many players you have with the same status (the board won't allow you to sign 23 "key players"). You will have the most leeway at the end of September when the team coffer is full from all the season ticket sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure if thats really the case. Had a similar thing when the board allowed me a max of 14.2m/y for a "regular" player and it wasnt like I had forgotten to change his status, he was just barely a 3rd liner. For my star UFA (Stamkos) they "only" allowed my like 10m, although that was enough to make him sign a new deal.

Oh and while being on this topic, anyone noticed that older star players keep asking for the moon ($8+m) while still under contract when their reputation dropped to "very good" and then lower it to like 4m as soon as they hit UFA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure if thats really the case. Had a similar thing when the board allowed me a max of 14.2m/y for a "regular" player and it wasnt like I had forgotten to change his status, he was just barely a 3rd liner. For my star UFA (Stamkos) they "only" allowed my like 10m, although that was enough to make him sign a new deal.

Oh and while being on this topic, anyone noticed that older star players keep asking for the moon ($8+m) while still under contract when their reputation dropped to "very good" and then lower it to like 4m as soon as they hit UFA?

How much money the board will allow for any player depends on several things. Maybe the most important is how much money the club has in its coffers at the moment. Try offering money to one of your RFA's (or an UFA) in July and you'll be severely limited but that limit will be lifted when the money for season tickets drops in in August.

Other things that matter is how the board value the player, how many players of the same status you have, what the status of the player is, if the player is injured (UFA's), if the player has been traded away previously (boards don't like rehiring players a second time) and much more.

Pending UFA's asking for more money makes perfect sense. You are asking for preferential treatment (getting to sign the player without competing offers), that comes at a price. After the player has turned UFA then it's a level playing field and he can't ask for money for something he's no longer offering (exclusive rights to make a deal).

The same goes for pending RFA's. As long as the player is under contract you can't lose him to offer sheets or suffer arbitration, this has value and it'll cost you more to make the deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont know Ivan. I am just in year 2031 and had Larkin for a long time. He kept on asking for 10+m on a 5year deal, I just didnt care about it till the off-season and then he signs a 1y 5m deal while actually asking for 3.5m/y over 4y. To me that doesnt make any sense in relation where his market value is. I can understand that he would be asking for more before he is getting to UFAcy, but this difference is just nonsense. With the reputation he was having I knew he would be around the 4-5m range so there is no use in making an offer at all if you know you can get him for half the price if you wait for July 1st.

I also noticed its quite easy for your pending your RFAs if you just try to make them a qualifying offer which wont be accepted (NTCs or 8y deals help which makes no sense to). Before they ask for $1m or more but once they hit FAcy they will sign for the minimum with a 2way contract.

I understand its difficult to implement but with the current system is way too easy to cheat it if you want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dont know Ivan. I am just in year 2031 and had Larkin for a long time. He kept on asking for 10+m on a 5year deal, I just didnt care about it till the off-season and then he signs a 1y 5m deal while actually asking for 3.5m/y over 4y. To me that doesnt make any sense in relation where his market value is. I can understand that he would be asking for more before he is getting to UFAcy, but this difference is just nonsense. With the reputation he was having I knew he would be around the 4-5m range so there is no use in making an offer at all if you know you can get him for half the price if you wait for July 1st.

I also noticed its quite easy for your pending your RFAs if you just try to make them a qualifying offer which wont be accepted (NTCs or 8y deals help which makes no sense to). Before they ask for $1m or more but once they hit FAcy they will sign for the minimum with a 2way contract.

I understand its difficult to implement but with the current system is way too easy to cheat it if you want to.

OH, I'm not saying it's perfect :-)

It's not a bug though, there are valid reasons for this to be happening. What needs work is the implementation, that isn't easy though as constructing an AI that "thinks" and "evaluates" the same way that we humans do is bloody hard to do.

I've been stung on RFA's many times thinking that I can let their contract expire and get them cheap after 1st of July only to find that the board has used all the money to pay dividends to stockholders and won't allow me to sign anyone above minimum contract and by the time the money from season tickets starts rolling in the player has already been through arbitration and gotten a huge 1-year deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not a bug. The board is limiting the salary to what they think the player is worth. You're the GM - NOT the owner, you don't have a free reign to do as you wish. The game has worked exactly the same since the first version.

Whether the board will change their mind will depend on the team finances (the actual finances, not the budget) and the status of the player compared to how many players you have with the same status (the board won't allow you to sign 23 "key players"). You will have the most leeway at the end of September when the team coffer is full from all the season ticket sales.

Like I said very clearly, this isn't just the board isn't limiting salary to what they think the players are worth. They're allowing me to offer over 10 million to RFAs who haven't even played a single NHL game - well over their value. The only two players they are limiting the salary on are the two pending UFAs. One of them (Kielbratowski) is coming off a season where he won the Rocket, King Clancy and Conn Smythe trophies, was Hart trophy runner-up and finished third for the Pearson and Art Ross trophies. Posted 87 points (47 goals) and was a mainstay in my top two lines, and is only 27 years old. The other (Malinsky) is a guy who has been listed in the 'top 10 centres' news item at the start of the last three seasons, albeit he's down my depth chart a bit because I'm absurdly deep in that regard. So within the game he is thought of highly, and my assumption would be that that would extend to the board themselves, seeing as they can only go off the same information in that sense.

My current player breakdown is just 6 key players, including Kielbratowski, 7 core players, 1 depth and 21 prospects. Financially we've a balance of 46m, a 36m profit on the year so far, a player budget of 83m and 71m in salaries currently allocated for the following season. What you're suggesting might make sense if they weren't allowing me to offer pretty meh RFAs, who at 22 have both failed to get anywhere near my NHL roster and are well down my depth charts, 10+ million each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look under "Board Confidence" the board will tell you how they see the financial situation regarding player salaries.

If the player has made comments to the media about the team or "would love to play for xxx" then that's one thing that will make the board very stingy about resigning or extending him.

This is not a bug. The board is the entity that decides how much to spend on the team and they have the final say in what players to sign. As a General Manager you're an employee that have to abide by their decisions. You may not like their decisions but unfortunately the only way to deal with it is to ask the board to increase the salary budget and give them an ultimatum if the decline to do so.

There are no way to negotiate with the board (there should be IMO) which is a shame. There are many situations where I'd like to talk to the board about lifting limitations especially when they say I'm over the budget but I know that I have two old expensive player that I plan on not extending and the "real" "total salaries" is 25% less that what they see in the figures.

The thing is that you're not free to do as you please as you're just an employee and not the owner and questioning your boss isn't always the best way to keep a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think we can agree that the interaction with the board is up for improvement to say at least. Eventhough you are the employee of the board, at least your input should be considered. As a GM you are the vocal point of the organization and therefor should be allowed to make the major transations unless they go out of line or if you are on a short leash anyways. Once the board tellls you that you need to improve, I have no issues if they are watching my stuff closely but when i have won like 4 cups in 6 years I should get some freedom of choice, dont you think so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I think we can agree that the interaction with the board is up for improvement to say at least. Eventhough you are the employee of the board, at least your input should be considered. As a GM you are the vocal point of the organization and therefor should be allowed to make the major transations unless they go out of line or if you are on a short leash anyways. Once the board tellls you that you need to improve, I have no issues if they are watching my stuff closely but when i have won like 4 cups in 6 years I should get some freedom of choice, dont you think so?

I'd love if there was a way to approach the board and discuss things with them (as there most surely is in real life).

The example where the board flat out refuses to let me sign a superstar in the making due to budget constraints is one such time. It's happened to me several times that I have had to let a budding star go RFA just because the board can't see that those two 38-year old veterans earning $15 millions between them are in their last year of contract and I have no intention of resigning them. I would love to explain this to the board and let them know that those $15 millions will come off the books come 1st of July and shouldn't count against the budget for next year. Or that I have plans to trade a few high earners and have promising offers for them so discount their salary.

Now, this version of EHM is a revamped EHM2007 in more than 95% of its workings. I don't expect any changes to be made to this version in game-play areas that are hard-coded. Riz has stated that they are rewriting the game in a more modular way which would make it much easier to change game-play aspects but those changes aren't likely to start appearing until that rewrite is finished and that won't be in this version.

Making it possible to talk to the board is one area for improvement. Making it possible to give instructions to your coach is another area that needs a rework. Practice and training needs to be redone. Different game tactics for different game situations, I could go on and on... I'm quite happy to play this version (as I've been playing EHM2007 up until a few months ago) and wait for things to change with coming releases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you look under "Board Confidence" the board will tell you how they see the financial situation regarding player salaries.

If the player has made comments to the media about the team or "would love to play for xxx" then that's one thing that will make the board very stingy about resigning or extending him.

This is not a bug. The board is the entity that decides how much to spend on the team and they have the final say in what players to sign. As a General Manager you're an employee that have to abide by their decisions. You may not like their decisions but unfortunately the only way to deal with it is to ask the board to increase the salary budget and give them an ultimatum if the decline to do so.

There are no way to negotiate with the board (there should be IMO) which is a shame. There are many situations where I'd like to talk to the board about lifting limitations especially when they say I'm over the budget but I know that I have two old expensive player that I plan on not extending and the "real" "total salaries" is 25% less that what they see in the figures.

The thing is that you're not free to do as you please as you're just an employee and not the owner and questioning your boss isn't always the best way to keep a job.

I'm not arguing that the board don't (or shouldn't) have the power to limit what I can spend. Nowhere have I implied that the board should let me spend what I want. And for the record I don't even mind moving the two pending UFAs if there is no money to re-sign them. But what I am suggesting is a bug is the fact that they're willing to let me spend literally tens of millions on RFAs who haven't cracked my NHL roster, yet limiting what I can spend on UFAs who are actually key members of my roster.

I've actually saved my game and simmed through a bit just to highlight this point:

2qavfhy.jpg

Pending UFA - and reigning Rocket/King Clancy/Conn Smythe winner - William Kielbratowski, who the board won't let me offer more than his current 1.5m salary.

s3zh20.jpg

RFA Reg Cousins, who has played precisely 0 NHL games, who the board will allow me to offer up to 10.3m a year. This screenshot is taken on the same day they're limiting me to 1.5m on Kielbratowski.

33kdmjs.jpg

Reg Cousins signs a three-year deal worth 10.3m a year.

e66cr4.jpg

With Cousins signing a 10.3m extension, I then approached another pending RFA, Kristopher Moon. Yet as you can see, the board is willing to pay him up to the NHL maximum 13.8m a year.

j1110j.jpg

Which, of course, he signs. So that's 23m a year signed off on two RFAs, one playing on my bottom D pairing and the other who isn't even in the NHL. Yet the board still won't let me pay the two pending UFAs more than 2.2m or 1.5m.

23rttok.jpg

And just to drive my point home, here's my other remaining RFA. He's played 4 NHL games. The board will again let me give him up to 10.3m a year.

10dtmwh.jpg

He signs that one-year extension.

So to recap: the board is limiting me to 2.2m and 1.5m respectively for my two remaining UFAs, yet doesn't think twice about letting me sign three RFAs - two of which aren't even on my NHL roster - to contracts equating to nearly 50% of the salary cap (34.1m).

Perhaps I'm wrong to refer to it as a bug, but even if that's the case, there can be no argument that it is completely illogical and something that absolutely needs to be looked at. The board should not be allowing me to offer such ridiculous money to those three RFAs as it is, yet not only are they doing so, but they are doing so whilst simultaneously limiting what I can offer to the two UFAs. Again, to reiterate, I've no problem with them limiting what I can offer to pending UFAs (or, indeed, pending RFAs). Part of the game is about managing the budget and if the money isn't there, the money isn't there. But in this situation it makes zero sense at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your RFA's have never played in the NHL then their salary don't count against the cap and there's no reason for the board to place limits on it. Your UFA on the other hand is counting against the cap and that is one of the things that the board takes into account. If you're hard up against the cap like your screen shot says then I agree with the board here (within the limits the game currently has).

What does your board say under "board confidence"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your RFA's have never played in the NHL then their salary don't count against the cap and there's no reason for the board to place limits on it.

Except one of them (Kristopher Moon) is on my roster and would count against the cap. He's played in all 41 games so far this year. So that argument falls flat.

Not to mention that, with regards to the two who are still in the AHL, whilst it is technically true it's a very weak defence for what is clearly an issue in the game. Sure, if I leave those two in the AHL and there salaries don't count against the cap, but to say there is no reason for the board to limit such salaries is ridiculous. I can state three reasons just off the top of my head:

1) It is illogical. They aren't worth anywhere near that kind of money and the board signing off on such extensions would make no sense what so ever.

2) It is restrictive. If they have such a contract then it pretty much makes it impossible to call them up to the NHL if I'm anywhere near the cap. And while they would be getting a different salary in the AHL, if I did call them up then they would be getting the full amount.

3) It makes it (or at least it should) impossible to trade them. What other NHL team would take on a 22 year old with no NHL experience, who obviously isn't even that good, on a 10m contract? Even teams that needed to make the floor wouldn't as it would cost them far too much in actual dollars.

Your UFA on the other hand is counting against the cap and that is one of the things that the board takes into account. If you're hard up against the cap like your screen shot says then I agree with the board here (within the limits the game currently has).

I'm going to end up moving one of them (Malinsky) anyway because as I said, I'm absurdly deep at C. I already know I'm going to win the lottery (because I've got 28 of 30 picks, and the two I don't own are both going to make the playoffs) and the best guy in the draft looks to be the best draft-eligible prospect for a while. He might even make my team as an 18-year-old, and if not, other prospects will. Whether that'll allow me to re-sign the other UFA I don't know, as it won't make any difference to what salary I've committed to for next year, in which case I'll probably move another player to get Kielbratowski re-signed. But again, if I'm up against the cap to the extent that the board won't allow me to give either UFA a raise, why are they willing to pay an RFA on my NHL roster 13.8m?

What does your board say under "board confidence"?

Pleased with my performance, financial status is extremely healthy, player salaries seem to be in good control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 of 30 first round picks? Sounds like you should also post how you're trading so they can check that!

On topic- last thing I can think of- does the board confidence say anything about those players? Sometimes it will say things like "so and so shouldn't be part of the team" or "so and so is indispensable"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 of 30 first round picks? Sounds like you should also post how you're trading so they can check that!

Way ahead of you! http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/446686-1-0-2-Crash-when-trying-to-view-transactions-gt-draft-picks

On topic- last thing I can think of- does the board confidence say anything about those players? Sometimes it will say things like "so and so shouldn't be part of the team" or "so and so is indispensable"

No mention of either player. I assume it just comes down to the fact I'm already over the cap for next year (albeit only by 2m, but still over) which is fine, but if that is the case, surely my RFAs should be similarly limited. I certainly shouldn't be able to sign three RFAs to contracts totalling 34m if that is the case!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) It is illogical. They aren't worth anywhere near that kind of money and the board signing off on such extensions would make no sense what so ever.

2) It is restrictive. If they have such a contract then it pretty much makes it impossible to call them up to the NHL if I'm anywhere near the cap. And while they would be getting a different salary in the AHL, if I did call them up then they would be getting the full amount.

3) It makes it (or at least it should) impossible to trade them. What other NHL team would take on a 22 year old with no NHL experience, who obviously isn't even that good, on a 10m contract? Even teams that needed to make the floor wouldn't as it would cost them far too much in actual dollars.

1. It makes perfect sense to me. Your boss thinks some players are worth more than others and acts accordingly. One player is a veteran that has been earning cheap money and they think that's what he should be content with earning, another player is a budding star and it's vital for the franchise to keep him for the future and therefore they will accept a higher salary.

2. Of course it's restrictive. It is supposed to be. Have you ever heard of a boss that has given his employees unlimited power to spend his money???

3. Why? Why are you reading this in any other way than "The board thinks this is an important player for the future and will let you spend up to the budget to keep him"? I can guarantee you that if you, as you claim, have two of these players were to give one of them a contract for that "ridiculous high" amount the board would immediately lower the amount they will allow for the other one (and everyone else). They are giving you an option to spend as much as you deem prudent on those two players and by not restricting you by anything other than the budget they are letting you decide how to distribute the money between them. The board is NOT telling you to go out and overpay BOTH of them! The board is in effect saying "These are top prospects for the future - We have $10 million to spend - YOU decide how to spend it." They are NOT saying "We want you to spend $10 million on each and everyone of these players"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. It makes perfect sense to me. Your boss thinks some players are worth more than others and acts accordingly. One player is a veteran that has been earning cheap money and they think that's what he should be content with earning, another player is a budding star and it's vital for the franchise to keep him for the future and therefore they will accept a higher salary.

2. Of course it's restrictive. It is supposed to be. Have you ever heard of a boss that has given his employees unlimited power to spend his money???

3. Why? Why are you reading this in any other way than "The board thinks this is an important player for the future and will let you spend up to the budget to keep him"? I can guarantee you that if you, as you claim, have two of these players were to give one of them a contract for that "ridiculous high" amount the board would immediately lower the amount they will allow for the other one (and everyone else). They are giving you an option to spend as much as you deem prudent on those two players and by not restricting you by anything other than the budget they are letting you decide how to distribute the money between them. The board is NOT telling you to go out and overpay BOTH of them! The board is in effect saying "These are top prospects for the future - We have $10 million to spend - YOU decide how to spend it." They are NOT saying "We want you to spend $10 million on each and everyone of these players"

Sigh.

1. Like I said, two of them have played a total of four NHL games between them, and the other one is in his rookie year as a bottom pairing defenseman. The two UFAs are not veterans; they are 27 and 26 (again, I had already mentioned the age of one), which is basically entering the prime age for NHL forwards in terms of production. One is coming off winning the Rocket, Conn Smythe, finishing top three for the Art Ross and being runner-up for the Hart. The other has been listed as one of the top 10 centres in each of the last three seasons by the game itself. All stuff I've mentioned in this thread, some of it multiple times. It is not vital for the franchise to keep any of the three RFAs. One of them is a 22-year old in the AHL who has played no NHL games. Again, I mentioned that. Again, you went ahead and ignored all of that in your response in which you seem to just be making a reply based on points and perceptions that aren't at all relevant to the situation I've detailed in this thread.

2. Except that in this situation, my boss is giving me 34m to spend on three players. Half the salary cap. On three players. Two who are in the AHL and have played 4 NHL games between them. And when I said it was restrictive I didn't mean for me as GM in terms of what I could spend. I made it very clear that I was saying it was restrictive for the franchise because it makes those players impossible to call up from the AHL if the team is near the cap. Again, because you clearly haven't read my post properly you've incorrectly assumed that when I said it was restrictive, I was saying it restricted me in terms of what I could spend, and made a counterpoint based upon that assumption.

3. This is just the best, though. I made a whole post - complete with screenshots of every step! - in which I systematically documented how I could offer the first RFA a 10.3m contract, which he signed, and then, even with that contract signed, the board would still allow me to offer the second RFA a 13.8m contract. And once that second contract had been signed, the board would still allow me to go ahead and offer another 10m contract to the remaining RFA. Look at the game date in each screenshot! Yet in spite of that, you post:

I can guarantee you that if you, as you claim, have two of these players were to give one of them a contract for that "ridiculous high" amount the board would immediately lower the amount they will allow for the other one (and everyone else).

That post, and all those screenshots, have already shown that the board do not immediately lower the amount they will allow for the other one. I don't know how I could've made that any clearer?

So honestly, if you're not going to actually look at what I post in any great detail - as you're clearly not because if you had, you wouldn't have written a whole paragraph for point #3 that I had already addressed before you even posted it! - then please do me a favour and stop posting in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to this: all salaries in the AHL above 900k should count against the cap. This was introduced with the last CBA. So even if those 10m guys were on the AHL they would have a 9m cap hit even without being on the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to add to this: all salaries in the AHL above 900k should count against the cap. This was introduced with the last CBA. So even if those 10m guys were on the AHL they would have a 9m cap hit even without being on the team.

Only for players with a one-way contract!

Players on two-way contracts don't count against the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only for players with a one-way contract!

Players on two-way contracts don't count against the cap.

That is not correct

For any Player on a Two-Way NHL SPC who is Loaned to a club in another professional league, the total compensation (defined for the purpose of this provision only as the greater of (i) that Player's stated Paragraph 1 Minor League Salary and Bonuses (other than Exhibit 5 Bonuses unless earned)) in that League Year, and (ii) that Player's minimum compensation guarantee and Bonuses (other than Exhibit 5 Bonuses unless earned) in that League Year in excess of the sum of the Minimum Paragraph 1 NHL Salary and $375,000 for that League Year (e.g., $925,000 in 2013-14) for the period during which such Player is Loaned to a club in such professional league; ...

Furthermore a player signing a $10m/y contract probably wont accept a two-way offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The board gives the manager more leeway for signing RFA's as there may be qualifying limits that need to be met. So you may find that in some cases the maximum wages allowed can differ depending on the free agency status.

So technically the bug here is that the board is not adhering to stricter limits on the RFA's. I'll try and have a look into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original issue seemed to be that the board was giving way too much leeway for the max wage when attempting to re-sign an RFA who was still considered a rookie. I've adjusted these for the next update now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old topic but this is something I just encountered playing the game. My team was in desperate need of a number one goalie. Braden Coltby was available for $10.05M a year as a UFA but the board would only approve $9.9M. At the beginning of that month they had approved $16M to re-sign b-rate Adam Tuch. Utter nonsense. If the board limit is there to make the game more "realistic" then it shouldn't allow me to trade away a player like Sidney Crosby for a 5th round draft pick but I'm not aware of a Trade Veto feature in the game. At the very least, there should be a toggle under Game Options to remove this randomly occurring limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...