quote:
It would help, but not sure how much.

Say, you're at $4mil over, 1.5x vs 1.25x is a difference of $1mil total. So yes, it IS a difference. But as someone pointed out, the big issue is missing out on the revenue share going back to you for not going into the tax, which is something like $17 mil a year lately.

So, rough match obviously, you're looking at "losing" $23mil total, but under your proposal, you lose $22mil. So a savings and a difference, no question. But enough to entice teams like the Pels and Grizzlies to dip into the tax? Not sure.

Don't get me wrong, I get where you gotta save at some point. Like the Warriors a few years ago, they added someone like Oubre and the total cost was something like $74mil for 1 season of Oubre. And also if you're a losing team not going anywhere, yea you're just wasting money by going into the tax. But generally speaking, if you're not going to spend up a little on your team, then why do you own the team?

Easy just make the first tier still award 100% of the revenue stream, second tier 50%, 3rd tier zilch.

It essentially plays the same role as today for the giga tax teams and allows the small market a more competitive structure.

This post was edited on 2/27/23 at 12:53 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by shel311

McKinney, Texas

Member since Aug 2004

111189 posts

Posted on 2/27/23 at 1:02 pm to 50_Tiger

quote:
Easy just make the first tier still award 100% of the revenue stream, second tier 50%, 3rd tier zilch.

That hurts the Pels more than it helps.

Since we've never once paid the tax, and we'll obviously be a team that usually does not pay the tax, that is less of the pot to divy up and be sent to us every single season.

So it would end up costing us more money.

0 ...

Report Post

Pelicans Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board