Post by cobbcounty on Mar 26, 2016 14:13:20 GMT -7
I realized a week or so ago that I left out any kind of mention of a minimum salary teams had to be over in order to qualify for league revenue sharing. I should have put it in the constitution but I didn't, my bad. I'm going to voice my opinion on what I think we should do but everyone else should voice theirs and then we can decide on what to do moving forward.
Major League Baseball and the Marlins ran into a similar problem a few years ago when the Marlins were making more money from league revenue sharing than they were paying their MLB payroll. Just as that was unfair, I think it would be unfair in our league if a team pays $40 on their roster and then rakes back a $120 in league revenue sharing.
I suggest that for this upcoming season we figure out a fair minimum salary for which teams must be over to receive the full amount of the league revenue sharing. However, I feel that teams under the minimum salary should still be able to qualify for revenue sharing in the amount of their teams payroll (clarification: not total teams expenses, just payroll).
I haven't crunched the numbers to see what they should be, but let's suppose the minimum number ends up being $100. If a team ends up having a payroll of $50 and the league revenue sharing ends up being $150, then that team would get back $50 in league revenue sharing for the year.
I think this is the best and fairest route to take but I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks and feels.
Eight more days till opening day!
Major League Baseball and the Marlins ran into a similar problem a few years ago when the Marlins were making more money from league revenue sharing than they were paying their MLB payroll. Just as that was unfair, I think it would be unfair in our league if a team pays $40 on their roster and then rakes back a $120 in league revenue sharing.
I suggest that for this upcoming season we figure out a fair minimum salary for which teams must be over to receive the full amount of the league revenue sharing. However, I feel that teams under the minimum salary should still be able to qualify for revenue sharing in the amount of their teams payroll (clarification: not total teams expenses, just payroll).
I haven't crunched the numbers to see what they should be, but let's suppose the minimum number ends up being $100. If a team ends up having a payroll of $50 and the league revenue sharing ends up being $150, then that team would get back $50 in league revenue sharing for the year.
I think this is the best and fairest route to take but I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks and feels.
Eight more days till opening day!
