Unfair exclusive/non-exclusive written per show contracts as a small size company

[magik]

I started this game with patch 1.18 and I tried signing a few exclusive and non-exclusive written per show contracts as a small size company.

 

I'm using the August version of this real life mod:

http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=544971

 

I believe these deals may be unfair to the workers and that contract negotiations and options depending on company size may need to be re-balanced.

 

I could submit my save game for review if you wish.

 

I'm attaching a few pictures showing my company, contracts and few detailed contracts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Adam Ryland]

Moved to the correct forum.

[Donners]

I tend to agree - workers accept very low pay for too long.

 

To take a Cverse example from my current game:

 

 

That's a bunch of workers who are locked into tiny fees for two years. Imagine if they get signed to a big company and get a push - yet they still turn up every week to a backyard fed for $30 a show!

 

If there is to be a change, though, it needs to be carefully considered. It is now quite a bit tougher running a tiny company following the various patches.

 

A solution might be to limit the length of contract they will agree to for a small company - it won't throw out the finances in the short term (as boosting wage demands from the outset would), and will let the player choose between re-signing them for more at the end of the contract (due to their increased pop) or moving them on.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Also people on per show deals need to demand much higher merchandise cuts.

[MikeSc]

I get this being in the game though. It's never fun losing your big names due to predatory signings because you are 10 points shy of Medium.

[Donners]

I get this being in the game though. It's never fun losing your big names due to predatory signings because you are 10 points shy of Medium.

 

I find that to be a lot of fun! It creates challenge and tension, makes you have to think to come up with new plans and means reaching that next level is even more desirable.

 

Some of the most interesting games I've had have involved losing a bunch of my top workers to an AI signing blitz and having to scramble to cover them.

[magik]

Some of the most interesting games I've had have involved losing a bunch of my top workers to an AI signing blitz and having to scramble to cover them.

Me too.

 

I get this being in the game though. It's never fun losing your big names due to predatory signings because you are 10 points shy of Medium.

That's what makes the game fun. These contracts make the game way too easy for players.

 

Also people on per show deals need to demand much higher merchandise cuts.

I agree.

 

 

 

I suggest these changes to contracts:

1) Exclusive written - Per month only (remove or block the per show option)

2) Exclusive handshake - Per show pay adjusted to 20-25% of per month pay

3) Written - Per show pay adjusted to 20-25% of per month pay

 

 

For #1 the block could be similar as written contracts not being able to be created with an "Ongoing" length.

 

 

For #2 & #3 workers could possibly instead request a guaranteed downside for per show contracts.

[hailthebulldog]

Me too.

 

That's what makes the game fun. These contracts make the game way too easy for players.

 

I agree.

 

 

 

I suggest these changes to contracts:

1) Exclusive written - Per month only (remove or block the per show option)

2) Exclusive handshake - Per show pay adjusted to 20-25% of per month pay

3) Written - Per show pay adjusted to 20-25% of per month pay

 

 

For #1 the block could be similar as written contracts not being able to be created with an "Ongoing" length.

 

 

For #2 & #3 workers could possibly instead request a guaranteed downside for per show contracts.

 

Well if you get rid of exclusive written per show then you get rid of the style of contract that WWE used through much of the 80's and 90's.

[MikeSc]

To be fair the game does up the contract demands of the workers for per-show exclusive written. I'm not sure it reaches the 20-25% suggested, but that part does exist in some form already.

 

And I understand that it kills the realism of the bigger companies' constant stealing of smaller company talent to cover their own shortcomings. The thing is you're always going to have players who want that security to build their promotion without the predatory signings as well. And another factor that kills it is companies like USPW taking your big names and burying them in the midcard of a 70+ size roster. Then continuing to do that until their roster is super bloated. That particularly takes the fun out of it for me even if there is a good degree of realism to it.

 

I would argue that unless you are in the upper 1/3 (or less) of the Small range any exclusive written is going to put a big financial strain on you. It's the trade-off for keeping the important guys.

[Donners]

<p>The issue is that you can keep those important guys for years using an iron-clad non-exclusive contract.</p><p> </p><p>

The wage demands aren't increased by making it iron-clad, so you can lock workers into a tiny wage for years regardless of their pop growth and keep using them for the duration of the contract even if they get signed to an ostensibly exclusive deal by a big company.</p><p> </p><p>

That's why I think limiting the length of such contracts for smaller companies is the way to go.</p>

[Historian]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Donners" data-cite="Donners" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="51537" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The issue is that you can keep those important guys for years using an iron-clad non-exclusive contract.<p> </p><p> The wage demands aren't increased by making it iron-clad, so you can lock workers into a tiny wage for years regardless of their pop growth and keep using them for the duration of the contract even if they get signed to an ostensibly exclusive deal by a big company.</p><p> </p><p> That's why I think limiting the length of such contracts for smaller companies is the way to go.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> They are already limited to 2 years before they ask for significantly more money for lost income. And these are very similar to the written contracts that the NWA and MLW offer. Ricky Starks was offered a contract for the NWA to be written non exclusive and iron glad that was for something like 1,000 a month. </p><p> </p><p> MLW regularly signs talents to written non exclusive contracts that pay per appearance and don’t pay a lot. Same with Impact and ROH. So none of that is outside of the realm of normalcy for a wrestling company these days.</p>

[MikeSc]

<p>Look, here's the thing.</p><p> </p><p>

1. If you are not a "big" Small company more than one or two of these contracts will stop you from making much money at all. It's balanced financially within the game. I know it doesn't seem realistic in terms of what the wrestlers are paid. You can build a 100,000 seat stadium for 10 million dollars. It costs 30+ million to do the last upgrade on broadcasters. Nothing is truly realistic in cost here. It costs what it does to balance it's usefulness against the investment you put into it. </p><p> </p><p>

2. Nobody at all is forcing YOU to use this feature. The CPU as far as I can tell does not. Those of us who don't care for the idea of losing our big names that we have years of plans for can use it. You can ignore it and play the game your way. This is a sandbox game and everyone plays it different. There is no need to demand that something you are not being forced to use be removed. Just don't use it if you don't like it.</p>

[magik]

They are already limited to 2 years before they ask for significantly more money for lost income. And these are very similar to the written contracts that the NWA and MLW offer. Ricky Starks was offered a contract for the NWA to be written non exclusive and iron glad that was for something like 1,000 a month.

 

MLW regularly signs talents to written non exclusive contracts that pay per appearance and don’t pay a lot. Same with Impact and ROH. So none of that is outside of the realm of normalcy for a wrestling company these days.

 

 

Written only is one thing.

 

 

Written exclusive contracts for 1-2 years for a pay per show between 30-500$ is another. A 100$/show exclusive written contract really doesn't seem like a good deal to the worker to me.

 

 

That worker may be used 2 times per month and make 200$/month and 2400$/year. He would be better off staying under an handshake deal as he may also work elsewhere.

 

 

Workers aren't requesting an increase in pay for written, written exclusive or exclusive handshake contracts for the "decrease in booking" they may get from these contracts.

[MikeSc]

Once again.

 

The finances in this game are balanced for the game. It isn't going to 100% mirror real life in this respect. Or a lot of other things, but it is usually within reason given the factors it is meant to balance.

 

Secondly, if I sign a guy to an exclusive deal as a Small company the only reason they aren't on a show is due to injury. It means they are one of my main guys and I want them around. Hence the exclusive deal.

 

I am going to repeat myself again. If you don't like the feature, don't use it. The game won't give you any "you didn't use the exclusive contract" penalty. You play the game your way and the rest of us play it ours.

[MikeSc]

I am probably coming off a little harsh here. I'll try this a different way.

 

Every show you pick your location the night of the show and a couple hundred people to 100,000 show up at that location to see your show. There is nothing at all close to real about that. But it simplifies your job and streamlines the process so your booking doesn't become tedious. Going down the rabbit hole on something that doesn't necessarily make sense in the game due to it not being "real" can only hurt how you enjoy the game.

 

There are a TON of optional things that can hurt or help you based on how you use them. Mandatory pre-booking can boost your attendance a lot. It takes a lot of planning and extra time due to not having the "Exclude Already Working" option, but I think it's worth it. You can shut off penalties for doing the same match too often. You can shut off penalties for overusing Unimportant guys. There is not a lot of stuff the game forces you to do.

 

If your biggest gripe with the game is exclusive written contracts that have a per show option you have already won. It could be something like the interface or the momentum system. Those are things you don't get to avoid. The exclusive written contracts you can simply ignore and enjoy your game without them.

 

The game is a sandbox-style game. It's got a lot of toys and nobody is telling you that you need to use all of them.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Once again.

 

The finances in this game are balanced for the game. It isn't going to 100% mirror real life in this respect. Or a lot of other things, but it is usually within reason given the factors it is meant to balance.

 

Secondly, if I sign a guy to an exclusive deal as a Small company the only reason they aren't on a show is due to injury. It means they are one of my main guys and I want them around. Hence the exclusive deal.

 

I am going to repeat myself again. If you don't like the feature, don't use it. The game won't give you any "you didn't use the exclusive contract" penalty. You play the game your way and the rest of us play it ours.

 

 

The finances in this game is far from balance even in the C verse

[Questlove]

The finances in this game is far from balance even in the C verse

 

Yeah, there's absolutely nothing balanced about simming 5 years and seeing every company has tens of millions in the bank. That said, I don't really care about the feature this topic is about. I'd say changing this would fall under tedious challenge rather than something to make the game more fun. There's a thousand things that could be changed to make the game tougher yet more exciting but imo this isn't one of them.

[MikeSc]

If finances were balanced according to real world ideas every Small company and most Mediums would be bankrupt within a year. That seems like a bad idea for those of us who like to build up from Small or lower.

 

All I'm asking is that you leave it alone on a feature that benefits people who play the game a little differently than you.

 

If you shut off the Autosave feature you can re-run shows if you don't like an injury or the overall rating. That's not fair to the entire Cornellverse that's not you. The game isn't about fair or real. It's about how you play to enjoy yourself.

[SirMichaelJordan]

If finances were balanced according to real world ideas every Small company and most Mediums would be bankrupt within a year. That seems like a bad idea for those of us who like to build up from Small or lower.

 

All I'm asking is that you leave it alone on a feature that benefits people who play the game a little differently than you.

 

If you shut off the Autosave feature you can re-run shows if you don't like an injury or the overall rating. That's not fair to the entire Cornellverse that's not you. The game isn't about fair or real. It's about how you play to enjoy yourself.

 

It’s not about real of fiction isn’t about making sense.

 

And it’s a hot take to say every small company would be bankrupt if financial were more balanced and not overpowered. That a sign of a bad system if it does.

Obviously the OP is not enjoying the game the way he likes so it’s hypocritical to say anything about how someone should be enjoying the game while ignoring his post.

[MikeSc]

I have said several times in the post that it is 100% possible to completely ignore the feature he did not like. no one is forcing him to use Exclusive per show contracts. If it were forced on the user it would be a different story.

 

And I was commenting more on how in real life most small promotions don't last very long financially. History has proven that wrestling at that level loses money. Then they find another money mark to fund them for a while and the cycle continues. I really don't want that kind of experience in a game.

[SirMichaelJordan]

I have said several times in the post that it is 100% possible to completely ignore the feature he did not like. no one is forcing him to use Exclusive per show contracts. If it were forced on the user it would be a different story.

 

And I was commenting more on how in real life most small promotions don't last very long financially. History has proven that wrestling at that level loses money. Then they find another money mark to fund them for a while and the cycle continues. I really don't want that kind of experience in a game.

 

Doesn’t stop the AI

 

And the most well known small Indy companies have been in business for almost 20 years now. I don’t think TEW is meant to include temporary pop up feds anyway. That’s what the Indy wrestling events are for.

[magik]

I have said several times in the post that it is 100% possible to completely ignore the feature he did not like. no one is forcing him to use Exclusive per show contracts. If it were forced on the user it would be a different story.

 

And I was commenting more on how in real life most small promotions don't last very long financially. History has proven that wrestling at that level loses money. Then they find another money mark to fund them for a while and the cycle continues. I really don't want that kind of experience in a game.

 

 

I fully understand your opinion and would wish for these contracts to still be useful for smaller companies. But, I would also wish for them to seem reasonable for workers and be special to the player. It would reduce their number for smaller companies and make them feel more reasonable for bigger companies too.

 

Signing any worker on a per show contract under 500$/show feels like handcuffing them on unreasonable contracts that are also iron clad (that they can't quit even if they would want to).

 

 

I think these contracts should at the very least include a downside for workers. These may be a start:

Exclusive written: 1000$/month + an amount based on monthly pay request and possibly contract length

Written: 500$/month + an amount based on monthly pay request and possibly contract length

Exclusive handshake: 500$/month + an amount based on monthly pay request and possibly contract length

* I'm not 100% sure, but I believe exclusive handshake with per show contracts are the only type that AI companies may offer out of these 3 on a per show basis. These numbers may need to be adjusted based on company size.

 

 

 

The issue is that you can keep those important guys for years using an iron-clad non-exclusive contract.

 

The wage demands aren't increased by making it iron-clad, so you can lock workers into a tiny wage for years regardless of their pop growth and keep using them for the duration of the contract even if they get signed to an ostensibly exclusive deal by a big company.

 

That's why I think limiting the length of such contracts for smaller companies is the way to go.

I also like your suggestion Donners. It would better simulate that workers tend to get fewer career opportunities long-term at smaller companies.

[Historian]

I fully understand your opinion and would wish for these contracts to still be useful for smaller companies. But, I would also wish for them to seem reasonable for workers and be special to the player. It would reduce their number for smaller companies and make them feel more reasonable for bigger companies too.

 

Signing any worker on a per show contract under 500$/show feels like handcuffing them on unreasonable contracts that are also iron clad (that they can't quit even if they would want to).

 

I understand the desire for contracts to feel reasonable to you, but in the reality of wrestling, they aren't reasonable.

 

The greatest example of this is Major League Wrestling. MLW currently signs most of its top talent to non-exclusive, multi-year written contracts. The top they pay is $150 per date. So that would be a TV taping where they pay a guy $150 for the taping and he may work four shows over that taping (maybe even six, depending on how much they tape). In TEW, you pay guys per show they appear on, so if you had the same deal they would be getting $600 for the four shows -- so the TEW deal is better at that regards.

 

I also understand the "why would they lock themselves in for a rate that they can't ask for a raise in during the duration" but that's how pro wrestling goes. Why should small companies not have the option when a company like SWF/USPW/WWE can lock talent in to exclusive written with iron clad deals for significantly longer and the talent can't ask for raises.

 

"But Historian, they're going to be paid more over that deal!" Sure. But let's say that I'm really savvy as a WWE-sized promoter and I sign an Indy talent to a contract for ten years, the maximum length I can offer, and they take the deal. They're still locked into that rate of pay/those terms for the ten years regardless of whether or not I make them a star

 

For instance, to test it out, I took USPW (if you're not familiar with the CVerse, they are WWE level) and offered a deal to Ernest Youngman (if you're not familiar, he's a star on the Indy scene.) Youngman starts the default data with popularity of a 44 in the Tri State, 26 in the South East, and 24 in the New England area and ineligible popularity everywhere else. He's 26 years old. For an Exclusive Written deal with an iron clad clause, he's willing to sign for $15,000 a month (which equates to $180,000 a year or $1,800,000 over the course of the entire contract), with no signing bonus, no event bonuses, etc. and only 10% of the merchandise cut (which isn't unrealistic at that level).

 

He's also willing to take a per show exclusive written deal at $1,500 a show for ten years. USPW runs a weekly TV show and a monthly PPV. Let's say I book him on all of those. TEW calendars are four weeks a month with twelve months, so that's 48 weeks and 48 TV shows. With 12 PPVS, that's 60 shows. That's $90,000 from those 60 shows. Now, this would mean he wasn't working any house shows because if he was he'd be getting paid for those and his rate of pay would go up. But let's say I said he wouldn't work house shows and lock him in to that 90,000 deal for me. Across ten years that's $900,000. He can't ask for a raise in those ten years. He's locked in. He's 26, so he'll be 36 when the contract expires. By that point, I could have made him the biggest star in wrestling (which isn't unfeasible considering his stat base).

 

The point is, long term contracts are always a gamble for both talent and workers. I could sign Ernest to that ten-year deal and he breaks his neck and his career is over. I could sign him and realize I don't want him and have to fire him and payout the remainder of his contract. For Ernest, he could become a huge star and be vastly underpaid. He could become a middle of the card wrestler who is still underpaid -- regardless, he's banking on being underpaid for the first contract so his next contract can be massive.

 

And this translates across sports. Scottie Pippen signed a 7 year, $18 million dollar basketball contract with the Bulls that paid him 2,571,428.57 a season during the prime of the 90's when he was a top ten player -- a contract that wasn't even in the top 100 of all the NBA contracts at the time.

 

Ask Lucha Underground about their written deals and what they paid and the lawsuits guys had to file to get out of them when it was clear Lucha wasn't coming back. Wrestling is filled with bad contracts.

 

I like them being there for small companies. They provide you a couple of years of security and then you risk losing the talent all together at the end. If you make them a star, they go sign for big money elsewhere (see MJF from MLW to AEW).

 

TL/DR: Wrestling contracts have always involved risk for the talent and when they aren't already a star are favorable to the company regardless of company size. Small companies are already fighting an uphill battle in terms of budget and perception and the short term written contracts provide them some security -- which isn't unrealistic as NWA, MLW, Impact, and ROH (and even a company like PCWUltra in SoCal offer them). Yes, wrestlers are limiting the amount of money they can make but they already do that.

 

Sidenote: I saw someone bring up merchandising and I thought it a good time to note that the merchandise cut is supposed to be of company-produced merchandise. On the indy level, most guys are producing their own merchandise and the company doesn't get any cut of it, but if the company has a shirt they produced, they keep the bulk of the proceeds, which is also how it works in real life.

[MikeSc]

Thinking about this about the end of the usefulness of the contract is the 2 year mark.

 

Low end guys want $200 per show. High end guys want $300, it does go up.

 

So a 2 year limit on length would limit the usefulness to bigger companies while keeping the utility for smaller companies.

 

Also keep in mind that until you hit that mark of about 45 pop (going to vary based on economy/industry) you don't make enough money on shows to support more than 2 of those $300 contracts anyway. You really have to pick and choose who you keep.

[SirMichaelJordan]

I understand the desire for contracts to feel reasonable to you, but in the reality of wrestling, they aren't reasonable.

 

The greatest example of this is Major League Wrestling. MLW currently signs most of its top talent to non-exclusive, multi-year written contracts. The top they pay is $150 per date. So that would be a TV taping where they pay a guy $150 for the taping and he may work four shows over that taping (maybe even six, depending on how much they tape). In TEW, you pay guys per show they appear on, so if you had the same deal they would be getting $600 for the four shows -- so the TEW deal is better at that regards.

 

I also understand the "why would they lock themselves in for a rate that they can't ask for a raise in during the duration" but that's how pro wrestling goes. Why should small companies not have the option when a company like SWF/USPW/WWE can lock talent in to exclusive written with iron clad deals for significantly longer and the talent can't ask for raises.

 

"But Historian, they're going to be paid more over that deal!" Sure. But let's say that I'm really savvy as a WWE-sized promoter and I sign an Indy talent to a contract for ten years, the maximum length I can offer, and they take the deal. They're still locked into that rate of pay/those terms for the ten years regardless of whether or not I make them a star

 

For instance, to test it out, I took USPW (if you're not familiar with the CVerse, they are WWE level) and offered a deal to Ernest Youngman (if you're not familiar, he's a star on the Indy scene.) Youngman starts the default data with popularity of a 44 in the Tri State, 26 in the South East, and 24 in the New England area and ineligible popularity everywhere else. He's 26 years old. For an Exclusive Written deal with an iron clad clause, he's willing to sign for $15,000 a month (which equates to $180,000 a year or $1,800,000 over the course of the entire contract), with no signing bonus, no event bonuses, etc. and only 10% of the merchandise cut (which isn't unrealistic at that level).

 

He's also willing to take a per show exclusive written deal at $1,500 a show for ten years. USPW runs a weekly TV show and a monthly PPV. Let's say I book him on all of those. TEW calendars are four weeks a month with twelve months, so that's 48 weeks and 48 TV shows. With 12 PPVS, that's 60 shows. That's $90,000 from those 60 shows. Now, this would mean he wasn't working any house shows because if he was he'd be getting paid for those and his rate of pay would go up. But let's say I said he wouldn't work house shows and lock him in to that 90,000 deal for me. Across ten years that's $900,000. He can't ask for a raise in those ten years. He's locked in. He's 26, so he'll be 36 when the contract expires. By that point, I could have made him the biggest star in wrestling (which isn't unfeasible considering his stat base).

 

The point is, long term contracts are always a gamble for both talent and workers. I could sign Ernest to that ten-year deal and he breaks his neck and his career is over. I could sign him and realize I don't want him and have to fire him and payout the remainder of his contract. For Ernest, he could become a huge star and be vastly underpaid. He could become a middle of the card wrestler who is still underpaid -- regardless, he's banking on being underpaid for the first contract so his next contract can be massive.

 

And this translates across sports. Scottie Pippen signed a 7 year, $18 million dollar basketball contract with the Bulls that paid him 2,571,428.57 a season during the prime of the 90's when he was a top ten player -- a contract that wasn't even in the top 100 of all the NBA contracts at the time.

 

Ask Lucha Underground about their written deals and what they paid and the lawsuits guys had to file to get out of them when it was clear Lucha wasn't coming back. Wrestling is filled with bad contracts.

 

I like them being there for small companies. They provide you a couple of years of security and then you risk losing the talent all together at the end. If you make them a star, they go sign for big money elsewhere (see MJF from MLW to AEW).

 

TL/DR: Wrestling contracts have always involved risk for the talent and when they aren't already a star are favorable to the company regardless of company size. Small companies are already fighting an uphill battle in terms of budget and perception and the short term written contracts provide them some security -- which isn't unrealistic as NWA, MLW, Impact, and ROH (and even a company like PCWUltra in SoCal offer them). Yes, wrestlers are limiting the amount of money they can make but they already do that.

 

Sidenote: I saw someone bring up merchandising and I thought it a good time to note that the merchandise cut is supposed to be of company-produced merchandise. On the indy level, most guys are producing their own merchandise and the company doesn't get any cut of it, but if the company has a shirt they produced, they keep the bulk of the proceeds, which is also how it works in real life.

 

That’s true up until that said company start progressing to the level to be able to sell their own worker specific merch which only takes a year or two depending on their starting level.

 

So not only are you paying them $300, you’re potentially giving them 10% of their merch when that number should be closer to 50% on a per show contract.

 

Also why does the per month rate is high and the per show rate is massively lower? It’s literally no reason to sign any workers in the game on a per month basics unless they are demanding it which I haven’t seen yet.

 

As WWE i can sign a 40 pop guy for $500 per show exclusive written for a lot of years when his going rate for a written per month is nearly 10x that of his per show...