IFA Tax Rule

[RonCo]

The situation where Nashville overspent and got bailed is not the first time this has happened. It's a mistake each time, but the game bails it out.Which sucks because it leaves a major loophole.

I suggest an immediate rule be added prior to this year's IFA cycle:

Basic concept: Any team that goes over the limit for paying taxes ($4.7M, or whatever the limit is in any year) will not be allowed to receive money back from their owner at the end of the year. If such money is received, the league will remove it.

[GoldenOne]

If this goes through, Nashville has to release all its IFAs from last season.

[niles08]

I agree completely with @GoldenOne. If we are going to make new rules, then something as recent as last off-season should be reversed.

[Dington]

There is an ongoing discussion amongst the GB on this topic. Open to everyone's feedback.

[jiminyhopkins]

Its a needed change but shouldn't be retroactive.

[jiminyhopkins]

I mean, every other time a rule is proposed, people complain and say "too soon! Give us a season to prepare!"

[Dington]

If this goes through, Nashville has to release all its IFAs from last season.

1. There was no rule in place and it wasn't an intentional exploit
2. It completely screwed me over in free agency and extensions
3. If that's what the GB decides then so be it

[GoldenOne]

There is an ongoing discussion amongst the GB on this topic. Open to everyone's feedback.

There is? Its just been me and you so far.

[ae37jr]

I can vouch for the fact that Chad did not do this intentionally. In a private conversation, I was the one to tell him that his owner was probably going to give him a lot of the money back. The same thing happened to me in 2037 when I went "all in" and destroyed my finances with the hopes of digging out of a big hole. At the time, I had no clue that would happen either.

[Dington]

There is an ongoing discussion amongst the GB on this topic. Open to everyone's feedback.

There is? Its just been me and you so far.

It's in the GB Discussions forum, so yeah. This is a new topic and most people haven't seen it yet...not sure why you're trying to be difficult.

[trmmilwwi]

If all owners refund the money or write off the overages the same then leave it as is. But if different teams/owners treat this differently because of coding within the game then we should equalize it somehow.

[Knucklehead254]

I feel like their maybe should be a cap of how much you could go over? I mean this league already has a salary cap to things even so I'm sure something like that could be implemented. Obviously I don't feel @Dington did this on purpose but I do think it's kind of dumb he gets bailed out of it for no reason. Just my two cents on it and I'll respect any decision that's made.

[GoldenOne]

There is an ongoing discussion amongst the GB on this topic. Open to everyone's feedback.

There is? Its just been me and you so far.

It's in the GB Discussions forum, so yeah. This is a new topic and most people haven't seen it yet...not sure why you're trying to be difficult.

Well, I just dont call you posting it and me responding to it once or twice an "ongoing discussion." Saying that is misleading.

[GoldenOne]

I feel like their maybe should be a cap of how much you could go over? I mean this league already has a salary cap to things even so I'm sure something like that could be implemented. Obviously I don't feel @Dington did this on purpose but I do think it's kind of dumb he gets bailed out of it for no reason. Just my two cents on it and I'll respect any decision that's made.

This, I agree with. I'm just not a big fan of the knee-jerk reaction to someone saying they are going to do something and then another wanting to implement a rule right away to stop it.

[BaseClogger]

I support a rule change (not retroactive) but haven't seen any suggestions that particularly enthuse me.

[jiminyhopkins]

Just don't quit until you see what the solution(s) are!

[aaronweiner]

I definitely do not understand this issue.

Could someone explain it to me like I’m five?

[Dington]

I definitely do not understand this issue.

Could someone explain it to me like I’m five?

Your mommy gives you $20 to spend at the Scholastic Book Fair, but you still have extra money from taking a kid's milk money, so you spend $40 on a Lamborghini poster, two Goosebumps books, an I Spy book, and four eraser tops. That's all they had this year. Now you tell mommy you have no more money, so at the end of the school year she gives you $40 more to spend during the summer vacation. And you still have more money than most other kids for next year's book fair because your parents are loaded and you're a spoiled brat.

[aaronweiner]

Oh, I get it.

But wasn’t it always the point of IFAs that teams with huge amounts of excess cash battled each other for the players? Like, a “this is the moment you cash in all your bonus money” type moment?

I’m cool with some kind of maximum if that’s what people want.

[Dington]

Oh, I get it.

But wasn’t it always the point of IFAs that teams with huge amounts of excess cash battled each other for the players? Like, a “this is the moment you cash in all your bonus money” type moment?

I’m cool with some kind of maximum if that’s what people want.

But the owner just gives the money back at the end of the year. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it can be exploited.