View Single Post
Old
01-31-2005, 11:03 AM
  #11
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,486
vCash: 500
I believe it does Fish...

although it's not absolute, as we know, but each team has its limits (a limit I believe has been reached).

Which has been one of my points all along. I used the Rangers as an example. Even they have a limit to which they'd spend [and do look at bottom lines, believe it or not], and let's assume that limit is $80 million (a far-out limit, but we need extremeness for this, and it's based off a bottom-line assumption, working from the bottom-up). A dollar-for-dollar tax beginning at $40 million reduces the Rangers' payroll from $80 million to $60 million (they still spend $80 million). The $20 million goes to Carolina, Edmonton, et al. Now if there was some sort of revenue sharing (let's say the Rangers put $5 million into the pool, or whatever it's called). Now the Rangers' payroll is at $55 million (thinking the Rangers are looking at a certain bottom line when arriving at what to spend on payroll). $5 more million gets sent around. Is a $55 million 'cap' so bad when $25 million gets redistributed?

Fletch is offline