In the example above, the team with the large arena will always be penalized for less than the full amount of the gate receipt tax, while the team with the small arena will eat all of it.
It's a bad example of two extremes. Not every top team over-expanded their arena, and not every new team under-expanded. It doesn't make sense to double your arena in the first season, but it also doesn't make sense to not expand at all when there's so many established examples of where you attendance will go at that level.
I've had my team for 2 full seasons now. At maximum prices, I barely started tipping full attendance of my original arena midway to the season. I have been expanding ever since, and I am maintaining full attendance at maximum prices right now at 5700 seats or thereabout.
How was that bad management? Is it bad management because I should have foreseen that someone will introduce a measure that will strongly impact a small-arena, high-price strategy, and by doing that will deprive me of a substantial part of the cash flow I need to further expand my arena?
Hindsight might be 20/20 right now, but this doesn't help the teams who chose a similar strategy.
Even so, it remains a major issue that the more effective and fair way to deal with excessive cash in the game is to tax teams
progressively based on their income source, which in this case is their arena.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."