Thread: A thought
View Single Post
09-17-2004, 04:50 PM
Veni Vidi Toga
thinkwild's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by fan mao rong
A luxury tax doesn't do anything of consequence. Especially tripe like the union's 2 proposals. A 10% tax on payrolls over 50 million is a joke. If a team overspends the 50 million guideline by 10 million dollars it will pay an extra 1 million in a tax. A real luxury tax that would get into ownership stated objectives would start at 20 million and tax dollar for dollar over the limit.

It is about enabling lower revenue teams to keep their players.
I think the reason you are suggesting it does little of consequence is because you are looking at it as a punitive deterring action. But if only 25% of the current losses can fairly be attributed as CBA related, and thats if, then there is $60mil or so in losses. The purpose of the luxury tax is to raise those funds, not discourage spending which isnt needed if the funds are returned.

This CBA doesnt grant players under 31 the leverage to negotiate their market value. Its tricky though, because market value in this system is probably different than market value in a free market. But still, the ability to sign your players under 31, (the ones you should be signing if you are trying to develop a team to its first cup), to less than market value seems a far more valuable tool than a cap to enable lower revenue teams to keep their young players long enough to contend. If that market value is a bit high, tweak it.

thinkwild is offline