I used to think that cash penalties for tanking would be a strong solution, and I think that the best worlds could implement this successfully.  The problem is this:
1) If you don't restore a full budget to new owners, you have unfillable franchises.
2) If you do restore a full budget to new owners, you have an enormous incentive for "aliasing" (same person uses two different screen names), because you can tank to your heart's content and then take over the franchise under a new screen name.

Very strong worlds that can still fill even if they require a solid HBD track record for new owners could use option two, because they can (mostly) prevent aliases from joining their worlds.  This would basically allow tankers to choose between staying in a world with financial penalties, or leaving that world.  But those worlds can also afford to just kick out tanking owners, which they might prefer.  And for the reasons above, financial penalties wouldn't work across the larger body of HBD.

And kicking owners out somehow retains owners better than letting them stay with a financial penalty? What makes option 2 any different if you have financial penalties or MWRs? Seems you could prevent aliases the same way no matter what the penalty.

Yes, it actually does.   The world becomes stronger because the people in strict anti-tanking worlds want it that way.   They aren't interested in seeing 120 win or 120 loss teams.  They want the competition.   Someone who misses the MWR is not being competitive.

So, yes, removing non-competitive owners does retain owners.

Guess I still don't see the difference between kicking someone out and a financial penalty that will either drive them out or make them change their ways, but I will have to agree to disagree. Appreciate your viewpoint. Thanks for the discussion.

The competition aspect.   Removing them removes an owner who isn't keeping up.   Penalizing them via budget restrictions only makes them weaker and less likely to be competitive.

Because games are not played in a vacuum, every loss the penalized owner takes is a win for someone else.

Got it. Plus, it gives the world the power to make the player leave instead of the player. I see your point, though I still don't fully agree. And I sure see a lot of worlds with strong antitanking rules that are looking for a lot of players.

3 of my worlds(2 I commish) have written-in-stone MWR rules and have wait lists.    I don't like to boot owners but I know I have stronger worlds because of it. 

Then you have a luxury. Most worlds are not in that kind of shape. Perhaps your MWRs are more Draconian than I've seen elsewhere.

There's just no "review" if you miss them.    That becomes a popularity contest.   55/125/195/280 over a 4 season period.    And, if an owner wasn't obviously tanking, he can apply for reinstatement after a season off.   They don't get their team back but they do get back into a world that's competitive and rolls quickly.   The big thing is that an 84-85 win team can make the playoffs because everyone is more bunched in the middle than most worlds.

The fact that a team plays 169 games is interesting. :)

I was just in a world that has a hard MWR. 3 players missed it and 4 others left. So not all worlds are as fortunate as yours.

84 or 85 win team.

Ah yes, didn't read it thoroughly, sorry. Thanks again for the discussion.