PDA

View Full Version : A hypothetical change to the soft cap situation



Vampirate
10-12-2011, 05:15 PM
What do you guys think if the soft cap was changed to this:

If you go over the cap, you have to pay 10% of your revenue from all the conscessions, tv revenue etc for the season and post season to the teams who have not gone over the cap.

If you are 2 consecutive years over the cap you need to pay 20% of your revenue, 3 consecutive years 30%, 4 consecutive years is 40% and so on.

In order for a team to get the money from the teams over the cap they need to be at least 12 million near the cap. (if the soft cap was at 50 million your team payroll needs to be at 38 million at least)

The money from all the over the cap teams would be split evenly to the teams who qualify for it.

If you have not made the playoffs for 2 consecutive years your piece of the pie gets halved. The half that you didn't earn goes straight to the league, so if you were to recieve 10 million for example, you would get 5 million, the other 5 million goes to the league.

daleja424
10-12-2011, 05:19 PM
I don't want to be mean...but that is not very good IMO

Vampirate
10-12-2011, 05:23 PM
Mind explaining why?

daleja424
10-12-2011, 05:36 PM
well the percentages thing is silly... you are going to charge a team that can actually afford to go over the cap a higher penalty than a team that goes over the cap but can't afford it. That doesn't make much sense at all.

There is also no penalty for people who go higher over the cap. There is no reason to stop spending. If you are going to be 10 dollars over the threshhold... you might as well spend an extra 20 million.

Then you picked out a random number (12 million) which no rational behind it.

Then you make the wealthy teams wealthier and make the gap even larger between good and bad teams with your playoff rule.

None of it makes sense to me... I would love to here your rational though.

PhillyFaninLA
10-12-2011, 05:43 PM
2/3 of the league is losing money because the don't know how to properly manage themselves. The owners created a situation by being horrible business people and need a system that does 2 things screws the players who only took what was offered and protects them (the owners) from themselves and only allows smart business and proper revenue sharing to exists.

I like that your thinking but this idea will make sure the league is bankrupt in 5 years instead of 10 if they don't get the right CBA.

Vampirate
10-12-2011, 05:57 PM
well the percentages thing is silly... you are going to charge a team that can actually afford to go over the cap a higher penalty than a team that goes over the cap but can't afford it. That doesn't make much sense at all.

There is also no penalty for people who go higher over the cap. There is no reason to stop spending. If you are going to be 10 dollars over the threshhold... you might as well spend an extra 20 million.

Then you picked out a random number (12 million) which no rational behind it.

Then you make the wealthy teams wealthier and make the gap even larger between good and bad teams with your playoff rule.

None of it makes sense.

The whole point is to dissuade the rich from spending rediculiously large, 10% to some teams is different to each team. A real penelty to someone like the Lakers is to target their revenue, something like 30% of their revenue is a hell of alot higher than the tax they are paying now.

There is, the higher you go over the cap, the harder it is to get out of cap hell. If you go 5 consecutive years over the cap, that means you'll be paying 50% of your revenue. The idea is to dissuade teams from going over the cap period. If the lakers wanna go over the cap repeatidly, it will seriously cost them.


I picked 12 randomly, I have no idea where the next cap will be at but somwhere around 10 is good, it imo prevents teams from merely pocketing the money. A soft salery floor if you will.

I said you half the number if you haven't made the playoffs so as a fan the owner puts money into the team.

I'm sure someone like Donald Sterling (who's notorious for money grubbing) would try to make the playoffs much harder if instead of making 25 million he could make 50 million by making the playoffs. As much as i dislike teams like the Ynkees who outspend, the owners who do nothing but keep money and do not put effort into the field product are worse imo.


Niether way by staying under the cap you will profit, it's just by making the playoffs you profit more. Call it an incentive contract to the owners like an incentive contract is to the players.

daleja424
10-12-2011, 06:04 PM
The whole point is to dissuade the rich from spending rediculiously large, 10% to some teams is different to each team. A real penelty to someone like the Lakers is to target their revenue, something like 30% of their revenue is a hell of alot higher than the tax they are paying now.

There is, the higher you go over the cap, the harder it is to get out of cap hell. If you go 5 consecutive years over the cap, that means you'll be paying 50% of your revenue. The idea is to dissuade teams from going over the cap period. If the lakers wanna go over the cap repeatidly, it will seriously cost them.


I picked 12 randomly, I have no idea where the next cap will be at but somwhere around 10 is good, it imo prevents teams from merely pocketing the money. A soft salery floor if you will.

I said you half the number if you haven't made the playoffs so as a fan the owner puts money into the team.

I'm sure someone like Donald Sterling (who's notorious for money grubbing) would try to make the playoffs much harder if instead of making 25 million he could make 50 million by making the playoffs. As much as i dislike teams like the Ynkees who outspend, the owners who do nothing but keep money and do not put effort into the field product are worse imo.


Niether way by staying under the cap you will profit, it's just by making the playoffs you profit more. Call it an incentive contract to the owners like an incentive contract is to the players.

Yes but you cannot create seperate penalties for different teams. If anyone has the right to spend more it is the teams that make a majority of the leagues revenue (Knicks, Lakers, etc). But in your system if the Lakers go 10 million over the cap they have to pay significantly more than if, lets say, the Pacers exceed the cap by 10 million. Why would the Lakers have to pay a bigger tax bill? That makes no sense...

I understand you are trying to dissuade people from going over the cap by increasing the penalty every year... but come on. If the Lakers are 2 dollars over the cap they should have to pay a 30+ million dollar tax bill? Really?

And again... how does it help nonplayoff teams get better to give them less money than teams that have made the playoffs?

Vampirate
10-12-2011, 06:08 PM
2/3 of the league is losing money because the don't know how to properly manage themselves. The owners created a situation by being horrible business people and need a system that does 2 things screws the players who only took what was offered and protects them (the owners) from themselves and only allows smart business and proper revenue sharing to exists.

I like that your thinking but this idea will make sure the league is bankrupt in 5 years instead of 10 if they don't get the right CBA.

I disagree, this makes teams like the Lakers essentially support the small market teams if they wish to outspend like crazy.

It also supports the idea that in order to get more money you need a better product on the field.

Teams will think twice if the penalty to the tax is large, money is what drives both players and owners. The risk of losing rediculous money is what will stop owners from going over the cap, it also might shorten contracts.

If a rich team wants to outspend everyone that is fine, they just need to be aware that they will essentialy be financing other teams.

Vampirate
10-12-2011, 06:11 PM
Yes but you cannot create seperate penalties for different teams. If anyone has the right to spend more it is the teams that make a majority of the leagues revenue (Knicks, Lakers, etc). But in your system if the Lakers go 10 million over the cap they have to pay significantly more than if, lets say, the Pacers exceed the cap by 10 million. Why would the Lakers have to pay a bigger tax bill? That makes no sense...

I understand you are trying to dissuade people from going over the cap by increasing the penalty every year... but come on. If the Lakers are 2 dollars over the cap they should have to pay a 30+ million dollar tax bill? Really?

And again... how does it help nonplayoff teams get better to give them less money than teams that have made the playoffs?

IMO if you want owners to stop giving rediculous contracts than you need a change this radical or the one the owners composed.

Also how do you stop teams from pocketing the money and putting a poor product on the field?

Sactown
10-12-2011, 09:40 PM
What if the kings go 10 mil over and they make no money?? Then they don't pay anything?