Salary Cap vs. Budget Cap

gimbel4 · 09-25-2018, 12:01 PM

Our online league is a salary capped league set at $76M and has served us well. However, intention of the salary cap is to be exactly that, a cap on dollars spent on salary. But we've found that all expenses count against that number as well. Scouting budget, player development, staff salaries, draft expenses, etc. So when a team spends $10M on player development, $10M on scouting, etc. it doesn't have the ability to get salaries to the $76M number, but gets cut off when total expenses gets to $76M. When the total projected expenditures gets to the $76M the transaction is not allowed, whether its adding a FA or doing a waiver claim on a league minimum guy, regardless of revenue. We get the "the owner does not approve" message. We would like to set the budget cap higher than the salary cap. We'd like to keep the salary cap at $76M, but let teams that earn revenue be able to spend more on scouting, drafting, development, etc.

Any suggestions as to how to set a salary cap, but have a total expenses cap at a higher total?

Thanks!

NoOne · 09-27-2018, 04:01 PM

i use a "salary cap" and it only affects payroll, but maybe somethign else is causing this in combination?

maybe you need to allow full use of budget as opposed to owner control? in same area of settings. *this is a difference between us and maybe the coconspirator?

budgets are set by previous year's revenue. if it isn't high enough to support that level of salaries plus other expenses, they will skimp where they can to fit budget. the owner will also have a say based on his ratings for spending habits, if not disabled.

so, i'd make sure those teams have enough revenue... last year too. if not, that would explain some things. increasing revenue one way or another would alleviate that problem.

don't try to use max cash allowed to fix this. if still default $10m, i'd reduce it to ~5M or less for a ~76m cap relative to modern league and 10M. ~1/2 the cost.

so, make sure there's enough revenue, but not too much, if you want them all to be able to reach this value. even so, some teams will inevitably not be able to spend that much due to a lack of players that can demand high enough salaries.

for every team that has 'extra' talent due to club control or lucky contracts, means there has to be less talent eslewhere than ~normal. so if oyu notice some, but not all, not spending all their money, look into what's actually available and whether it's even possible to do so for every team at the same time... not likely.

byzeil · 09-27-2018, 05:11 PM

I run a league that has an $85m salary cap and only salaries of players on a roster in the organizations counts against the cap so I'm not sure why you are seeing what you are seeing. Below is an image of my team in that league and you will see may expenses greatly exceed the cap while player salaries do not.

We also make all revenue available rather than having the owner control the budget. If you want to be able to spend all the money you have you should set "no entire revenue available' to assure the owner is not restricting your spending. (image of this also below)

If a team's total revenue+cash is at or below the cap you will not be able to spend to the cap.

byzeil · 09-27-2018, 05:22 PM

Quote:

We'd like to keep the salary cap at $76M, but let teams that earn revenue be able to spend more on scouting, drafting, development, etc.

Setting "Team owner controls budget" to "no entire revenue available" should do this, allow you spend all your revenue however you wish while limiting you to spending up to the cap on players.

Also, remember, any GM that has commissioner privileges (so ie if the commish runs a team) will be able to spend above even total revenue and the cap. That is why in the league I run (and run a team) I have a "Commissioner" user and by personal *non-commissioner" account.

09-25-2018, 12:01 PM	#1
gimbel4 Bat Boy Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 6	Salary Cap vs. Budget Cap Our online league is a salary capped league set at $76M and has served us well. However, intention of the salary cap is to be exactly that, a cap on dollars spent on salary. But we've found that all expenses count against that number as well. Scouting budget, player development, staff salaries, draft expenses, etc. So when a team spends $10M on player development, $10M on scouting, etc. it doesn't have the ability to get salaries to the $76M number, but gets cut off when total expenses gets to $76M. When the total projected expenditures gets to the $76M the transaction is not allowed, whether its adding a FA or doing a waiver claim on a league minimum guy, regardless of revenue. We get the "the owner does not approve" message. We would like to set the budget cap higher than the salary cap. We'd like to keep the salary cap at $76M, but let teams that earn revenue be able to spend more on scouting, drafting, development, etc. Any suggestions as to how to set a salary cap, but have a total expenses cap at a higher total? Thanks!

09-27-2018, 04:01 PM	#2
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	i use a "salary cap" and it only affects payroll, but maybe somethign else is causing this in combination? maybe you need to allow full use of budget as opposed to owner control? in same area of settings. *this is a difference between us and maybe the coconspirator? budgets are set by previous year's revenue. if it isn't high enough to support that level of salaries plus other expenses, they will skimp where they can to fit budget. the owner will also have a say based on his ratings for spending habits, if not disabled. so, i'd make sure those teams have enough revenue... last year too. if not, that would explain some things. increasing revenue one way or another would alleviate that problem. don't try to use max cash allowed to fix this. if still default $10m, i'd reduce it to ~5M or less for a ~76m cap relative to modern league and 10M. ~1/2 the cost. so, make sure there's enough revenue, but not too much, if you want them all to be able to reach this value. even so, some teams will inevitably not be able to spend that much due to a lack of players that can demand high enough salaries. for every team that has 'extra' talent due to club control or lucky contracts, means there has to be less talent eslewhere than ~normal. so if oyu notice some, but not all, not spending all their money, look into what's actually available and whether it's even possible to do so for every team at the same time... not likely.