MSWL UNITEDMSWL U2 TMBL MSWL The Manager
Wednesday, October 17th, 2018 - 11:18:49 PM (gmt)
 
ball MSWL UNITED ① - Landing
 
Home Auctions Blog Forum History Login Rules Scores Stats Tables Teams
 
Coaches Directory Donate Guest Rankings Schedule Updates Waitlist Wall
 

Join
MSWL
UNITED!

Recent Entries

Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Mike Parnaby
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Tim Batth
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Dave Dohm
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Hayes
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
19 Comments
Brian Beerman
20 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Andy Bate
1 Comment
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
21 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Graham Wilkes
1 Comment
Jose Freitas
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
10 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Rob Baptiste
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Graham Wilkes
6 Comments
Graham Wilkes
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rob Peterson
5 Comments
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
John Holden
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
19 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Rob Baptiste
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Rob Baptiste
5 Comments
Mark Stretch
5 Comments
Jake Hanny
1 Comment
Andy Bate
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Graham Wilkes
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
David Blair
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
12 Comments
Brian Beerman
5 Comments
David Blair
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
18 Comments
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Mark Stretch
17 Comments
John Holden
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Peterson
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Allan Sellers
30 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
15 Comments
Andy Bate
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Mike Cabral
4 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
26 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Kevin Martin
6 Comments
Dave Dohm
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
14 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
John Holden
4 Comments
Mike Cabral
9 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Simon Compton
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Abe Hamdali
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
6 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
20 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Andy Bate
7 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Lewis
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Simon Compton
4 Comments
Kevin Martin
12 Comments
Simon Compton
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rene Wilkens
5 Comments
Trevor Taylor
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
17 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Trevor Taylor
7 Comments
Trevor Taylor
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
27 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Dan Fitzgerald
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Alon Atie
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Rob Peterson
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
 
Tax Rate Poll
Posted by Allan Sellers on Saturday, Nov. 27th, 2010 at 6:56 PM

 

There was a lot of good discussion around the Tax ideas.  To be candid I'm not sure there's a massive need to change multiple areas of the game just because a few teams can amount some big sums of money.  I could be wrong…  

The response was for a tax.  So next steps are to determine what that should be.  I've developed some ideas after reading through what people have mentioned.

For this specific topic, the following two voting options are available:

Option A

3000 = 10%

4000 = 20%

5000 = 30%

 

Option B

4000 = 10%

5000 = 20%

6000 = 30%

Taxes will be assessed ONE time each season IMMEDIATELY after the session 8 matches are completed.  In theory that does two things: 1) it allows teams to get their finances straight earlier in the season and 2) it gives them something to think about in terms of non-league sales as that's where teams can hoard their cash and potentially get an advantage as player values drop significantly on aging.

This will start in Season 8 (so that's session 8 of season 8).  Voting on this topic will be allowed through the end of the session 4 deadline (December 4th).

As I said, I'm sure we could have much more debate around this topic (there are many, many opinions), but at this point, based on the voting, I'd like to get something in place, see how it goes, and re-evaluate a season or two later.

Readers Comments

Not voting, don't like either idea.

John Holden on Saturday, Nov. 27th, 2010 at 8:08 PM
 

I think the tax rate should be greater!

Dave Dohm on Saturday, Nov. 27th, 2010 at 9:03 PM
 

I still feel as if the proper way to do this is to adjust the amount of money each team gets per session in gate receipts. There is only one team currently affected by option B tax and that is PNE and only four teams currently affected by option A, but the amount of money in the league will continue to rise.

John Holden on Saturday, Nov. 27th, 2010 at 11:26 PM
 

John - that's the point, we're not looking to impact every team. There is no need to impact 90% of the teams in the league that are actively spending the money that they bring in. The only goal of this is to provide a deterrent to teams who would otherwise stockpile thousands and thousands in cash.

Rob Peterson on Sunday, Nov. 28th, 2010 at 5:46 PM
 

I don't think the grand sum of 650k for 10 sessions is a lot of cash for a 3rd division team - that might get you 1 average player in total from an auction.

If teams hoard cash it must be because their teams are good enough not to need improvemnets. This has to do with the CPs earned on winning games - zero CPs for a losing teams means no improvement at all. Winning and winning means no need to spend money.

Solution - change it round so a losing team gets MORE CPs than a winning one. Nobody will lose on purpose AND a losing team will have extra CPs to improve. Not a big change but say:

10 CPs for a loss, 7 CPs for a draw, and 5 CPs for a win. A real winning team will need to buy in an auction to keep competing and a losing team will have the CPs to improve without recourse to spending cash.

You are considering options - here's one more! It falls in with the American dream of equalising over the years the best with the worst - only they use the draft system.

David Blair on Sunday, Nov. 28th, 2010 at 6:36 PM
 

I think we need some new forum topics started by the folks interested in discussing them.  :-)

In the tax discussion we've had topics such as:

1) Taking money out of the game (fewer financial awards for example)

2) Modifying the CP structure due to a rich get richer/better get better scenario

3) I think there was also a communism discussion.  :-)

Anyway, if its your opinion to advance ideas around 1 or 2, please startup a new thread to see if folks are on board with your ideas.  I'd be interested in seeing what others think, though like any new idea I need some convincing.

The Tax threads were to determine an approach for something that seems to keep coming back.  In a couple of seasons it could be that #1 from above needs to be integrated.  Again, I think we need more convincing on that.

I respectfully disagree with the premise that we need to modify the CP approach.  Again, I need convincing.  Having taken over a weak 3rd division team, to be honest, I didn't need any CP last season.  I had a bad team, a few CP available, very few people to put it on to do any real good, and a strict focus on working on SBY/APP players who didn't need the CP.  This season its different, but I also have a slightly better team and have sold a couple players (bringing in 1200k).  I'm also primarily playing against other "similar" SL 3rd division teams, so its not like I can never win a game and bring in CP.  And my 2 Age I/SL 10 sales were primarily to get the money as I knew I couldn't feasibly CP seven I/10 players.  

And I only mention that (I know I'm getting off topic above) as the Tax topic isn't just a "best teams can hoard".  Its also a "worst teams can do it too".  I have the 3rd most money (due to sales of players) and I could conceivably stay in the 3rd division for a couple more seasons just to build up the war chest.  But I see that as bad for the game and this is where I do think a tax will help deter that behavior.  

To be specific I could continue to build up SBY to APP to I/10 players and sell them year after year.  In theory I could do that right now and add 3000k to my bank account.  And then do the same next season.  At some point then I could just buy a big team (some via auction, others via trade).  Now, what's wrong with that?  Well, it seems like it violates the spirit of the game to me as its essentially a "losing on purpose" scenario.  Sometimes a team may need to focus on building from near scratch for a season or two...but I don't want to promote a losing on purpose season after season to build a war chest approach.

Taxing prevents this from happening.  It may not be a perfect solution and other solutions  may need to be added as well.  But let's start those items in other topics and debate them there to see if there's a need to take additional action.

Allan Sellers on Sunday, Nov. 28th, 2010 at 7:39 PM
 

I originally saw the tax deterrent as "anti-Ian" behaviour but the losing on purpose argument makes sense.
 Should have done that with Vale! (Just kidding.)

I don't see a problem with hoarding as a general tactic, though. If you want to try to buy your way to a championship because you haven't spent money in a few seasons, fine - easier said than done - but if you're lollygagging around in Division 3, you're still going to have to develop some talent over the next two seasons to have a chance at running the table even if you can buy yourself ten I/10 players. (Not that buying ten I/10 players is the best way to run a team.) You can play several seasons in this game and not spend a penny - and over the long haul winning certainly gives you more resources than losing.

There has to be a happy medium here?

John Holden on Monday, Nov. 29th, 2010 at 7:30 AM
 

I can't believe players would lose on purpose to stay in a division to hoard cash to suddenly buy up a stack of good players to try to win a division/Cup. Is there any evidence of this? When I think about it - it is a policy after all - why try too hard with a depleted team and fall short - hang on till you have a team that might just do it for you.

And even if somebody tried that, would it not be obvious to others so it can be "deterred" if it goes against the morale code of the league - are we talking about changing parts of a well-run system to cope with perhaps a couple of lads who have appeared to hoard cash?

I accepted some time back my idea of changing the CP earnings was a non-goer, but if the way forward is a tax on earnings I would hope it does not start till the aforementioned 3000 mark. In most Olmec games I like to have a small pot at the start of a season for the first auctions - maybe like a few lads. My problem this season was underestimating the values of the "won" bids.

We are talking about a problem that seems to affect only about 2 players (maybe 3) - possibly taking a hammer to crack a nut perhaps.

I won't be opening up a discussion on CP earnings......I accept it would create a radical change and so far it appears to have only 1 supporter   :-)

David Blair on Monday, Nov. 29th, 2010 at 6:02 PM
 

I think Allen's (and Rob's) views on this are simple.  A [low] number of teams spend each season on auctions; those teams do not need to be taxed as they are "freely" spending.  Teams that "trade"/"buy" from others teams are also spending money.  I do not think this is an attack on winnings teams because frankly there are some teams out there that are losing and have LOTS of cash.  In fact, I believe those are the teams that are being targeted.  Do I really want the Div. I team to buy even BETTER players?  Nope. However, we do not want a team that is a bottom dweller to be fiscally stagnant as session and season pass by.  The teams that sell [lots of] players are most affected but with the taxing they'll either accept paying the tax (people do know that is an option, right?), not sell so much or make purchases.  Lowering the cash bonuses/gate receipts/whatever is not necessarily a bad idea but I do not believe it accomplishes the intended purpose justly.  I think it's a rather indirect approach but perhaps it is better than nothing if my assumptions are correct.  Could the taxes collected be put into some kind of Welfare Cup or something where teams that did not advance in any cups, did not get promoted BUT ALSO did not get relegated?  Maybe we can call it the Sir Edward Kennedy Cup.

Rob Baptiste on Tuesday, Nov. 30th, 2010 at 9:05 PM
 

 

The poll was tied, so I'm splitting the difference with the rule.  The following has been added to the latest rules (taking effect w/season 8).

 

Season 8 Changes

Tax Assessment

There will be a one-time tax assessment per season for teams reaching specific bank thresholds.  This assessment will occur just after the session 8 deadline (starting in Season 8).  Teams with 3500-4499 will lose 10%; 4500-5499 will lose 20%; 5500+ will lose 30%.

Allan Sellers on Sunday, Dec. 5th, 2010 at 11:42 PM
 
 
 
Terms and Conditions