This is strangely turning into a discussion about David's participation merits.
We can all (probably) agree that most of his writing is entertaining, and that he deserves some party bonus.

The starting topic, though, was neither whether David deserves a bonus (yes) nor if he is turning HIB into an invincible juggernaut (not yet).
The question was whether the amount of a particular bonus (and maybe others) was in line with the economic system.

Basically, a couple of guys (Alon's "minority") prefers playing a football sim.
Apparently some others prefer a creative writing contest.

I suppose that this would be a slightly different discussion if e.g. Andrew/MOT would decide to go for an additional 1500k income.

Just out of curiosity:
Since when are the reviews - and their 100k per week amount - established?

Hi David,

> I do a divisional review but actually think the 100k is fine.
> The Rules say each manager is supposed to do at least 3 Journals pwer season. I wouldn't push that if I was a Commish, but even 3 (reasonable) entries would get a manager pretty close to 100k.

Both true. The minor difference is that the review 100k is paid every week - while the 3 journals pay out 100k per season.

> My extra money over James is due to the fact I am happy to spend time being involved in the set up and yes, get paid for it.

I am all for participation, and rewarding it.
Like James, I don't like the silly amount.

HIB did get 2125k from various participation sources - so far, end of season payouts pending.
Those amounts are simply breaking the economy.

I do like reading the occasional journal and note - and getting a sense of community.
In a football sim, I do think that a working econonmy is much more important.

A simple solution would be just capping the party income (all sources combined) per season to e.g. 500k.
This would still reward participation, but the effective difference of 4 CPs would have no major impact on the game balance.