no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Discussions / Limiting the financial power of rich teams Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< 2 3 13 14 15 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-01-02 09:37:34 (ID: 100094841) Report Abuse |
|
I'm sure most of you have seen Pete's suggestion about a tax on profits for teams with more than $500M in the bank. The idea behind this new tax is to limit the financial power of super rich teams having $1B or more in the bank.
I think we can use several tools to limit the financial power of teams like mine, they all have pros and cons and there probably are some I have not thought of so let's discuss them here. - A strict salary cap. (Teams cannot spend more than $X on players salaries) PRO: It would become impossible to field a team full of superstars with 50 skills everywhere. CON: Pete doesn't like it? - An NBA style Luxury tax. (Only tax salaries above $X) PRO: Gives more freedom than a strict salary cap whilst still limiting the richest teams on field advantage. CON: Hard to explain to noobs? - A strict bank account limit. (Any dollar earned past $X simply disappears) PRO: Cash accumulation would become pointless after $X CON: It might take a while to do because if done too quickly the rich teams will overspend on the TM basically making it impossible for noobs and others to compete. - A higher tax rate on the TM. PRO: Limit wealth accumulation and managers selling players only for profit. CON: It would not impact those spending a lot on salaries and not using the TM much. - Pete's tax idea on profits over $X if more than $500M in the bank. PRO: I'm honestly not sure who this would affect, mid-range teams mostly I suppose. CON: This would do nothing against teams like mine with $1B in the bank and overspending. Any other (better?) suggestions/ideas? What do you think is the best idea? Which one(s) do you think should be implemented? Maybe rank the suggestions you'd like to see implemented in the order you prefer? For me it would be: 1: Strict Salary Cap + TM tax 2: NBA style Luxury Tax on Salaries + TM tax 3: Strict Bank Account Limit |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-01-02 10:39:16 (ID: 100094848) Report Abuse | |
|
A restructuring of player wages using experience as a factor. Not just skill.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Schwabe
|
posted: 2017-01-02 10:46:29 (ID: 100094852) Report Abuse |
|
- A strict salary cap.
Con: The rich teams will still be the only ones who can go to the limit for long time and doesn't lose that much money than a all star team would cost. - An NBA style Luxury tax. Con: Will only hit teams that already overspending and going the way to a more balanced game. - A strict bank account limit. Con: Is it better to take away everything than a part? This will never ever come true without losing a lot of veteran managers. - A higher tax rate on the TM. Con: Will hit rookie managers with small bank account more than rich managers. - Pete's tax idea on Profits Con: It is a very slow working process. - Tax on dormant money Explanation: A percentage that is based on the money on bank account minus the cash flow of the team. (In my case that would be for the last season: Bank:617.170.227 - Cashflow:277.599.027 = Taxbase:339.571.200 at a tax of 10%=33.957.120) Pro: It will hit every team in the same way. Con: It will also hit rookie manager. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2017-01-02 10:46:41 (ID: 100094853) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
- A strict salary cap. (Teams cannot spend more than $X on players salaries) PRO: It would become impossible to field a team full of superstars with 50 skills everywhere. CON: Pete doesn't like it? - An NBA style Luxury tax. (Only tax salaries above $X) PRO: Gives more freedom than a strict salary cap whilst still limiting the richest teams on field advantage. CON: Hard to explain to noobs? - A strict bank account limit. (Any dollar earned past $X simply disappears) PRO: Cash accumulation would become pointless after $X CON: It might take a while to do because if done too quickly the rich teams will overspend on the TM basically making it impossible for noobs and others to compete. - A higher tax rate on the TM. PRO: Limit wealth accumulation and managers selling players only for profit. CON: It would not impact those spending a lot on salaries and not using the TM much. - Pete's tax idea on profits over $X if more than $500M in the bank. PRO: I'm honestly not sure who this would affect, mid-range teams mostly I suppose. CON: This would do nothing against teams like mine with $1B in the bank and overspending. Any other (better?) suggestions/ideas? What do you think is the best idea? Which one(s) do you think should be implemented? Maybe rank the suggestions you'd like to see implemented in the order you prefer? For me it would be: 1: Strict Salary Cap + TM tax 2: NBA style Luxury Tax on Salaries + TM tax 3: Strict Bank Account Limit My vote would be: 1: Strict Salary Cap + TM tax 2: Restructuring of player wages using experience as a factor. Not just skill. 3: NBA style Luxury Tax on Salaries + TM tax 4: Strict Bank Account Limit |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2017-01-02 11:01:45 (ID: 100094855) Edits found: 2 Report Abuse |
|
People keep banging on about 'taxes', 'limit' etc...
But does anybody ask 'why'? What harm is being done by teams sitting on 1bn+? We're not spending our money!!! That's why we have so much. So what damage are we doing by NOT spending it, by NOT going mad on the TM, by NOT going mad with salaries? None at all. OK, so I spent big on a player a few seasons ago (one player), but that's the exception rather than the rule. The reason my team is rich is that I am mostly tight with my cash, and don't spend a single penny I believe to be unnecessary, and the same is most likely true for the others with big bank balances. I spend hours fiddling with the HR and adjusting training to prevent wasteful spending. Why should the money I make by investing time into the game be taken and redistributed among other teams? My money is a safety net, so if I do mess up, I can dig myself out of it - for example, a few seasons ago I planned very badly at QB, hence I went out and got Hategka, but in general my team is a selling team. So I repeat my question.... what harm does it do to RZA? (my bank account is at $986m, I made a profit of about 50m last season in Elite, my salaries are still low enough to expect a profit this season once fanshop and friendlies are added - with a bit extra coming in from training/selling free agents) Last edited on 2017-01-02 11:07:05 by JonnyP |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-01-02 11:27:41 (ID: 100094856) Report Abuse | |
|
Answered many times...
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2017-01-02 12:23:41 (ID: 100094870) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
Not properly it hasn't...
I see 'it's not fair, they have a lot of money', and 'they *could* artificially buy success'... But no evidence of any teams actually doing that. I could afford to have a 10m squad salary for more than 10 seasons (without taking into account transfer dealings) and still not come close to being bankrupt but I don't, because there's no fun in that approach. I would support a sensible salary cap as that forces managers to make genuine tactical decisions, but the other suggestions: 1- 500m+ bank account, tax on high profits - would achieve nothing, as few teams are still making big profits when they get bank balances that big 2- straight tax on savings - would probably cause existing managers to leave - it would feel like a kick in the teeth. 3- straight tax on profits - would hurt teams trying to get to the top more than those already there 4- increased transfers tax - as #3 The salary cap is the *only* sensible suggestion anyone has made thus far to the 'problem'... but is there really a 'problem' in the 1st place? Last edited on 2017-01-02 12:24:16 by JonnyP |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-01-02 12:32:10 (ID: 100094871) Report Abuse | |
|
I disagree with 1, 2, 3 and the conclusion
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-01-02 12:33:12 (ID: 100094872) Report Abuse | |
|
Oh, and I'm completely done with the discussion. I will decide on my own. Thanks for all your thoughts, guys...
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2017-01-02 12:41:14 (ID: 100094873) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
I disagree with 1, 2, 3 and the conclusion The problem is, you have said this a few times but never 'why'. I have an inkling as to why, but I don't want to drag this discussion down the route of politics. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< 2 3 13 14 15 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Limiting the financial power of rich teams | |
