Issue: Extending a contract in the old UI versus the new UI.
NOTE: We're not talking about using the Renegotiation Wizard here. We are using the method widely utilized that involves zeroing out the two sliders, "First Year Base + Bonus" and "Bonus %", setting the number of years for the contract, and then pressing the "Submit Offer" button, following which you get a message about the minimum amount of the bonus that the player will accept.
Example:
League = Football Moguls
Team = Colorado Coyotes
Player = Robert Stewart, currently signed for two years and we are extending his contract to six years for the purpose of this example. Of note is that this player is not due any bonus money on the current contract, i.e., he has a salary only and no current bonus.
Old UI:
Using the method described above, the following message is generated.
"This player will not renegotiate for a bonus less than $6,988,520."
New UI:
Using the method described above, the following message is generated.
"This player will not renegotiate for a bonus less than $3,494,260."
Findings: Using the exact same contract extension method on the same player across both UI's, the old UI requires a bonus amount that is exactly double the value of the bonus amount required in the new UI.
Question: Has the programming logic for determining the bonus amount for contract extensions changed in the new UI?
Would like to see some other team owners run some contract scenarios and add comments about what you are seeing.
Last edited 9/18/2025 1:58 am
NOTE: We're not talking about using the Renegotiation Wizard here. We are using the method widely utilized that involves zeroing out the two sliders, "First Year Base + Bonus" and "Bonus %", setting the number of years for the contract, and then pressing the "Submit Offer" button, following which you get a message about the minimum amount of the bonus that the player will accept.
Example:
League = Football Moguls
Team = Colorado Coyotes
Player = Robert Stewart, currently signed for two years and we are extending his contract to six years for the purpose of this example. Of note is that this player is not due any bonus money on the current contract, i.e., he has a salary only and no current bonus.
Old UI:
Using the method described above, the following message is generated.
"This player will not renegotiate for a bonus less than $6,988,520."
New UI:
Using the method described above, the following message is generated.
"This player will not renegotiate for a bonus less than $3,494,260."
Findings: Using the exact same contract extension method on the same player across both UI's, the old UI requires a bonus amount that is exactly double the value of the bonus amount required in the new UI.
Question: Has the programming logic for determining the bonus amount for contract extensions changed in the new UI?
Would like to see some other team owners run some contract scenarios and add comments about what you are seeing.
Last edited 9/18/2025 1:58 am
I'm bringing back this post because of what I'm seeing in the New UI on the issue of extending contracts. Bottom line... I am finding that extending contracts in the New UI seems super inexpensive, even for high quality players. Was the logic on this issue ever verified, old UI to New UI or, as I found in my previous post, is extending contracts in the New UI actually 50% cheaper? Since the old UI is no longer operating, there is no way to for team owners to check on this issue. (Problems ahead for all leagues if teams are too flush with cash and have limited opportunities to spend it.)
JDB, please weigh in.
