Re: [Celtics' Stuff ] Salary Cap Goes Up.-HOOPSWORLD.com |

[CeltsSteve@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 7/15/03 10:10:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> >If the LT threshold is now raised such that the C's do not incur a penalty 
> 
> >for last season; > and the new ownership group supposedly budgeted for it 
> to begin with, - CeltsSteve
> 
> I believe the supposedly budgeted is a reference to statements that they 
> budgeted for it for next season, not this past one.
> 
> Not that I expect that to change anyone's determination to blame current 
> ownership for every fault of past ownership on top of their own faults.
> Kim 


Kim,

My understanding is that the new owners fully expected that the team would 
have to incur the LT penalty for the just completed season and budgeted for it 
accordingly. If they didn't expect/plan to pay the tax and didn't budget for it 
that is rather foolish on their part. It represents very poor financial 
planning for so-called venture capitalists to quite possibly get blind sided with 
an unanticipated expense; especially when everyone on this list knew it was a 
very real possibility. That said, if they end up not paying the tax as a result 
of an increase in BRI, the tax payment savings is in essence new found money 
as I posted.

I don't often agree with Peter May and I rarely, if ever, agree even with Way 
of the Ray but this is one time when we're all in agreement. As I have been 
harping for several months, if the new owners do not capitalize on the 
opportunity to apply the team' s two exceptions - MLE and the $1.5M exception - that 
is indefensible and represents more of the same 'ol same 'ol and is Gaston all 
over again.                  
    
CeltsSteve