I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, because redistribution of revenue is in and of itself a topic altogether, and something I'm adamantly opposed to. I believe that sort of system rewards mediocrity and punishes success. As far as no small-market teams *currently* paying near $90M, I'm not suggesting every team would have an $89M payroll in my vision. I'm not delusional (at least I don't think I am :grin. But with a hard-cap in place, such a payroll would be extremely undesirable anyway because of potential re-signing issues (losing your star player is a far greater deterrent than paying a tax). Furthermore, if you lift the tax, a small market team might have a payroll of, I don't know, say $63 million, instead of $55 million... that's one more $8 million dollar player that could contribute to some wins that that team might otherwise not of had. Those few extra wins could lead to a boost in game attendance for those small-markets. Over a few years, those small market teams might be pseudo-big market teams, thus leading to higher team payrolls, playoff appearances, the whole shebang (a bottom-up approach, if you will). And as far as that small list of owners is concerned... the fact that Les payed the tax last season does not change the point I was making, which was: he was *trying* to avoid paying the tax.
But that is the way it is now. Under the current CBA, the tax system redistributes the tax revenue to teams who are under the luxury tax threshold. That's not changing. Where else would the tax revenue go? Into building new roads?
Yeah, I don't get that comment from alcatraz either. While I consider myself as much of a capitalist as the next guy, the NBA is quite different than society and the economy in general. The larger market teams are able to get their multi-billion dollar TV deals BECAUSE they are playing the Sacramento Kings and the Milwaukee Bucks of the world, night in and night out. The "haves" obtain their larger revenues as a DIRECT result of the "have nots". Hence, some level of redistribution of wealth is necessary and just in the NBA. This is one topic on which I definitely side more with the players. The owners need to put in place a substantially more comprehensive and extensive revenue-sharing plan. I'm all in favor of limiting compensation to players so that all 30 teams can compete; but you also need to make sure that all 30 teams can share (not equally, mind you) in revenues generated as a result of their participation in league play.
Updated details of both the NBA's current 50/50 proposal and their far more restrictive "reset" proposal: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/s...o-union-stern-details-his-ultimatum.html?_r=1
I posted a question in the news update thread about this...will repeat it here. I assume no SnT for taxpaying teams means teams that paid a tax for the year just ended. Say, 2011. So, a team 1 cent under the tax line in 2011 could SnT for a max-player that takes them well past the projected tax line for 2012...noting the tax line is not set until close of books for the season ended. Since word is that only 5 SnTs happened under the current CBA involving a tax paying team, I propose they set a formal tax line during the July moratorium...just like the salary cap, and prevent a SnT from taking a team over that. make sense
I assume that its meaning under the new CBA. So last year's teams would fall under the old CBA and not being penalized for the upcoming seasons. I assume the one-time amnesty clause is there for justification with teams that are already going past the lux tax threashold this upcoming season.
So you think they will set a formal tax line in July each season, like they do for the cap. If they don't, then you can SnT and take yourself way over the tax, as long as you weren't currently paying tax.
Not sure on this, heyp. I've actually tweeted Larry Coon to ask him (pretty much) this very same question. I'll let you know what/if I hear back from him. On the somewhat-related topic of whether this will affect the Rockets: like dobro says, my guess is that the prohibitions will not apply to any taxpayer (including the Rockets) from the 2010-11 season. These prohibitions should be prospective under the new CBA, as far as I can tell.
thx. Look forward to hearing his reply. Another reason to set a formal tax cap during the July moratorium is because the taxes will be harsher. It shouldn't be guess work. They could provide a tax credit at the end of the year, if profits are good.
I can tell you that, under the owners' current "50/50" proposal, the luxury tax threshold will be set at the same $70.307M from 2010-11 for Years 1 and 2 of the new CBA. Starting in Year 3, the luxury tax threshold will be set based on the lower BRI % under the new CBA. I assume that, like under the old CBA, this threshold will be determined during the July moratorium and will be available to teams by around July 8 or so of each year. My question to Larry Coon is more about "What makes a team a TAX-PAYER?" Is it whether such team actually paid tax (no matter how little) the prior year? Is it a team that is over the luxury tax threshold at that very moment (with the remaining possibility that it could sneak back below the threshold prior to the end of the year)? Is it a team that would exceed the threshold only after such S&T was made? These, I believe, are your same questions, heyp. I'm just as curious as you to know what the deal is there.
Yeah, but that's still not easy to do due to the 125% salary trade rule, although they might change that rule, too. Still, I agree with dobro. The restrictions gotta be for teams who're in the luxury tax as of the moment they attempt to make a trade or signing. Makes little sense otherwise. To me, anyway. I'm prone to overlooking or missing stuff, though. According to the NYT article, it'll be no less than it was last year. So there's a chance it will be higher!
I know you're being facetious, but there is no freakin' way that the luxury tax threshold will go up when the players' % of BRI is going down no less than 6-7%. Just want to make that clear.
As mentioned previously, I think it's because the luxury tax thresholds don't change to the new bri immediately.
The luxury tax threshold WILL be based on the new BRI %. It's just that the FLOOR on the threshold amount is the current $70.307M for Years 1 and 2 of the CBA. HMMMHMM's point was that, if revenues skyrocket to unbelievable levels, the threshold could conceivably increase. My response was that there was no way that actually happens.
One of my questions to you Bima: Do you think there will be an agreement this week allowing the season to start in early December next month?
