|
|
Post by Beacons on Jan 27, 2014 17:26:14 GMT -5
This league was always designed to help the weaker teams and to create maximum competitiveness. This gives the great owners maximum challenge and the less active guys a shot to win the title. I feel that we've gotten away from this and it's not necessarily a good thing. When Bill Atteberry threw in the towel on Manchester, the big reason he gave was OOTP 5 finances. He was unable to get a revenue stream above $50,000,000 and that meant that he was doomed to an endless cycle of competing for a couple of years followed by a maximum rebuilding effort.
I once played a solo league with OOTP from 1881 to 2008. In that league, I saw how finances could snowball and the top money teams in 1900 would probably be the top money teams in the year 2000.
I have come up with the following solutions to our financial problem and want your input.
A. We do nothing.
B. Every team is guaranteed to make a certain amount minimum per wins. I was thinking off the top of my head that every team would be guaranteed revenue of 675,000 times wins. That's not big money, but would guarantee everybody in the league to make at least $50,000.
C. Any team that makes less than $50,000,000 is automatically boosted up to an income of $50,000,000.
D. Same as C basically, but the money would come from a luxury tax on those teams with a salary of greater than $70,000,000.
|
|
levi
Rookie
Posts: 26
|
Post by levi on Jan 27, 2014 18:19:59 GMT -5
I think D is the best way to achieve that goal.
B and C seem to introduce extra money into the league. Won't this result in bad things?
|
|
|
|
Post by Beacons on Jan 27, 2014 20:56:20 GMT -5
I think D is the best way to achieve that goal. B and C seem to introduce extra money into the league. Won't this result in bad things? I don't know. There is a question of unintended consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by Goons on Jan 31, 2014 8:09:34 GMT -5
If D is chosen then when would it begin? I have a long-term financial strategy in place under the current financial structure. I have players in high $$ contracts for many years on both teams that I signed thinking that I would be fine. If we move to this new food stamp and welfare program then it should be 5-10 years out to allow for me to adjust. And, no it's not as simple as trading a guy who has a high salary. I've developed a symbiotic long-term team model that accounts for arbitration, rookies, vets, etc. to allow me to grow my fan base by winning games, get revenue, and pay them all. So, adapting to a new rule like revenue sharing will require a transitional period.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beacons on Feb 7, 2014 20:19:34 GMT -5
It would be based on payroll and it would be instilled with this off season. This year Gashouse would be hit for a little over $2 million and Boston would not quite be hit for $1 million if the season ended today. Gashouse would lose money from cash on hand and Boston FBA ia already at the maximum cash allowed so it probably would not effect them at all as anything made over $10,000,000 just disappears.
|
|
|
|
Post by Goons on Feb 7, 2014 23:39:36 GMT -5
Joe,
I need you to listen to me. If you do this I will support it. But, you need to be fair about it. And, do NOT roll it out next season.
You must consider that we have been operating under the current complex financial system and have built franchises (which are long-term!) based on it. Coming in and saying that you want to adopt a new penalty for teams who have a salary over an amount which 6 teams are already over, and others are very close is completely wrong, inconsiderate, and just plain unfair. As I mentioned I have built two franchises under the current financial structure. You can't come in and change it like you propose without giving a starting point further out, like 5-10 seasons. You may drive owners (including myself) away from this league if you don't allow time for teams to adjust by restructuring their financial strategies and have time to work through some of their long-term high dollar contracts. I will be stuck with high-$ salaries because teams will be reluctant to trade for them if your self-imposed laws go into effect.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by Beacons on Feb 8, 2014 11:17:02 GMT -5
You actually may find some teams that now have money, may be able to trade for more higher placed contracts. At this point in the year, these are the only teams over $70,000,000.
1 Gashouse $74,251,000
2 Boston (UBA) $73,991,429
3 Boston (FBA) $71,946,715
4 Pontiac $71,513,413
5 Ashburn $70,117,143
Ashburn would pay a tax of less than $60,000. Pontiac is a computer team. That leaves your two teams and Boston (UBA). Boston is in a bit of a financial bind, but Boston FBA's revenue last season was $78.7 million. That will probably increase with the world series title. They're on pace to make $7,000,000. If they're taxed less than $1,000,000 it'd mean only a profit of $6 million. They already sit on $10,000,000 which is the maximum they can have. Therefore, the money won't actually affect them for a very long time. Gashouse is pretty similar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lynchberg on Feb 8, 2014 14:20:01 GMT -5
Anything that hurts Gashouse's juggernaut, I am in favor of lol..roll it out asap
|
|
