Warrior General Games

Are you guys getting paid since the team is in the negative for finances?

looks like they were gutted and sold back. lot of cpu's on that team that weren't there yesterday.

Thats a shame. Still not sure why the gutting problem hasn't been solved.

Originally posted by BLAZER13
Thats a shame. Still not sure why the gutting problem hasn't been solved.

I don't understand the phrase "Gutting Problem". I think of it like this: If I move my player to my friends team and my friend eventually sold that team; I wouldn't want to stay around just to see what the new owner is like. The only reason my player was there in the first place was because of my friend. Why is that considered gutting?

Now the financial issues is another story. I would consider stripping the team of all of it's finances gutting because you're leaving the new owner with absolutely nothing. Since we can't see the teams financial breakdown, we don't know exactly what happened to all the cash. It was entirely possible that the owner was just an idiot and couldn't figure out how to manage the money.

They should leave all the players on that team, when the owner sells it back to GLB. The highest FP bidder should be the new owner of that team or some other system like that, where you take the teams total FP worth, into account.

It is a problem. It's considered gutting because of what is left for the new owner. Is a team with $10 million, and an anemic roster with a bunch of CPU fill-ins going to be even close to competitive? Absolutely not. The entire conference is affected in a negative way.
If you move your player to your friend's team and he trades back an equal level player that would be acceptable. Realistically, that NEVER happens. The fact is, most teams with owners on their way out trade for cash. A big pile of cash does not win games, players do.
As for contracts with friends, the contract is technically with the team, NOT the owner. The responsible thing to do would be to play out your contract or seek a solution with the new owner. If you signed anything other than a 1 year, no trade clause contract with your friend, then you made a questionable decision.

Originally posted by BLAZER13
It is a problem. It's considered gutting because of what is left for the new owner. Is a team with $10 million, and an anemic roster with a bunch of CPU fill-ins going to be even close to competitive? Absolutely not. The entire conference is affected in a negative way.
If you move your player to your friend's team and he trades back an equal level player that would be acceptable. Realistically, that NEVER happens. The fact is, most teams with owners on their way out trade for cash. A big pile of cash does not win games, players do.
As for contracts with friends, the contract is technically with the team, NOT the owner. The responsible thing to do would be to play out your contract or seek a solution with the new owner. If you signed anything other than a 1 year, no trade clause contract with your friend, then you made a questionable decision.


So with your solution, you present another common problem. That would be owners screwing over players. I was on a team in which the owner was leaving. The amount of uncertainty over the new owner was nerve racking and no one on the team really wanted to be there without the old owner.

Still not saying it's right, I'm just saying that your solution for the new owner creates another reason to bitch for the players.

Originally posted by BLAZER13
It is a problem. It's considered gutting because of what is left for the new owner. Is a team with $10 million, and an anemic roster with a bunch of CPU fill-ins going to be even close to competitive? Absolutely not. The entire conference is affected in a negative way.
If you move your player to your friend's team and he trades back an equal level player that would be acceptable. Realistically, that NEVER happens. The fact is, most teams with owners on their way out trade for cash. A big pile of cash does not win games, players do.
As for contracts with friends, the contract is technically with the team, NOT the owner. The responsible thing to do would be to play out your contract or seek a solution with the new owner. If you signed anything other than a 1 year, no trade clause contract with your friend, then you made a questionable decision.


I don't see how moving your players off of the team is gutting the previous owner had to put the roster together and there is no point leaving all of the players left on the team who could end up with a bad owner and hate being on the team. I own a team myself and I had to go out and fill my roster myself so why shouldn't the new owner of said team have to do the same.

Originally posted by dusk2k3

So with your solution, you present another common problem. That would be owners screwing over players. I was on a team in which the owner was leaving. The amount of uncertainty over the new owner was nerve racking and no one on the team really wanted to be there without the old owner.

Still not saying it's right, I'm just saying that your solution for the new owner creates another reason to bitch for the players.

That's my point though, if you have a short contract with a no trade clause, what's to be nervous about. If the worst owner in all of GLB takes over, your contract would be over in a couple real world weeks anyway. Nothing to get all worked up about.
Ultimately, it comes down to individuals trying to make this game better. The problem lies in how easy it is to get a team. What's the cheapest full-strength player to make in GLB? Team owner and that's ridiculous. The requirements for owning a team should be much more stringent. Much higher initial FP cost and some sort of experience minimum. Teams should have a no-exceptions 40 player roster minimum. This past offseason I couldn't release a player who had been inactive for three weeks because of the roster minimum but I could trade away half my team and thats OK?
As for players complaining, we all know you can never make everyone happy. But there is no reason to assume that the next owner is going to be bad. The vast majority of owners that I have dealt with on GLB are good.


Originally posted by DarkRogue

I don't see how moving your players off of the team is gutting the previous owner had to put the roster together and there is no point leaving all of the players left on the team who could end up with a bad owner and hate being on the team. I own a team myself and I had to go out and fill my roster myself so why shouldn't the new owner of said team have to do the same.

You had to fill out your roster because you received a newly-created team. There's a huge difference between filling a newly-created team's roster and rebuilding a gutted team and until you have experienced it, you don't realize the difficulty. I have experienced it and the rebuilding is about a 3 season process to return to competitive level.

Originally posted by DarkRogue


I don't see how moving your players off of the team is gutting the previous owner had to put the roster together and there is no point leaving all of the players left on the team who could end up with a bad owner and hate being on the team. I own a team myself and I had to go out and fill my roster myself so why shouldn't the new owner of said team have to do the same.

Originally posted by BLAZER13


You had to fill out your roster because you received a newly-created team. There's a huge difference between filling a newly-created team's roster and rebuilding a gutted team and until you have experienced it, you don't realize the difficulty. I have experienced it and the rebuilding is about a 3 season process to return to competitive level.

Filling out the roster is difficult regardless of whether or not it's an newly created team or not with the current player market even just filling holes in the offseason is a major pain so I don't see how having a bunch of players that don't want to be on the team and probably aren't going to resign helps the team at all except for maybe an extra couple wins in the short term. I was somewhat lucky in the fact that about half my team are my guys or guys I knew from another team so filling out my roster was a little easier.

rebuilding is not a 3 year process.

I rebuilt a team that I gm in a matter of days. you just need to know where to look and how to get things done.

As a new owner here, it's definitely a challenge to take over a "gutted" team. CPU players are, well, CPU players, and having to start several of them hurts. Couple that with the fact that midseason free agents aren't falling off the trees and you find yourself scrambling to field a competitive roster.

That said, I honestly feel the previous owner left me in a better position than most. No loan, good upgrades to stadium to continue the revenue stream, and some VERY talented players. Obviously just a "friend dump" situation.

Everyone needs to realize a season is only 40 days. Compare this "waiting" to other aspects in your life that you have to wait for. It's no big deal. Give new owners a chance- he might be as cool as I am!

They weren't gutted badly but yeah there not at the previous level and if they continue in negative money players will start releasing themselves. But that's 2 teams we've lost this year we lost Bilioxi and now lenmore

IMO, the players that the previous owner leaves doesn't matter. Cash is king.

Everybody has a price and you can rebuild by buying players through trades.

When I took over the "abomination" I had zero human players. I may have had alot of money and fan support, but still...it was a gutted team. I came into a league w/ teams who have 20+ players across the board.

How can you say that's fair to the new owner? Quite frankly, I'm surprised we've won 2 so far.