Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis
Okay, can someone check me on this? When I pitched the luxury tax idea to Markus, the idea was that teams with payrolls over the league average would pay, and teams with payrolls under the league average would receive a subsidy, but it would be a proportionate subsidy. It sounds as though the tax pool is being divided equally between the below average teams, which makes no sense. Let me run some numbers for you:
|
You are correct. The money is split equally among the lower half of spenders. It was designed to be split as you've outlined, so more went to the lowest spending team and less went to the highest spending person in that lower half... but apparently it was too hard to do and Markus dropped that when he implemented it.
At the same time, it was also my intention that it wouldn't be a stand-alone revenue sharing system (it could be, but not necessarily) and that was dropped as well. I was all set to dagger the huge revenue huge spending Yankees until they were red and black pinstripes instead....
The budgets are increased to allow spending of the revenue sharing money (which wasn't the case last year). I believe - it's been a long while since I last played with the numbers - that teams look at how much they would have made if they'd spent their whole budget, then increased 50% of that excess. So they had a budget of 5 million, they made 5 million in normal revenue and received 5 million in revenue sharing... they would increase to 7.5 million budget. Sort of simplistic example, but I believe it works out about like that. If they're consistently at those numbers, they end up moving closer and closer to that 10 million mark.