|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 15, 2014 11:37:24 GMT
the league currently does not have a luxury tax, the NBA's current luxury tax is 71.7, like the salary cap though, I doubt many teams are on board with the tax being that high even if the hard cap is raised (though 71.7 million in luxury tax doesn't seem as absurd as 58 million in salary cap atleast to me depending on the actual cap of course)
but should there be one, if so, how high should it be? When should it be implemented? (if the salary cap rises, it should really be in the same year) and finally what should the penalty be if teams cannot pay?
|
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 16, 2014 6:17:02 GMT
bump for more people to see
|
|
|
|
Post by uwotmate on May 16, 2014 6:27:32 GMT
Fuck off
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 16, 2014 6:30:42 GMT
Someone IP ban this bag of douche.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 16, 2014 6:31:50 GMT
the league currently does not have a luxury tax, the NBA's current luxury tax is 71.7, like the salary cap though, I doubt many teams are on board with the tax being that high even if the hard cap is raised (though 71.7 million in luxury tax doesn't seem as absurd as 58 million in salary cap atleast to me depending on the actual cap of course) but should there be one, if so, how high should it be? When should it be implemented? (if the salary cap rises, it should really be in the same year) and finally what should the penalty be if teams cannot pay? I really don't see the need. I think it's adding more moving parts to something that simply doesn't require it. I don't need the sim league to operate exactly the same as the NBA. |
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 16, 2014 6:35:21 GMT
ya, I'm not a huge fan of a luxury tax either, but there maybe people in favor of one because it forces contenders to pay up money and takes a little bit of power from them like it would for a rl team like Oklahoma City or Indiana.
|
|
itnas123
Administrator 
Charlotte Bobcats
Posts: 25,496 
Staff Member
|
Post by itnas123 on May 16, 2014 6:35:59 GMT
yeah no luxury cap needed. IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by BrazilianDude on May 16, 2014 11:52:37 GMT
No thanks would just complicate things
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 16, 2014 18:34:54 GMT
The only way I'd be okay with luxury taxes would be if we remove the current HC penalty with a "doublling" of the luxury after a team hits 82 mil.
The cash penalty will be enforced one sim before the trade deadline, and if a team can't pay their penalty within 48 hours, then bring on the current HC penalties for them (lose MLE/LLE rights + lose their best player to FA).
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 16, 2014 18:40:41 GMT
Let's aim to vote on these asap. It's hard on here to reach a perfect consensus on what kind of a proposal we should have, so we'll just take the best ones and vote on those.
|
|
|
|
Post by celticfan on May 16, 2014 22:20:22 GMT
I would agree not ot have one
|
|
|
|
Post by swish on May 16, 2014 22:24:35 GMT
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 16, 2014 22:36:19 GMT
What about this:
Keep 82 mil cap as a tax-less hard cap. For every one million you spend over 82mil you will be fined $100 by the league. Here's how to enforce that:
- Selected one or two designated periods for luxury tax check.
- Must be under 82 mil or you have to pay luxury tax
- You will have to pay $100 for every mil you were over 82 mil (all rounds up to next million. If you had 84.5 mil salary, you'd pay $300 in penalty)
- If you can't pay the cash amount, then we will enact the current HC penalities which is: Lose MLE/LLE rights for next two FAs, and you lose your best player.
How about that proposal fellas? You can go over the HC now, but it'll just come at a price.
|
|
|
|
Post by swish on May 16, 2014 22:46:42 GMT
I like the idea, although I would like for us to discuss the No. of Periods + Cost a little further/more carefully if so to figure out an amount that is fair
eg 2 periods $100 / per mil & 1 period $150 /mil ?
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 16, 2014 22:52:09 GMT
I like the idea, although I would like for us to discuss the No. of Periods + Cost a little further/more carefully if so to figure out an amount that is fair eg 2 periods $100 / per mil & 1 period $150 /mil ? Now that I think about it, how about just one period. Let's make that period one sim after the ASW. Payment is DUE after the post-ASW sim. $100 per mil over, rounded up. |
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 16, 2014 23:54:02 GMT
What about this: Keep 82 mil cap as a tax-less hard cap. For every one million you spend over 82mil you will be fined $100 by the league. Here's how to enforce that: - Selected one or two designated periods for luxury tax check. - Must be under 82 mil or you have to pay luxury tax - You will have to pay $100 for every mil you were over 82 mil (all rounds up to next million. If you had 84.5 mil salary, you'd pay $300 in penalty) - If you can't pay the cash amount, then we will enact the current HC penalities which is: Lose MLE/LLE rights for next two FAs, and you lose your best player. How about that proposal fellas? You can go over the HC now, but it'll just come at a price. I do not like it, at least as spelt out. It's a 'rich-get-richer' deal, $100 is not such a big deal for pretty much ANY team... they field stronger teams and as such do better and accumulate more money which then funds the fine structure - you artificially create a support system for a team that has gone above the HC. This is ENCOURAGING teams to get into this kind of salary, and a luxury tax should be trying to do the opposite. The penalties for entering this kind of salary should be far, far greater. If it's going to be in, then the fine needs to be prohibitively large. Entering the territory beyond the HC should be a risky deal. Make the fine $300-500, and make it cumulative: if you enter it the NEXT luxury tax check, then it doubles (then triples, and so on). Have a minimum time of not entering luxury tax before it resets. You enter luxury tax range, then it doesn't reset to the initial levels for... say 4 more checks. |
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 17, 2014 0:34:47 GMT
I personally don't want to see multiple checks. That can be a hassle and we should always strive to keep things as simple as possible for the sake of everyone.
I'm okay with making it more expensive, but $300-$500 per million is too much imo. How much more money is a team at $85 million salary going to make over a team with $80 million in salary? Or even $70 million in salary? Salaries don't always determine the team, it just determines how much you are paying who you have. The Bucks were close to the Hard cap recently, and they barely got the 8th playoff seed. Also, it's not THAT easy to earn cash in this game. Earning money means you put in a bunch of activity by attending live sims, checking all box scores, and doing stuff like that. It's a worthy trade off imo. If there's going to be luxury tax, I wouldn't want to see it any higher than $150-200 per million over (rounded up).
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 0:42:05 GMT
I personally don't want to see multiple checks. That can be a hassle and we should always strive to keep things as simple as possible for the sake of everyone. I'm okay with making it more expensive, but $300-$500 per million is too much imo. How much more money is a team at $85 million salary going to make over a team with $80 million in salary? Or even $70 million in salary? Salaries don't always determine the team, it just determines how much you are paying who you have. The Bucks were close to the Hard cap recently, and they barely got the 8th playoff seed. Also, it's not THAT easy to earn cash in this game. Earning money means you put in a bunch of activity by attending live sims, checking all box scores, and doing stuff like that. It's a worthy trade off imo. If there's going to be luxury tax, I wouldn't want to see it any higher than $150-200 per million over (rounded up). Err... look at *your* team for example: you'd pay the $100 (or more) in a heartbeat, and barely blink. Sure, you earn money by attending sims (which is a benefit for whichever group lives where the active commish is), but stronger teams earn more money: that's simply a fact. I'm strongly opposed to extending the HC higher in any way, shape or form - unless the penalties are severe. I don't think we need a higher cap, I do believe that it's not THAT difficult to stay under and create a competitive team. But if we're going there then a luxury tax SHOULD BE prohibitive. It should encourage teams NOT to continually go over. $150-200 simply isn't a big enough deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Posting&Toasting on May 17, 2014 0:47:48 GMT
no tax. will make for unneeded complication.
|
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 17, 2014 0:56:10 GMT
I personally don't want to see multiple checks. That can be a hassle and we should always strive to keep things as simple as possible for the sake of everyone. I'm okay with making it more expensive, but $300-$500 per million is too much imo. How much more money is a team at $85 million salary going to make over a team with $80 million in salary? Or even $70 million in salary? Salaries don't always determine the team, it just determines how much you are paying who you have. The Bucks were close to the Hard cap recently, and they barely got the 8th playoff seed. Also, it's not THAT easy to earn cash in this game. Earning money means you put in a bunch of activity by attending live sims, checking all box scores, and doing stuff like that. It's a worthy trade off imo. If there's going to be luxury tax, I wouldn't want to see it any higher than $150-200 per million over (rounded up). Err... look at *your* team for example: you'd pay the $100 (or more) in a heartbeat, and barely blink. Sure, you earn money by attending sims (which is a benefit for whichever group lives where the active commish is), but stronger teams earn more money: that's simply a fact. I'm strongly opposed to extending the HC higher in any way, shape or form - unless the penalties are severe. I don't think we need a higher cap, I do believe that it's not THAT difficult to stay under and create a competitive team. But if we're going there then a luxury tax SHOULD BE prohibitive. It should encourage teams NOT to continually go over. $150-200 simply isn't a big enough deal. For all the activity I put in, I make a couple hundred up to a thousand per season when I'm having a good and active season (go far in playoffs, players win awards, get some triple doubles, etc), but that doesn't mean I can pay out cash without impunity. If I wanted $85 mil in salary, I'd have to pay $600 and even I'd have to think about that one. Especially if I had younger players on my team that I need to develop. I would be open to tiered penalities like $200 per mil for the first 3 million over, and $300 per mil for the next 2 mil over, and $400 per mil after that. |
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 17, 2014 1:06:21 GMT
think a repeaters tax is something to look into if you really want to punish teams for being over the tax.
I doubt many would want that though
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 1:06:45 GMT
Err... look at *your* team for example: you'd pay the $100 (or more) in a heartbeat, and barely blink. Sure, you earn money by attending sims (which is a benefit for whichever group lives where the active commish is), but stronger teams earn more money: that's simply a fact. I'm strongly opposed to extending the HC higher in any way, shape or form - unless the penalties are severe. I don't think we need a higher cap, I do believe that it's not THAT difficult to stay under and create a competitive team. But if we're going there then a luxury tax SHOULD BE prohibitive. It should encourage teams NOT to continually go over. $150-200 simply isn't a big enough deal. For all the activity I put in, I make a couple hundred up to a thousand per season when I'm having a good and active season (go far in playoffs, players win awards, get some triple doubles, etc), but that doesn't mean I can pay out cash without impunity. If I wanted $85 mil in salary, I'd have to pay $600 and even I'd have to think about that one. Especially if I had younger players on my team that I need to develop. I would be open to tiered penalities like $200 per mil for the first 3 million over, and $300 per mil for the next 2 mil over, and $400 per mil after that. Sorry dude, last season, you were willing to throw around cash to encourage people to write an article... you'd absolutely have paid $600 to benefit your team. |
|
shorty
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 15,223
Staff Member
|
Post by shorty on May 17, 2014 1:11:43 GMT
For all the activity I put in, I make a couple hundred up to a thousand per season when I'm having a good and active season (go far in playoffs, players win awards, get some triple doubles, etc), but that doesn't mean I can pay out cash without impunity. If I wanted $85 mil in salary, I'd have to pay $600 and even I'd have to think about that one. Especially if I had younger players on my team that I need to develop. I would be open to tiered penalities like $200 per mil for the first 3 million over, and $300 per mil for the next 2 mil over, and $400 per mil after that. Sorry dude, last season, you were willing to throw around cash to encourage people to write an article... you'd absolutely have paid $600 to benefit your team. Yes, but again, I was in a unique situation. Most GMs won't have the time I had (which btw, I'll never have that much time again once I start working  ), the players I had which gave me a lot of cash, and winning success. The only young player I had was James Johnson. I could have paid $1200 (200 + 200 + 200 + 300 + 300) to keep Tmac (I was $85 mil in salary at the time and needed some depth) and field some depth that's true, but $1200 is not just something I can throw away either. I probably would have traded Tmac or someone else anyway if I'd known the cost would be that high to keep him. |
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 1:13:59 GMT
We could keep going on this somewhat circular argument, but it's kind of a moot point. First thing that should be decided is 'Are we going beyond the current HC?'. Because if we're not, then we don't need any suggestions on how to deal with doing so.
I'm quite opposed to going beyond the current HC.
|
|
|
|
Post by entrapy on May 17, 2014 1:14:30 GMT
How about the violator (checked during the ASW and end of season) loses their pick if it's lotto and their highest paid player gets waived for some amount of cash if the pick is not lotto? It is very harsh but it does discourage people from getting over HC and force GMs to calculate their every move carefully.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 1:16:04 GMT
How about the violator (checked during the ASW and end of season) loses their pick if it's lotto and their highest paid player gets waived for some amount of cash if the pick is not lotto? It is very harsh but it does discourage people from getting over HC and force GMs to calculate their every move carefully. That's not really a luxury tax per se, that's more a violation penalty. From where I stand, you seem to be against increasing the HC? Or being able to go beyond it... |
|
|
|
Post by entrapy on May 17, 2014 1:17:02 GMT
How about the violator (checked during the ASW and end of season) loses their pick if it's lotto and their highest paid player gets waived for some amount of cash if the pick is not lotto? It is very harsh but it does discourage people from getting over HC and force GMs to calculate their every move carefully. That's not really a luxury tax per se, that's more a violation penalty. From where I stand, you seem to be against increasing the HC? Or being able to go beyond it... That is going over the HC thing. Sorry 'bout that |
|
|
|
Post by somerandomguy on May 17, 2014 1:19:08 GMT
ya, keep HC in the HC thread to avoid confusion
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on May 17, 2014 1:27:54 GMT
Except, we're putting the cart before the horse. If we (as an association) aren't going forward with an increase in the HC, then this doesn't even need to be discussed.
|
|
|
|
Post by getbeard on May 19, 2014 0:49:42 GMT
Hard Cap is enough IMO.
|
|
), the players I had which gave me a lot of cash, and winning success. The only young player I had was James Johnson. I could have paid $1200 (200 + 200 + 200 + 300 + 300) to keep Tmac (I was $85 mil in salary at the time and needed some depth) and field some depth that's true, but $1200 is not just something I can throw away either. I probably would have traded Tmac or someone else anyway if I'd known the cost would be that high to keep him. 
