MSWL UNITEDMSWL U2 TMBL MSWL The Manager
Saturday, February 24th, 2018 - 08:18:00 AM (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

Mike Parnaby
2 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 on Bank Total
Posted by Allan Sellers on Sunday, Jan. 24th, 2010 at 10:30 PM

I've seen various rules for these sorts of games that 'tax' a team once they reach a certain threshold in their bank amount.

1) What are the arguments for that?  Ensuring a team can't just save forever and then 'own the market' for a short time?  

2) Is it something we should consider?

I have no preconceived opinions on this and that's why I'm asking.  I think I mention it in the rules as a possible future item (and if we did do it, we'd give notice well in advance).  But just wanted to discuss it for now...

Readers Comments

I don't see any need for it, it's not seen in the 'real world' of football. Whereas it has been seen for clubs to pursue a player only for a 'big' team to gazump the transfer by offering more money.

ï» All sides have the opportunity to build up cash during the season and I find it hard to believe a manager would deliberately hold onto cash purely to block other sides buying players. Unless I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here? 

Roy Rolsten on Monday, Jan. 25th, 2010 at 12:37 AM
 

A tax on the rich in these sort of games can be a good thing because their rules have a habit of helping the rich get richer.  You need only check out who has the biggest bank balance at the moment... and how much further ahead of everyone he will be once the end of season cash awards are handed out.

Andy Bate on Monday, Jan. 25th, 2010 at 3:05 PM
 

I don't know where I stand on this topic yet, I have to give it some more thought. But to address Andy's concerns about Tranmere's bank balance - you can argue that Alon's bank is so high because he has not yet needed to spend any money. He was involved in 1 trade and won a mere 2 auction lots. If other managers are smart enough to build up their rosters so well that they can afford to not spend a lot of money for a couple of seasons, why should they be penalized for it?

But again, I haven't made up my mind on the topic, so consider the above, me simply playing devil's advocate. ;-)

Rob Peterson on Monday, Jan. 25th, 2010 at 4:22 PM
 

I'm in the same ball park as my old mate Shadey on this one... Alon started season 1 with the same resources as everybody else, if he has been shrewd enough to accumulate a load of k's & still win the Division 1 title & look like repeating, should he be taxed for that?..Now If a team had a huge bank balance & a poor team, then I think there would be a problem..

If we pursue this then we are saying to managers dont be too successful or we will tax you ...is that what we want?

Dave Dowson on Monday, Jan. 25th, 2010 at 5:12 PM
 

I am opposed to taxing in this league.

Brian Beerman on Monday, Jan. 25th, 2010 at 9:36 PM
 

An important point to consider is that team development is not directly tied to money in United.  You develop youth by recruiting them (for free) and then playing them (costing no money).  You develop older players by giving them CP, which cannot be bought.  You have to win matches to get more CP to build a better team.  With the SL limits per season in place, there are hardset standards for good, better, and best in terms of player SL.  In this respect, United is pre-determined to make "the rich get richer" because the teams that win build the better continuing teams which means that they never need to buy any good players because their players are already the best.

Because of all this, I don't have a problem at all with a "tax" of any sort on the teams that large bank balances.  Realistically, they don't need the money because the money cannot help them much.  Using CRD as an example because I know them better than any other team (NOR and TRA are better and possible better examples), the only player that I could get at an auction that would be better than anyone in my current T11 would be a top Sweeper (which I don't need because I have a top App who needs playing time now and will be a top Sw next season) or the very rare Age I, SL 11 player who is better than any player you can develop on your own.  Is overpaying for and fully developing a player mid-season worth it to be just one combined SL + Fit better than what I can get for free?  Not in my book.

By taxing a team, I think it can provide three possible outcomes that are better for the league:

1) Incentive to make some trades that improve the top teams just slightly while throwing cash back down at the smaller clubs for far more significant improvement.  This redistributes the wealth to the teams willing to give up a decent player for some depth and cash in return, which better allows a club to cover holes while developing youth to fill them permanently.  If I can improve from SL 8 to SL 9 for my #5 DF with a trade + 50-100k (that I'm going to lose due to the tax if I don't do something before the next deadline), then I make that trade.  The "small market" team comes out a bit ahead on the transaction, which I don't mind doing because getting anything is better than nothing at all for that 50k that will disappear if I let it sit.

2) If I'm going to lose the cash anyway, I might as well spend it.  That means I'm more likely to bid well on auctions to improve depth (since I don't need a starter).  That drives up prices and keeps the best buys at auctions costing more.  I think the end result is that the top ten teams in terms of strength + cash will actually get LESS of the top auction buys because they'll have to pay more for each one along the way.  If they get a top player, they are also more likely to sell off a mid-level backup for a bargain which also benefits the less-stacked teams.  This is what I did this season.  I didn't need the players I ended up with at auction.  I was mostly trying to drive up prices for the top teams (and bid a bit too high) and bidding conservatively on guys who would improve my backup lines by 1 or 2 SL.

3) Manual redistribution makes the league more competitive.  Admittedly, cash alone does nothing to help win.  A manager has to know what to buy with it and who to buy said player/BRB from and not get robbed in the process.  Even so, having more cash gives a better chance of getting better.  One way of measuring team potential strength is to take the total team player value and add in the cash.  That gives a net worth of current talent + possible potential for each club.  The team with the lowest Player Value + Cash gets the revenue sharing, or the lion's share of it if it is spread around to the bottom five or ten teams in that listing.  This lets them buy an auction player or trade for a decent player more quickly to supplement the youth program.  This makes the league more competitive top to bottom and keeps new managers who just inherited lousy teams more optimistic about their chances in the near future.

So for those reasons, I'm fine with a tax.  Mostly, I think if one is imposed then we won't see teams hit the "tax limit."  Auction and trade activity is more likely to increase.  That's a good thing as more mid-level talent becomes available at a reasonable price for rebuilding clubs to pick up.

Kevin Martin on Tuesday, Jan. 26th, 2010 at 1:18 AM
 

What about just having a "maximum cash" or "robin hood" rule as opposed to a "tax limit"?

John Holden on Tuesday, Jan. 26th, 2010 at 7:10 AM
 

Al is American.  Maximum limits on personal possessions is a socialist theory (where's Comrade Jay to sing praises for this idea?) and Robin Hood is definitely British or English or From the Isles or whatever the proper terminology is now.  Americans tend to just tax stuff they have issues with and let the free market economy work it all out eventually.

Kevin Martin on Tuesday, Jan. 26th, 2010 at 5:29 PM
 

One of Kevin's points on why he was in favor of a tax (#3) is actually the "Revenue Sharing" system that Major League Baseball uses. It's a system that recognizes that there are markets in the country that have more population, higher average income, more disposable income, and better TV/radio/print markets that give them a decidedly favorable advantage to making money off their teams. Areas such as New York, Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles. These areas have more potential to make money than other areas like Minnesota, Seattle, and other small cities. The revenue sharing system takes a percentage of the "profits" from the top money-making clubs and redistributes it amongst the lowest money-making teams. 

I think I could get behind such a system in MSWL-U.

Rob Peterson on Wednesday, Jan. 27th, 2010 at 4:50 PM
 

Just wanted to get this topic back out there for discussion.  

A few points to this discussion.  

First, in general, why do we need one here when we don't have it in the other Olmec games?  And that's a fair point.   

Second, is this just a tax to prevent Alon from continuing to amass money (we love Ian but we're not really worried about him)?  Maybe.  Though it does seem like its just Ian who usually has the most money.  And we all know how he uses that (to only have 1 Gk...thanks I-Man!!).  In Ian's case a tax system would only make him keep his players and allow him to win more...and I know none of us want that.

Third, and perhaps the most compelling argument to me on why we need a tax is this...what if a manager decides to stay in the 3rd division in a perpetual rebuilding campaign?  I see it as a loophole...again for a team to make a lot of money.  Kevin ran some numbers and saw a 3rd division team had the capability to sell $3500 worth of players each season.  

To be clear, the part I don't like about it is that it would allow a manager to stay in constant rebuilding mode with really not much of an eye towards winning/moving up.  And I just don't like those strategies.  But nor do I want to add 5 pages in the rule book to legislate against them.

If the above scenarios are fine with you, let's call them a) rich team with a great manager keeps getting richer and b) 3rd div team becomes a rebuilding player factory then say so.  I think your point would be "teams are making money within the rules and while they may in some cases be hoarding it, they have to spend it sometime".

Or

Is there something about all this hoarding that would upset the competitive balance of the league?  I think that's the real question.  Do we get into hijinx like I described above?

So I'll say I'm back to where I started on this.  Kind of in the middle, leaning towards a tax, but not firmly in that camp.  

And I'm back to wanting more dialog/ideas.  What would be unfair to me is to do nothing and then decide when master genius Alon has 15,000 in the bank and say, hey Alon, we're now taxing at X% rate on income over 4,000.  I'd rather do something now when we're still somewhat lower on the bank threshold.

Please turn off any "real-life political thoughts" you may have on taxes and re-read what's above and comment.  I don't think the issue here is "I hate taxes in real life so I should hate them here".  I think there's more to it in MSWL-U.  And in theory this rule (if we have one) would/should only impact directly 0-3 teams or so each season.

If you don't see a need, that's okay.  If you do see a need, that's okay.  

Al

 

Allan Sellers on Sunday, Aug. 8th, 2010 at 8:11 PM
 

Do it NBA style. Once you hit 5000 in the bank, you get 50 cents to the dollar on all future investments.

John Holden on Monday, Aug. 9th, 2010 at 3:19 AM
 

Has the overall cash balance been going up season on season? If not, then there's no need for a tax that I can see.

If you are trying to level the playing field then an alternative way of taking cash out of teh game is to have player wages absed upon their level rather than a tax. This would knock back the top sides and help others catch up.

Mark Stretch on Friday, Aug. 13th, 2010 at 12:21 PM
 

A tax of 5% of player value, payable after ageing each season, would begin to level the playing field.

As would awarding all of the teams in the league the same amount of money each session.  Not realistic, but possibly better for the game longer term.

Andy Bate on Friday, Aug. 13th, 2010 at 2:30 PM
 

A flat tax on player values would seriously harm those teams who use their bank balances each season. It also would go against the spirit of what I believe Al is trying to accomplish here - that being to give teams a negative incentive to stock-piling loads of cash. There shouldn't be a negative incentive for teams that spend the money they earn, only to be penalized in the off-season.

Look at the top 10 teams in "player value" and how this would impact them.

 

 

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" class="style1">
        <tr align=center>
            <td>
                TEAM</td>
            <td>
                BANK</td>
            <td>
                PLAYER VALUE&nbsp;</td>
            <td>
                TAX</td>
            <td>
                NEW BANK</td>
        </tr>
        <tr align=center>
            <td>
                CRD</td>
            <td>
                1367</td>
            <td>
                8080</td>
            <td>
                404</td>
            <td>
                963</td>
        </tr>
        <tr align=center>
            <td>
                PV</td>
            <td>
                1636</td>
            <td>
                7935</td>
            <td>
                396</td>
            <td>
                1240</td>
        </tr>
        <tr align=center>
            <td>
                TRA</td>
            <td>
                5178</td>
            <td>
                7365</td>
            <td>
                368</td>
            <td>
                4810</td>
        </tr>
        <tr align=center>
            <td>
                SHU</td>
            <td>
                1539</td>
            <td>
                7320</td>
            <td>
                366</td>
            <td>
                1173</td>
        </tr>
        <tr align=center>
            <td>
                PLY</td>
            <td>
                678</td>
            <td>
                7245</td>
            <td>
                362</td>
            <td>
                316</td>
        </tr>
        <tr align=center>
            <td>
                HER</td>
            <td>
                1301</td>
            <td>
                7180</td>
            <td>
                359</td>
            <td>
                942</td>
        </tr>
        <tr align=center>
            <td>
                NOR</td>
            <td>
                3738</td>
            <td>
                7070</td>
            <td>
                353</td>
            <td>
                3385</td>
        </tr>
        <tr align=center>
            <td>
                QPR</td>
            <td>
                2101</td>
            <td>
                6915</td>
            <td>
                345</td>
            <td>
                1756</td>
        </tr>
        <tr align=center>
            <td>
                CRE</td>
            <td>
                140</td>
            <td>
                6885</td>
            <td>
                344</td>
            <td>
                -204</td>
        </tr>
        <tr align=center>
            <td>
                WAT</td>
            <td>
                1182</td>
            <td>
                6860</td>
            <td>
                343</td>
            <td>
                839</td>
        </tr>
    </table>
Rob Peterson on Friday, Aug. 13th, 2010 at 5:50 PM
 

I was hoping the html tags would take.. The gist of the above tables is that teams who routinely spend the money they earn stand to be hit very hard by a 5% tax on player values while the teams that Al is looking to impact here (ie, the ones who have over 3k in the bank) would see a very minimal impact. 

I am against a 5% tax on player values. The tax would need to be on a certain threshold of bank.

Rob Peterson on Friday, Aug. 13th, 2010 at 5:57 PM
 

Let's make it some high value we can all agree is asinine to breach, say 6000? And every dollar over 6000 you go, you only get 50 cents. So if you have 6000 and get 100 revenue for a match, 50 is credited to your account.

All that does is make it harder to compile huge sums of money.

John Holden on Saturday, Aug. 14th, 2010 at 4:11 PM
 

I still don't think that this is what Al is looking for. If you look to set a rule for some obscenely high number that you never expect anyone to reach, then you shouldn't set the rule to begin with because it's not necessary. 

I think a tax level of 3500 or 4000 is a good number if we're going to have a tax.

Rob Peterson on Sunday, Aug. 15th, 2010 at 11:08 PM
 

I still do not agree with taxing, but I can see the pragmatic need for it as some bank levels begin to rise.  If a tax will be implemented, then I could agree with a tax on bank values at/above 4000k.  Seriously, what are you going to do with 4000k in this league?  That kind of money does not score goals when it's sitting in the bank.

Brian Beerman on Tuesday, Aug. 17th, 2010 at 6:17 AM
 

I love the way I'm talking Dr. Beerman into a tax here...C-Ball can you do up some signage?  Something like "Tax and Spend" right next to Dr. B?  

:-)

Al

Allan Sellers on Wednesday, Aug. 18th, 2010 at 10:57 PM
 

It has been mentioned that everybody gets the chance to sign SBYs/Apps for nothing and it costs nothing to train them up (except perhaps poor results). And as CPs are awarded to the winning teams, then by default its the winning teams that can afford to keep training the "age" players up even more to win more games and make money.

Right, only a thought, but what about amending the CPs awarded for winning and drawing, but one way to start the climb from the bottom for some clubs might be if CPs were awarded for losing games as well. For example if the current 10-5-0 awards for winning-drawing-losing were amended to something like 12-8-4 at least a team losing 3 matches in a session would be able to train up to 12 CPs more  for the following games.

But what do I know?

David Blair on Saturday, Nov. 13th, 2010 at 5:34 PM
 

Just TAX the sums of B's already!

Hey... if you have 4000k+ and you get taxed 20%, too bad.  Unless you're waiting for someone to add a real estate purchasing routine, you know you can avoid the tax by spending or if one does not want to be forced to better his or her team via purchasing - "donate" the money, you're not using it anyway.  Those who are spending and "helping the economy" don't pay the tax - hey they're spending already and probably NEED to.  

Incidentally, I just scrolled back and maybe Mark's idea is better or a good addition.  Player wages (hey, we already have a player value) perhaps should be paid.  It'd have to be a pretty small percentage of the value since we have teams rolling out there with less than 100k.  

If we REALLY want to be fair, let's go with my favorite system - communism.  Yup, give everyone the same players and the same amount of money across the boards.  FAIR-FAIR-FAIR.  Hah!

Rob Baptiste on Saturday, Nov. 13th, 2010 at 8:42 PM
 

My feelings on tax should be only above 4k should be taxed at say 10% and then rises by 10% every 1k up to a maximum of 50%. This Tax deduction should be done twice a season once at end season and once at mid season. It gives a fairer oppurtunity to all players and if you don't want to loose your cash you can trade before the 2 tax deadlines. Also it stops people money hoarding

Graham Wilkes on Sunday, Nov. 14th, 2010 at 10:42 AM
 

I read Rob's tax code formula above and realize why I don't practice tax law.

Phil McIntosh on Tuesday, Nov. 16th, 2010 at 8:15 PM
 

For those wanting to review prior season stats on cash increases, here is what I can offer.  End of season stats for seasons 3-5, prior to cash bonuses for places, I believe.  Compare that with what teams started season 7 with, prior to the pre-season auctions.  Note that numbers of teams "over" a certain amount are not inclusive.  That is, if it says 2 teams have over 2000k, and 2 teams have over 3000k, then it means that 2 teams have more than 2000k but less than 3000k, and two teams have over 3000k.  No team is counted in more than one category.

Season 3.  Total $: 46,030.  Avg $: 1438.  Min $: 299.  Max $: 3758.  Teams over 2000k: 1.  Over 3000k: 3.

Season 4.  Total $:45,441.  Avg $:1420.  Min $:476.  Max $:4028.  Teams over 2000k: 2.  Over 3000k: 2.  Over 4000k: 1.

Season 5.  Total $:51,370.  Avg $:1605.  Min $:355.  Max $:4651.  Teams over 2000k: 2.  Over 3000k: 1.  Over 4000k: 1.  Over 5000k: 1.

Season 7 start.  Total $:61,151.  Avg $: 1910.  Min $:57 (from prior trading).  Max $:5599.  Teams over 2000k: 6.  Over 3000k: 2.  Over 5000k: 2.

Any tax implemented on totals over 3000k would only impact 4 teams at any given time historically.  Over 2000k would impact 10 at the start of this season/end of last, or just a third of the league.

Kevin Martin on Wednesday, Nov. 17th, 2010 at 9:06 PM
 

Hey, I recognize that $57k minimum from the start of season 7!

Brian Beerman on Wednesday, Nov. 17th, 2010 at 10:54 PM
 

I think the problem isn't "there are too many people with too much money" but rather "there's too much money going into the game and not enough is going out through the auctions", which I think is where the money flows out through anyways. Kevin's data allows me to make this argument with some success.

Here's an idea: why not offer CP for purchase at say 30 to 50k per CP? Or offer "marketing points", which would allow a team 1 extra point to use during any home or neutral match? Or maybe a "bus trip", which costs 50k, and brings the supporters to the away match for 50k?

Those are silly ideas, but I don't think a tax is the goal - I think it's probably a combination of a finance ceiling (say something rather high, like 6000, and I guess this would be a Robin Hood rule) and adding more ways to get money "out" of the game.

John Holden on Thursday, Nov. 18th, 2010 at 7:30 AM
 

Apart from the fact I like my own idea of a 12-8-4 CP split for winning, drawing and losing a gameso even losing teams would get CPs to train up players, I am not sure we would ever want to be able to buy CPs. The teams with the big money's now could just buy the extra training and be further ahead in their performances than ever.

If you want money out of the game what about raising the minimum values of players in the auctions, forcing clubs to pay just that little more for them. A gradual decline in bank balances is better than a wholesale plundering of higher balances via a tax imposition. Same with the cost of Back Room Staff - raise them - we all need them.

 

 

David Blair on Tuesday, Nov. 23rd, 2010 at 9:30 PM
 

Posted in the 'Yes/No' poll but basically, no sense taxing if the money doesn't go anywhere otherwise the money will be doing the same thing sitting.  Doesn't really matter to ANYONE is Alon or Ian have 5000k or 4000k, as long as someone has more than 1400k (the alleged highest winning auction bid), they'd be able to purchase whom they choose - the tax would not prevent that AT ALL.  Or you guys can have your Yankees, Red Sox and the rest of the AL.  Don't ever let me run for office!

Rob Baptiste on Tuesday, Nov. 23rd, 2010 at 10:39 PM
 
Has anyone asked the managers with all the cash what they intend to do with it? I\'m sure a cash incentive player trade would secure them a T-11 player from another team
Roy Rolsten on Wednesday, Nov. 24th, 2010 at 3:26 PM
 
 
 
Terms and Conditions