Playing With or Without Finances?

[eric517]

Just looking for some opinions here . . . In considering starting a new association I have reached a block and can't decide whether to start one with finances on or with finances off. I will first say that I have never played without finances. For those of you who have gone both routes in the past, what can I expect from playing without finances?

I always use fictional players . . . I don't think that will make a difference. I usually use 60-man rosters. With finances on this creates decisions to be made as I can't afford to keep all my players. With finances off will I find that I just end up stock-piling talent? Should I use smaller rosters so I will have decisions to make on who to devote my roster spots to?

What input do you guys have for me? What are the pro's and con's of finances on or finances off?

Thanks!

[KG Erwin]

With finances off, you're essentially playing in the reserve clause era (pre-1977). Since you play with fictionals, roster size doesn't matter. The main advantage of the reserve clause is obvious: the players are feudal serfs, bound to you until you trade or release them, or they retire. You, the omnipotent owner, can stockpile talent to your heart's content.

Considering your playing style, I would not recommend turning financials off. See my post on "the gap between rich and poor" for the perspective from a historical player.