Crusaders Looking to Add 5.1 Million in Salary

[RonCo]

In a different scenario of either cutting a player to get under the cap or playing him and paying a fine, in some cases it makes more sense to keep him and pay his salary and pay the fine(I think) because if you release him you pay him anyways so pay the fine and hope for some production and take a risk of a nosedive than pay him anyways without the fine.

I think (meaning seriously, I don''t know, because no one has tried it, really) that in most cases the best play is to get under cap and avoid the penalty. But there are clearly some cases, almost all being relatively short term, where the better play is to pay the penalty.

Depending on the result, there will be cases where the decision hurts the franchise a bit by draining bonus funds in a roll of the dice that didn't work out...just like there would be cases where if it works out, it could result in a net positive. Every scenario has a different odds ratio on the outcome, though.

[usnspecialist]

Regarding the time thing, I don't have game access during the work day (or even at home now until I get good Wi-Fi), but I absolutely have the forums and HTML on my computer while I am sitting at my desk all day. That is how Brett got interested in the league, asking me one day "what the hell is that site you look at all day, some sort of porn"?

[niles08]

Regarding the time thing, I don't have game access during the work day (or even at home now until I get good Wi-Fi), but I absolutely have the forums and HTML on my computer while I am sitting at my desk all day. That is how Brett got interested in the league, asking me one day "what the hell is that site you look at all day, some sort of porn"?

I think it has the same sort of effect.

[agrudez]

Spending past your budget is vastly different than telling the salary cap to go fuck itself in what is supposedly a hard cap league.

So well said. I didn't bother to read your novella, Ron, because this shouldn't even be debatable. There is even clear intent in the constitution to curb this practice, but a clear oversight in only explicitly applying it to one way to go over the cap and not the other.

[niles08]

I assume this has been in the constitution for many many years(if not since the beginning of the league) but find it funny we are just now debating it because I brought up the fact that it could be pushed a bit, and then proceeded to push it a bit.

[agrudez]

I wrote a good bit of the current constitution and thought that it covered the bases properly for the intent of a hard cap. I wasn't aware there was an oversight in its text relative to its intent until you brought it up.

[niles08]

I wrote a good bit of the current constitution and thought that it covered the bases properly for the intent of a hard cap. I wasn't aware there was an oversight in its text relative to its intent until you brought it up.

The language makes me believe it wasnt "missed as a "loophole" and was intentionally written like this.

[RonCo]

Regarding the time thing, I don't have game access during the work day (or even at home now until I get good Wi-Fi), but I absolutely have the forums and HTML on my computer while I am sitting at my desk all day. That is how Brett got interested in the league, asking me one day "what the hell is that site you look at all day, some sort of porn"?

I think it has the same sort of effect.

Yes, it's mostly the time you spend thinking about it. As Stephen Shaw can say, when I worked full time in a corporate office, I still spent quite a bit of time focused on my team.

But, sure. Focus of GMs is a differentiator. That's why I struggle with the conversation of "good" GMs. I think the group we have here are all very good. Some understand nuance better than others, and some evaluate players in ways I think are better than others. But ... meh.

[RonCo]

I wrote a good bit of the current constitution and thought that it covered the bases properly for the intent of a hard cap. I wasn't aware there was an oversight in its text relative to its intent until you brought it up.

The language makes me believe it wasnt "missed as a "loophole" and was intentionally written like this.

I trust Kyle when he says he meant it as a hard cap and just didn't think through the ramifications. All good.

That said, if the league wants to close the "hole" then there are some ways--the "easiest" (though most pain on Matt ) is to enact a rule like we have on roster sizes, and give the commissioner the right to release players to get a guy under the cap. Personally, since no one has done it, and since the pain of having it go awry is fairly severe, it seems like a lot of mess over not much. Like I said before, if Omaha wants to run $3M over cap and burn their bonus funds and cash to the ground, I'm fine with that. It will most likely make your run that much shorter, and make it easier for my team to win our division overall.

So, yeah...whatever.

[RonCo]

Realize that just raising the bonus cash penalty (say double it from 5x to 10x) only serves to limit the equilibrium point.

• 5x bonus cash penalty, the "max payroll' is $118M.
• 10x bonus cash penalty makes the "max payroll" $114M.
• 20x bonus cash penalty makes the "max payroll" $112M.

So this penalty system isn't the mechanism to use if you want to flat-out ban the ability to go over $110M, period.

[RonCo]

Spending past your budget is vastly different than telling the salary cap to go fuck itself in what is supposedly a hard cap league.

So well said. I didn't bother to read your novella, Ron, because this shouldn't even be debatable. There is even clear intent in the constitution to curb this practice, but a clear oversight in only explicitly applying it to one way to go over the cap and not the other.

Spending over the budget is telling your owner to go fuck themselves. Same thing in context of by-passing an in-game constraint. Similar in philosophy to using bonuses to over-run our $110 salary cap. I admit to taking a bit of umbrage at some insinuation that I'm advocating something devious or underhanded. I wasn't here when you wrote the rules. I'm just following them.

That said, when I was a newbie BBA GM, I actually read and thought about the rules and said... "hmmm...that means if I want to, I can use my bonus funds to buy players that would help me now...but that's risky because if I do that and fail, then I'll have to take a super-long rebuild." So I built along more traditional lines. It never really crossed my mind that it would be considered rebellious to suggest using the act of paying the penalty to go over cap for a short while as a valid strategy. I mean, why would it? There is nothing in the text that suggest the intent of any person who wrote it. The text, as I can tell you from vast experience everywhere else in my life, is the text (seriously, nothing is more interesting than listening to readers talk about a story you wrote).

So, yeah. You be you, but I admit I'd appreciate if you could calm it with the "Ron's a lowly weasel trying to game the system and cheat us all" kind of stuff. If there's anyone in the league that's more open about what he's doing than me, or who spend s more energy trying to explain to the people I compete against how the game works, let me know. I'll try to do better.

[RonCo]

The intent of the roster size rule is obvious in the text: either conform or the commissioner will conform for you. As written, if there is an intent of the salary cap rule it's in the same category as the intent of a borrowed library book: keep it as long as you want to, and as long as you can pay the late fee.

[niles08]

On this same note, it all started when I asked for possible bonus fund uses. For a team like me, and several others if I have $50,000,000 in revenue annually and can only hold $40,000,000 in bonus funds then something has to give because I cap out literally in 2 seasons.

I would suggest finding new ways for bonus funds to be used If this isnt one of them.

Needless to say the profit wasnt always the case as when I took over the team they LOST money and had for a few years including a year or two ago even...

Any team can get out from under the crutch of "small market" and make money so I dont want to hear "enjoy your cash we could never make that or that bonus funds are meant for teams like me.

[RonCo]

Yes, the bonus funds concept does a good job of constraining big revenue teams by removing cash from their system. YS9 is one of many teams that has thrown lots and lots into the "owner's pocket" via this part of the rules. It's a good/effective way to constrain big revenue teams from growing too big to fail.

If you get super-successful, the league will tax 100% your money after a certain point.

[agrudez]

I wrote a good bit of the current constitution and thought that it covered the bases properly for the intent of a hard cap. I wasn't aware there was an oversight in its text relative to its intent until you brought it up.

The language makes me believe it wasnt "missed as a "loophole" and was intentionally written like this.

Why would it make sense to treat penalties for going over the cap differently based on how you went over the cap?

[niles08]

I wrote a good bit of the current constitution and thought that it covered the bases properly for the intent of a hard cap. I wasn't aware there was an oversight in its text relative to its intent until you brought it up.

The language makes me believe it wasnt "missed as a "loophole" and was intentionally written like this.

Why would it make sense to treat penalties for going over the cap differently based on how you went over the cap?

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the language in the constitution is specific as to what the penalties for going over are. If it was meant to be a "hard cap" then the language for going over wouldn't exist because it wouldn't be possible.

[recte44]

Are you guys seriously going to force me to make another rule change?

Great googly moogly.

[Lane]

I thought there was language in the Constitution that said something about the Commish taking action if a team didn't get back under the cap after a certain number (1 or 2) of sims. Didn't see it when I checked today though.

TLDR: It's a hard cap.

[niles08]

I thought there was language in the Constitution that said something about the Commish taking action if a team didn't get back under the cap after a certain number (1 or 2) of sims. Didn't see it when I checked today though.

TLDR: It's a hard cap.

Certainly isnt in there. Not asking for a rule change obviously. Just asking for clarification if it cant be done then why is there a rule saying that teams will be fined a certain amount from bonus funds...to me that immediately says it's not a hard cap and that the fine from bonus funds is a "luxury tax" type fine almost

[RonCo]

I thought there was language in the Constitution that said something about the Commish taking action if a team didn't get back under the cap after a certain number (1 or 2) of sims. Didn't see it when I checked today though.

TLDR: It's a hard cap.

The rule in which Matt will go make hard changes is on roster size--which makes sense because he needs to do that sometimes for Sim progression.