An actual breakdown on taxes per team

[tarheelhockey]

It's not about making excuses. Most of us know it's mostly on the players your draft and aquire, and a lot to extent how high you draft. But that's another separate argument.

Fact is, it should be an even system and can easily be implemented into the salary cap to make things fair and even for everyone. Why people need feel to argue this or get upset? Because they are in the lower taxed states and now feel need to get defensive for some odd reason when they should just agree. Yea, let's make it fair and even. Very simple.

And nobody is saying it's going to automatically help anyone get a cup. But at least it's a level playing field no matter how small or Insignificant you lower taxed state people like to make it out to be. I rather have that extra 3 to 5 million that lowered taxes teams get to spend on an extra player. That's huge.

In that case, let’s make it fair and equal across the board. All sponsorships and other “hockey adjacent” money gets factored into the cap as well. If a player lands a $500K deal with Canadian Tire, that’s $500K applied to his team’s cap. After all, teams in non-Canadian Tire markets would love to have those sponsorships available to entice players to sign.

Fair? Or are you going to explain how this is WAY different and definitely not something that should be considered in any way?

 

[PAZ]

Why? This where you have a hard time understanding basic logic. THE CAP IS NOT DESIGNED TO MAKE IT EVEN FOR ALL TEAMS. God damn it, why can't you get this through your head. Cap fairness isn't a league priority and it never was. Stop your crying, actually f***ing listen. Cap fairness, parity, all this stupid shit is Canadian fans making up things that don't actually exist in reality. I know all you f***ing watch is RDS, TSN, and Sportsnet, but do some actual critical thinking.

The salary cap wasn't made for parity, but a hard salary cap was. If the league (owners) cared less about parity they'd implement a luxury tax system or a soft salary cap. Teams with deep pockets would love the ability to buy a cup on paper.

However, there are hundreds of articles that cites one of Bettman's goal was to create parity and have a competitive balance, because it engages every fanbase rather than knowing there's no chance your team has any shot at winning for the next decade.

I agree that they aren't going to incorporate taxes into the salary cap, but parity is a direct byproduct of having a hard salary cap.

 

[Legion34]

2004–05 NHL lockout - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

0 results for parity, 5 for cost certainty. They didn't care about parity, they cared about getting player costs down. Prior to the cap teams were on average spending 76% of revenue on player salaries.

So don't, "Trust me, Bro" on your claims, either post some links reflecting what you claim or stop making the claim. (And it should be NHL execs/NHL Team execs making the claim, not random bloggers).

Wikipedia is not a source. There have been multiple posts on the topic over the years. You can go back and watch the press conferences if they are still available.

The same few people have lied over and over about the topic for years.

When talking about the tax advantage I have posted specific agents. GMs. Accountants players own words and articles.

The “trust me bro” crowd is the “players can easily off set any taxes and they are lying about the differences. Ask them for sources on those claims

 

[Legion34]

In that case, let’s make it fair and equal across the board. All sponsorships and other “hockey adjacent” money gets factored into the cap as well. If a player lands a $500K deal with Canadian Tire, that’s $500K applied to his team’s cap. After all, teams in non-Canadian Tire markets would love to have those sponsorships available to entice players to sign.

Fair? Or are you going to explain how this is WAY different and definitely not something that should be considered in any way?

You need people to explain why non gauranteed, external work that doesn’t involve the team or the NHL that you have to do extra for isn’t part of the cap?

Players endorsements get dropped all the time.

These aren’t part of HRR. Not part of NHL operations and are external work.

That’s really simple. Secondary employment is not part of any collective bargaining agreement.

You don’t get to get paid less as a nurse in a hospital if you want to do Botox on the side.

It’s really simple.

 

[Legion34]

In that case, let’s make it fair and equal across the board. All sponsorships and other “hockey adjacent” money gets factored into the cap as well. If a player lands a $500K deal with Canadian Tire, that’s $500K applied to his team’s cap. After all, teams in non-Canadian Tire markets would love to have those sponsorships available to entice players to sign.

Fair? Or are you going to explain how this is WAY different and definitely not something that should be considered in any way?

Yea.

Have I once said otherwise that players take less in no tax states? Wtf are you even claiming a win on? The argument has always been it's not as big or as important or unfair that you whiny Canadian fans cry about constantly. That the cap has no bearing on fairness or parity. That if you take this location and market advantage into account, then you must take every market advantage into account. f***ing hell, it's like I'm talking to children.

Yes. You have. You also just decided that players magically can make that imbalance go away. And had some tax guy try to tell me it was wrong. Then he said the Gavin calculation looked good.

You are just deciding it’s not as big or unfair. That means nothing. Those are just words.
It is exactly what has been said. And it leads to millions of dollars of net cap overages that allow no tax teams and unfair advantage.

 

[dekelikekocur]

Wikipedia is not a source. There have been multiple posts on the topic over the years. You can go back and watch the press conferences if they are still available.

The same few people have lied over and over about the topic for years.

When talking about the tax advantage I have posted specific agents. GMs. Accountants players own words and articles.

The “trust me bro” crowd is the “players can easily off set any taxes and they are lying about the differences. Ask them for sources on those claims

So post the links. "Do your own research" is such a cop out. You made the claim, back it up. We aren't talking about the tax advantage, we're talking about your absurd claims regarding the reason why the salary cap was implemented. Cost certainty is the reason, anything that came from that was secondary/unintentional. BTW if you scroll to the bottom of the wiki page, there's multiple sources for where the information in the Wiki came from. So yea, put up or shut the f*** up.

 

[Legion34]

So post the links. "Do your own research" is such a cop out. You made the claim, back it up. We aren't talking about the tax advantage, we're talking about your absurd claims regarding the reason why the salary cap was implemented. Cost certainty is the reason, anything that came from that was secondary/unintentional. BTW if you scroll to the bottom of the wiki page, there's multiple sources for where the information in the Wiki came from. So yea, put up or shut the f*** up.

Wikipedia isn’t research.
No. not at all.

The way the cap is implemented. Is parity. Capping total player salaries across 32 teams as 50% of HRR is done for parity.

There is nothing that suggests that all teams have to have the same cap constraints. As long as they equal 50%.

Do you think it’s acceptable for the top 5 revenue teams to have a 96million cap and the bottom 5 have 80. And the rest have 88?

Would that be acceptable to you. And the NHL? Then you want and are artificially enforcing parity

Edit. First article. Google
“Bettman. Cap. Parity”

The world Bettman envisioned in 2005 when he instituted a cap in 2005. He prefers “competitive balance”

Parity Of Stanley Cup Playoffs Reflects Bettman's Vision For NHL

Parity in the Stanley Cup Playoffs -- featuring four Wild Card teams still playing -- is falling right in line with Gary Bettman's vision.

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

Allan Walsh player agent who is in meeting with Bettman and the league about the cap.

https://x.com/i/web/status/1540745495659720707

From the man himself.

Gary Bettman Praises NHL's 'Extraordinary' Competitive Balance - NESN.com

BOSTON — The NHL has a lot of parity. Making the Stanley Cup playoffs one season can just as easily be followed by missing the 16-team tournament the very next year. It’s a hard league to establish consistency in. When the league made several rule changes — including the creation of a salary cap...

nesn.com

This took less than 4 minutes.

 

[tucker3434]

Wikipedia isn’t research.
No. not at all.

The way the cap is implemented. Is parity. Capping total player salaries across 32 teams as 50% of HRR is done for parity.

There is nothing that suggests that all teams have to have the same cap constraints. As long as they equal 50%.

Do you think it’s acceptable for the top 5 revenue teams to have a 96million cap and the bottom 5 have 80. And the rest have 88?

Would that be acceptable to you. And the NHL? Then you want and are artificially enforcing parity

Edit. First article. Google
“Bettman. Cap. Parity”

The world Bettman envisioned in 2005 when he instituted a cap in 2005. He prefers “competitive balance”

Parity Of Stanley Cup Playoffs Reflects Bettman's Vision For NHL

Parity in the Stanley Cup Playoffs -- featuring four Wild Card teams still playing -- is falling right in line with Gary Bettman's vision.

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

We have a flat cap because it's the least arbitrary way of doing it, and having an unbalanced cap would be terrible optics.

This is kind of like saying that we want parity because we want all the goals to be the same size. I mean, yeah, I guess. If there's going to be a rule, it should be the same for everybody. It's that simple.

 

[Legion34]

We have a flat cap because it's the least arbitrary way of doing it, and having an unbalanced cap would be terrible optics.

This is kind of like saying that we want parity because we want all the goals to be the same size. I mean, yeah, I guess. If there's going to be a rule, it should be the same for everybody. It's that simple.

Why would different caps have bad optics? If the cap has nothing to do with parity? Makes no sense

Nope. That is very arbitrary. Revenues size demands all could be factored.

Are NHL players salaries arbitrary? Because they aren’t all the same? Then why should
Teams caps be the same if not for parity? They contribute different revenues. Why not different caps.

Bettman's position hard to comprehend

It's hard to tell what NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is trying to accomplish.

www.espn.com

Here is an article which specifically compares the 2005 lockout to 2013 and how Bettman used competitive balance/parity as a rationale the first time.

 

[HisNoodliness]

Games are paid based on where you play. 41 games a year you'll be paying your home state income tax. The other 41 will be based on where game ins played. So I did a calculation on what that actually ammounts to. For example, Dallas players (no state tax) would still pay tax based on away games.

	Tax %	2 Million	5 Million	10 Million	15 Million
Dallas	2.79%	$55,800	$139,500	$279,000	$418,500
Nashville	2.79%	$55,800	$139,500	$279,000	$418,500
Florida	3.18%	$63,600	$159,000	$318,000	$477,000
Tampa Bay	3.18%	$63,600	$159,000	$318,000	$477,000
Vegas	3.50%	$70,000	$175,000	$350,000	$525,000
Philadelphia	4.33%	$86,600	$216,500	$433,000	$649,500
Pittsburgh	4.33%	$86,600	$216,500	$433,000	$649,500
Colorado	4.59%	$91,800	$229,500	$459,000	$688,500
Utah	4.69%	$93,800	$234,500	$469,000	$703,500
St.Louis	4.72%	$94,400	$236,000	$472,000	$708,000
Chicago	4.82%	$96,400	$241,000	$482,000	$723,000
Carolina	4.92%	$98,400	$246,000	$492,000	$738,000
Detroit	4.92%	$98,400	$246,000	$492,000	$738,000
Columbus	5.51%	$110,200	$275,500	$551,000	$826,500
Seattle	6.37%	$127,400	$318,500	$637,000	$955,500
Minnesota	6.83%	$136,600	$341,500	$683,000	$1,024,500
Boston	6.87%	$137,400	$343,500	$687,000	$1,030,500
Ottawa	6.94%	$138,800	$347,000	$694,000	$1,041,000
Toronto	6.94%	$138,800	$347,000	$694,000	$1,041,000
New Jersey	7.48%	$149,600	$374,000	$748,000	$1,122,000
New York I	7.54%	$150,800	$377,000	$754,000	$1,131,000
New York R	7.54%	$150,800	$377,000	$754,000	$1,131,000
Washington	7.54%	$150,800	$377,000	$754,000	$1,131,000
Buffalo	7.65%	$153,000	$382,500	$765,000	$1,147,500
Calgary	8.01%	$160,200	$400,500	$801,000	$1,201,500
Edmonton	8.01%	$160,200	$400,500	$801,000	$1,201,500
Winnipeg	8.28%	$165,600	$414,000	$828,000	$1,242,000
Anaheim	8.95%	$179,000	$447,500	$895,000	$1,342,500
Los Angeles	8.95%	$179,000	$447,500	$895,000	$1,342,500
San Jose	8.95%	$179,000	$447,500	$895,000	$1,342,500
Vancouver	10.26%	$205,200	$513,000	$1,026,000	$1,539,000
Montreal	12.10%	$242,000	$605,000	$1,210,000	$1,815,000

Note:
USA federal tax is 37%, where as in Canada it's 33%. For this reason, I lowered the Canadian teams taxes by 4% to make up the difference. Keep in mind the table below is just State taxes, so players still need to pay way more taxes than that - but this is a half-decent representation of the difference from one team to another, as federal is across the board.

Below is the full table if you want to see the more in-depth numbers. I added some more notes under it as well.

Home (41) Division (13) In-Conf (12) Out-Conf (16) Average 2 Million 5 Million 10 Million 15 Million Anaheim 13.30% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 8.95% $179,000 $447,500 $895,000 $1,342,500 Boston 9.00% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 6.87% $137,400 $343,500 $687,000 $1,030,500 Buffalo 10.90% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 7.65% $153,000 $382,500 $765,000 $1,147,500 Calgary 11.00% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 8.01% $160,200 $400,500 $801,000 $1,201,500 Carolina 4.50% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 4.92% $98,400 $246,000 $492,000 $738,000 Chicago 4.95% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 4.82% $96,400 $241,000 $482,000 $723,000 Colorado 4.40% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 4.59% $91,800 $229,500 $459,000 $688,500 Columbus 3.50% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 5.51% $110,200 $275,500 $551,000 $826,500 Dallas 0.00% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 2.79% $55,800 $139,500 $279,000 $418,500 Detroit 4.25% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 4.92% $98,400 $246,000 $492,000 $738,000 Edmonton 11.00% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 8.01% $160,200 $400,500 $801,000 $1,201,500 Florida 0.00% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 3.18% $63,600 $159,000 $318,000 $477,000 Los Angeles 13.30% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 8.95% $179,000 $447,500 $895,000 $1,342,500 Minnesota 9.85% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 6.83% $136,600 $341,500 $683,000 $1,024,500 Montreal 21.75% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 12.10% $242,000 $605,000 $1,210,000 $1,815,000 Nashville 0.00% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 2.79% $55,800 $139,500 $279,000 $418,500 New Jersey 10.75% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 7.48% $149,600 $374,000 $748,000 $1,122,000 New York I 10.90% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 7.54% $150,800 $377,000 $754,000 $1,131,000 New York R 10.90% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 7.54% $150,800 $377,000 $754,000 $1,131,000 Ottawa 9.16% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 6.94% $138,800 $347,000 $694,000 $1,041,000 Philadelphia 3.07% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 4.33% $86,600 $216,500 $433,000 $649,500 Pittsburgh 3.07% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 4.33% $86,600 $216,500 $433,000 $649,500 San Jose 13.30% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 8.95% $179,000 $447,500 $895,000 $1,342,500 Seattle 7.00% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 6.37% $127,400 $318,500 $637,000 $955,500 St.Louis 4.70% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 4.72% $94,400 $236,000 $472,000 $708,000 Tampa Bay 0.00% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 3.18% $63,600 $159,000 $318,000 $477,000 Toronto 9.16% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 6.94% $138,800 $347,000 $694,000 $1,041,000 Utah 4.65% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 4.69% $93,800 $234,500 $469,000 $703,500 Vancouver 16.50% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 10.26% $205,200 $513,000 $1,026,000 $1,539,000 Vegas 0.00% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 3.50% $70,000 $175,000 $350,000 $525,000 Washington 10.90% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 7.54% $150,800 $377,000 $754,000 $1,131,000 Winnipeg 13.40% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 8.28% $165,600 $414,000 $828,000 $1,242,000 Some notes: - Home tax numbers taken from Turbotax. - I realise this isn't perfect. For example, single people pay a different rate vs married with children. That and this is based on their entire income, but the first ~200k is often in a lower bracket. It's just a rough guide. - Schedules are based on 41 home games, 13 divisional games, 12 inner-conference games, and 16 outer-conference games. The 'average' tax column is based on this (41xHome + 13xDiv + 12xIn + 16xOut) - Other average such as 'Division' is just an average of every team in that category.

The biggest problem with this has nothing to do with other sources is income, or marriage exemptions etc. The biggest problem is that NHL players don't pay taxes like normal people. The US and Canadian tax codes are essentially designed so that if you make enough money, you don't end up paying your taxes. People making 200k think that because they're losing a half of their income that that's how it works for someone making 10 times that. If you have real money, taxes are a joke.

 

[Legion34]

The biggest problem with this has nothing to do with other sources is income, or marriage exemptions etc. The biggest problem is that NHL players don't pay taxes like normal people. The US and Canadian tax codes are essentially designed so that if you make enough money, you don't end up paying your taxes. People making 200k think that because they're losing a half of their income that that's how it works for someone making 10 times that. If you have real money, taxes are a joke.

Tavares is literally getting sued for millions by the government.

Boogie man conspiracy theories do not over ride the reports of players,gms acountants

 

[tucker3434]

Why would different caps have bad optics? If the cap has nothing to do with parity? Makes no sense

Nope. That is very arbitrary. Revenues size demands all could be factored.

Are NHL players salaries arbitrary? Because they aren’t all the same? Then why should
Teams caps be the same if not for parity? They contribute different revenues. Why not different caps.

Bettman's position hard to comprehend

It's hard to tell what NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is trying to accomplish.

www.espn.com

Here is an article which specifically compares the 2005 lockout to 2013 and how Bettman used competitive balance/parity as a rationale the first time.

Do I really need to explain why having a favorable set of rules for the richest teams is a bad look? I really feel like I shouldn't have to.

Having everyone follow the same standard isn't arbitrary at all. This is just how salary caps work. Is there a single sports league on the planet that has an unbalanced cap? You seem to be more anti-salary cap than anything, but you just won't come out and say it.

I personally don't care if Toronto or Montreal or whoever wanted to spend more money. But be realistic about how it would happen. Luxury tax. It's a much cheaper and easier way to achieve the desired result. Rich teams could ask for that in the next CBA if they wanted, but they won't.

 

[dekelikekocur]

Wikipedia isn’t research.
No. not at all.

The way the cap is implemented. Is parity. Capping total player salaries across 32 teams as 50% of HRR is done for parity.

There is nothing that suggests that all teams have to have the same cap constraints. As long as they equal 50%.

Do you think it’s acceptable for the top 5 revenue teams to have a 96million cap and the bottom 5 have 80. And the rest have 88?

Would that be acceptable to you. And the NHL? Then you want and are artificially enforcing parity

Edit. First article. Google
“Bettman. Cap. Parity”

The world Bettman envisioned in 2005 when he instituted a cap in 2005. He prefers “competitive balance”

Parity Of Stanley Cup Playoffs Reflects Bettman's Vision For NHL

Parity in the Stanley Cup Playoffs -- featuring four Wild Card teams still playing -- is falling right in line with Gary Bettman's vision.

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

Allan Walsh player agent who is in meeting with Bettman and the league about the cap.

https://x.com/i/web/status/1540745495659720707

From the man himself.

Gary Bettman Praises NHL's 'Extraordinary' Competitive Balance - NESN.com

BOSTON — The NHL has a lot of parity. Making the Stanley Cup playoffs one season can just as easily be followed by missing the 16-team tournament the very next year. It’s a hard league to establish consistency in. When the league made several rule changes — including the creation of a salary cap...

nesn.com

This took less than 4 minutes.

Those quotes from way after the fact. When the NHL locked out and was negoticating the repeated topic was cost certainty. Parity was a by product but not the actual product of why the cap was being pushed for.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/12/art3full.pdf

No where mentioned that the owners cared or were pushing for parity, 3 mentions of cost certainty with two of the mentions indicating it was their main objective of the cap. Prior and during the lock out reflects cost certainty was their objective. Was parity a by product? Sure, but it wasn't what caused the lock out.

I think from an overall, everyone having the same hard cap makes more sense than some constant fluctuating borked system based on ever changing tax codes. I mean, if we're going that route, CDN teams should have a 30% lower cap to reflect the CAD being worth 30% less than the USD.

 

[Galaxydoggystyle]

Why not have what the NBA has? I believe its a soft cap of some sort?

 

[Golden_Jet]

So it’s mostly whiny leafs fans arguing, my team needs more money to spend than other teams lol.

It never helped them before, when they could spend whatever they want.

Those quotes from way after the fact. When the NHL locked out and was negoticating the repeated topic was cost certainty. Parity was a by product but not the actual product of why the cap was being pushed for.

Can’t see the forest through the trees.

 

[Tanknation]

In that case, let’s make it fair and equal across the board. All sponsorships and other “hockey adjacent” money gets factored into the cap as well. If a player lands a $500K deal with Canadian Tire, that’s $500K applied to his team’s cap. After all, teams in non-Canadian Tire markets would love to have those sponsorships available to entice players to sign.

Fair? Or are you going to explain how this is WAY different and definitely not something that should be considered in any way?

I'm not going to keep repeating myself about how different this is to those who don't grasp that salary caps and taxes are team-specific and should be standardized. Extracurricular activities or side businesses have no relation to salary caps or contracts; they are entirely separate issues.

 

[Legion34]

Those quotes from way after the fact. When the NHL locked out and was negoticating the repeated topic was cost certainty. Parity was a by product but not the actual product of why the cap was being pushed for.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/12/art3full.pdf

No where mentioned that the owners cared or were pushing for parity, 3 mentions of cost certainty with two of the mentions indicating it was their main objective of the cap. Prior and during the lock out reflects cost certainty was their objective. Was parity a by product? Sure, but it wasn't what caused the lock out.

I think from an overall, everyone having the same hard cap makes more sense than some constant fluctuating borked system based on ever changing tax codes. I mean, if we're going that route, CDN teams should have a 30% lower cap to reflect the CAD being worth 30% less than the USD.

Because you are asking different questions. The existence of a cap and the way a cap is implemented are different questions
Multiple sports have a cap. They are not triple hard caps. Which are different and have not resulted in the parity that Bettman wants

The articles from espn who covered the original lockout clearly say that parity/competive balance was a major reason for the cap and how it was done

Bettman takes pride in direct quotes saying that the way he implemented the cap has led to this balance. He doesn’t say it’s a happy accident. It was his plan.

Are you old enough to have lived through it?

In Canada it was covered here every day on sports radio. It was repeatedly talked about and still is.

The idea that this is disputable is mind blowing. I listened to sports radio every day. And there was nothing else to talk about here.

It was a major issue.

Edit. Here’s Lemieux an owner at the time specifically saying the that the 2004-2005 lockout cap gave them the chance to be on equal footing.

N.H.L.’s Salary Cap Aims at Parity, but the Penguins Keep Winning (Published 2017)

Pittsburgh is the first team in nearly two decades to win a second consecutive Stanley Cup, and the roster is designed to keep contending next season and beyond.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Legion34]

So it’s mostly whiny leafs fans arguing, my team needs more money to spend than other teams lol.

It never helped them before, when they could spend whatever they want.


Can’t see the forest through the trees.

So if it never helped them before. Why not let them
Do it now? If it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter.

Do I really need to explain why having a favorable set of rules for the richest teams is a bad look? I really feel like I shouldn't have to.

Having everyone follow the same standard isn't arbitrary at all. This is just how salary caps work. Is there a single sports league on the planet that has an unbalanced cap? You seem to be more anti-salary cap than anything, but you just won't come out and say it.

I personally don't care if Toronto or Montreal or whoever wanted to spend more money. But be realistic about how it would happen. Luxury tax. It's a much cheaper and easier way to achieve the desired result. Rich teams could ask for that in the next CBA if they wanted, but they won't.

Yes. You do. Because you are saying that parity wasn’t part of the reasoning. So if parity isn’t part of it. Then it shouldn’t matter right?

This is pretty basic.

 

[tucker3434]

So if it never helped them before. Why not let them
Do it now? If it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter.



Yes. You do. Because you are saying that parity wasn’t part of the reasoning. So if parity isn’t part of it. Then it shouldn’t matter right?

This is pretty basic.

I don’t even know how this is an argument. They aren’t going to give one team more cap than another for the same reason they aren’t going to give one team a bigger net to shoot at or an expanded roster. It’s not parity. It’s just using the same rule book. If parity is a byproduct, so be it.

The owners were the ones that wanted a salary cap. This is what a salary cap is. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. But it isn’t changing. As long as it exists, it’ll be the same for everyone.

 

[Legion34]

I don’t even know how this is an argument. They aren’t going to give one team more cap than another for the same reason they aren’t going to give one team a bigger net to shoot at or an expanded roster. It’s not parity. It’s just using the same rule book. If parity is a byproduct, so be it.

The owners were the ones that wanted a salary cap. This is what a salary cap is. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. But it isn’t changing. As long as it exists, it’ll be the same for everyone.

Sweet Jesus. The entire point of rule books is generally parity. You think the rules are different for different teams? Rules enforce parity.

A rule book could in theory say every Toronto goal counts for 3. But I’m assuming you wouldn’t think that was correct right?

???? There is not “a” salary cap. There are multiple iterations across multiple sports. Bettman has chose to use a triple hard equal cap without ability to transfer or buy space or renegotiate. Many salary caps exist across different leagues.

He chose this implementation specifically for parity. Many teams don’t like it. Arizona didn’t want to make the floor. Tons of teams try to skirt around it.

Bettman wanted parity. This is absolutely known and proven. Many systems could provide certainty without parity.

You just keep doubling down on your incorrect assertion. You asked for proof. You got it. And still double down

 

[Golden_Jet]

You just keep doubling down on your incorrect assertion. You asked for proof. You got it. And still double down

You keep ignoring facts lol.
Cap was for cost certainty, and parity is a BY-PRODUCT of cost certainty.
Not sure why your being so obtuse about it,

Instead of beating around the bush, just say the leafs want more cap, because they can’t manage it properly.

 

[Legion34]

You keep ignoring facts lol.
Cap was for cost certainty, and parity is a BY-PRODUCT of cost certainty.
Not sure why your being so obtuse about it,

Instead of beating around the bush, just say the leafs want more cap, because they can’t manage it properly.

No it’s not.
Think through it slow.

A team can spend 88 million dollars next year right? Does that mean that all players have to get paid the same?

Cost certainty has a by product of parity. So all players salaries on a team have to just magically be the same right? Or are team caps not cost certain?

Every team can choose to spend their alotted cap (floor to ceiling) as they see fit.

Similarly. The NHL could chose to allocate the cap among the 32 teams as it saw fit.

Parity is not in any way a product of certainty. That is false. It is mind blowing that anyone would think that.

Parity has been selected,imposed and enforced by Bettman who is openly proud of it

 

[tarheelhockey]

You need people to explain why non gauranteed, external work that doesn’t involve the team or the NHL that you have to do extra for isn’t part of the cap?

Players endorsements get dropped all the time.

These aren’t part of HRR. Not part of NHL operations and are external work.

That’s really simple. Secondary employment is not part of any collective bargaining agreement.

You don’t get to get paid less as a nurse in a hospital if you want to do Botox on the side.

It’s really simple.

So it’s clear that you can recognize that endorsements are
- External to the NHL
- Not covered by the CBA
- Highly localized
- Mutable due to factors outside of NHL control

And therefore not something that would be appropriate to govern through the CBA.

If you can recognize this about endorsements, you can recognize it about taxes.

If nothing else, now you can see how your own argument looks through the eyes of people who aren’t boosting for their team to gain an artificial cap advantage under a thin veil of “fairness”.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm not going to keep repeating myself about how different this is to those who don't grasp that salary caps and taxes are team-specific and should be standardized. Extracurricular activities or side businesses have no relation to salary caps or contracts; they are entirely separate issues.

Hockey related endorsements are not a side business, they are an extension of the player’s affiliation with the NHL and constitute a stream of income directly related to their position with the team. They are also very market-specific and a quantifiable benefit of signing in e.g. Montreal instead of Columbus. Therefore they should be counted against the salary cap in order to be fair to the Columbuses of the league and eliminate Montreal’s unfair advantage when signing star players.


If you think this is an asinine position, imagine how it looks to others when you use the same logic to the benefit of your own interests.

 

[tucker3434]

Sweet Jesus. The entire point of rule books is generally parity. You think the rules are different for different teams? Rules enforce parity.

A rule book could in theory say every Toronto goal counts for 3. But I’m assuming you wouldn’t think that was correct right?

???? There is not “a” salary cap. There are multiple iterations across multiple sports. Bettman has chose to use a triple hard equal cap without ability to transfer or buy space or renegotiate. Many salary caps exist across different leagues.

He chose this implementation specifically for parity. Many teams don’t like it. Arizona didn’t want to make the floor. Tons of teams try to skirt around it.

Bettman wanted parity. This is absolutely known and proven. Many systems could provide certainty without parity.

You just keep doubling down on your incorrect assertion. You asked for proof. You got it. And still double down

No, rulebooks ensure that teams have the same opportunity to win. Whether they do or not depends on a million factors. All goals counting as one doesn’t mean Canada won’t beat Lithuania by 10 in the Olympics.

A byproduct of a rule could be parity but a fair game and not an even game is the purpose of rules.

You can list me the examples of leagues with salary caps that grant additional space to the richest teams.

I’ve said just a couple posts ago that I wouldn’t mind a luxury tax. That isn’t what the owners wanted. It’s not what we have. If you don’t like this system, blame MLSE, Molson, whoever. They supported its implementation. Having Bettman be your scapegoat is nonsense. He’s just a puppet.