[tysok]

Revenue sharing, again.
It needs to actually do more than a debt relief program. RIght now money is taken out, but not necessarily put back in... it needs to go somewhere. The Yankees don't take a pile of cash at the end of the year and say "Well, no team operated in the red this year, guess I should just shred this cash now".

In one of my leagues I've had a fairly stable financial structure for 10 years. Most teams operate within their money, some fall into the red and receive debt relief... it's been about 50/50 of whether those receiving debt relief have gone in the red the next year.
10 seasons ago I zeroed out all debt, so everyone either had their money, or were at 0 cash.

The worst team in the league (Washington Nationals) has a budget of 32 million, that's 20 million less than the next lowest team. This team WILL NEVER compete to win anything. It stays within it's budget, always makes money, but it's a team of triple A players, average salary of 552k in a league that average 2.9 million.
This league paid in revenue sharing money, and paid out in debt relief... the balance afterward was 104 million dollars that disappeared. The Washington Nationals received $0 in revenue sharing money. $0 paid out to THE poorest team in the league, while 104 million dollars was carted off to the local shredding machine.... some money HAS GOT to be pumped into this team. With it's budget and payroll it CAN NOT get off the mat and compete for anything other than the cellar.

So the suggestion is, either make revenue sharing actually do SOMETHING to help poor teams... or rename the whole system "debt relief" instead.

Priority: Depends, for making revenue sharing actually do something would be HIGH.... for renaming the system to "debt relief" would, I suppose, be low.