Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 25,161
- 12,784
We’re still waiting, for you to the answer the question you keep dodging.
Not answering when challenged, maybe reading the CBA like recommended.
An actual breakdown on taxes per team
- Thread starter KevinRedkey
- Start date
Not answering when challenged, maybe reading the CBA like recommended.
I honestly don’t even know what you are asking?
I’m really not sure. We both agree on the midpoints and ceiling/floor, and how escrow works. Escrow is not a problem for the owners. It’s the players.
Are you suggesting that players won’t want teams to be able to buy cap? So that they don’t have to get bought out or forced to be traded?
Really??? I honestly have no idea what you are suggesting. Not being rude.
Either way.
It’s not relevant. The CBA allows for all 32 teams to spend up to 88 million dollars next year.
Most teams if I recall were spending basically to the limits. Arizona was below the floor and had a whole bunch of cheater LTIR contracts for years to make the floor. Teams could absolutely buy cap and it be the same.
6 million is 6 million for a player no matter who pays it.
Just to be clear. Here is a 2004 article quoting multiple team presidents PRE lockout talking about the importance of a cap to provide competitive balance.
This does not mean it was the only reason. But it absolutely was a major reason why it was implemented in the way it was
NHL conference finalists win big on little bucks
The three low-budget teams still alive in the Stanley Cup playoffs poke holes in the league's contention they can't compete.
Tagging @DistantThunderRep so this poster can actually read that in 2004 pre-lockout, tampas president is directly quoted saying that the league needs a cap for competitive balance,
Last edited:
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 25,161
- 12,784
Yes the CBA allows that.
However if that happened, players will pay more in escrow than they currently pay.
If 32 teams all spend to the midpoint, then no escrow. That’s how it works,
If one team goes 10 million over the midpoint, then need a team to spend 10 million under the midpoint, to have zero escrow.
If every team spends the maximum (88 million) the 115%.
Then you have exceeded the 50/50 split by 15% x 88 million x 32 teams
= 422 million
So players would owe the owners $221 million in escrow.
The 50/50 split is based solely on the midpoint, not the maximum.
That’s why 32 teams spending maximum cap will owe more in escrow.
Now which part don’t you understand, can keep helping. even though repeating myself, I can explain.
CDN24
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 3,685
- 3,117
My proposal does solve one issue that a luxury tax does not and that is fairness for traded players. Under my proposal (albeit near impossible to implement) there is no tax gain or loss for a traded player. The current model and a luxury tax model does not solve the issue of players signing in a favorable tax jurisdiction getting traded to a high tax one.
you do realize that last year 22 of 32 teams were in LTIR and exceeding the cap right ?
11 NHL teams carry extra salary-cap hit into next season
With a salary cap that has risen just $2 million total over the past five seasons, NHL teams continue to
sportsnaut.com
According to this article. Every single team was over the cap in actual cash
NHL Teams With Highest 2023-24 Payrolls: Colorado Avalanche on Top
Find out how much each NHL payroll amounts to cash-wise, including how much league leaders Colorado Avalanche are spending.
sports.betmgm.com
No team was at the midpoint according to that article (which surprises me but it’s good for thought. It might not be accurate)
What I’m trying to understand is. What is your actual point?
-that in 2004 and 2012 the cap was designed to not allow teams to buy cap because players who said they would die on the hill of no cap. Were scared of escrow? So they refused to allow owners to buy cap?
They want to be bought out and forced to move from good teams? Because they are scared of escrow?
Even though they used the escalator for a full decade? 2018 was the first time they didn’t use it to its full 5% if remember correctly.
Players don’t like escrow any more. Ok. What does that have to with buying cap? And rules prohibiting it?
Honestly Is that the point?
Yeah but people don’t actually care about that. They just want their team to be able to spend more money. The fairness of taxation argument is just a means to an end. If the cap disappeared tomorrow, we’d never hear about it again.
Yes. If the artificial system that was put in place to restrict the teams but was applied in a manner that the teams who couldn’t compete in a free market now unfairly benefits them was altered/removed.
People would stop complaining.
If you took your finger out of my eye. I would also stop complaining about your finger being in my eye.
As I’ve said before, send your complaints to the owners of your favorite team. They put the cap in place. Not me. Believe it or not, they like their record profits.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 25,161
- 12,784
Fully aware, so goes in the escrow pool
Covid years are different, see the MOU for explanation on escrow repayment.11 NHL teams carry extra salary-cap hit into next season
With a salary cap that has risen just $2 million total over the past five seasons, NHL teams continue to
According to this article. Every single team was over the cap in actual cash
NHL Teams With Highest 2023-24 Payrolls: Colorado Avalanche on Top
Find out how much each NHL payroll amounts to cash-wise, including how much league leaders Colorado Avalanche are spending.
No team was at the midpoint according to that article (which surprises me but it’s good for thought. It might not be accurate)
They had no interest in that system.
They players got smarter, and figured out they were just adding an additional 5% on top of the escrow they already owed.
There is no buying cap, because it’s not in the CBA.
Maybe they discuss it in 2 years time, but I’d say the chance is 0.0001%, never say never.
Ok so I guess there is no reason for you to continue commenting? You can’t implement the tax reforms you are debating. Soooo you are done? You also can’t coach the team trade for players or draft. So I guess there isn’t much for you to post about?
you know the players had no interest in that system? There is no buying of cap because it is not in the CBA. Yes. If it was, then it would ruin the competitive balance the owners wanted to create via cap
Players don’t like escrow. Therefore the cap implementationhad nothing to do with parity and competitive balance.
Even though there was an article from. May 2004 that directly quoted the Presidents of Tampa and Arizona specifically saying they want a cap because of competitive balance?
Last edited:
Oh, personally, I think nothing significant is going to change about the salary cap in the next CBA and I’m fine with that. But the people that want change should at least be semi-realistic about how it would look. That’s why I keep throwing the luxury tax idea out there. If the richest teams did want to spend over the cap (which I don’t think they do) it’s the cheapest and easiest way to do it while still maintaining cost certainty.
I haven’t read through 20 pages of this, but people are nuts if they think it’s all taxes. Panthers had this “loophole” for almost 20 years and are just now good. But, it took Zito finding guys who needed a fresh start, who also fit into what he was trying to put together, to get there. I mean, Bennett,
Reino, Montour, Forsling, OEL, even Mikkola to a degree and Kulikov. Forsling is the biggest one.
Lightning found guys in late rounds, and also used LTIR.
It’s disingenuous to just point at the “tax break.” It takes a mindset, guys who aren’t selfish, who buy in. I watched the Lightning dive in front of pucks, it’s a lot more than taxes.
Reino, Montour, Forsling, OEL, even Mikkola to a degree and Kulikov. Forsling is the biggest one.
Lightning found guys in late rounds, and also used LTIR.
It’s disingenuous to just point at the “tax break.” It takes a mindset, guys who aren’t selfish, who buy in. I watched the Lightning dive in front of pucks, it’s a lot more than taxes.
I agree. It should go from have and have nots to have more and have less. Because teams that pay the bills should get better perks. Just like first class should get perks. But everyone gets on the plane.
But it’s not about what I want. It’s about what’s fair. The NHL chose to implement the cap they way they did. They did it openly talking about competitive balance. They now have tipped the scales and need to make it fair.
No one is saying it is the only reason people sign there. It is why they are getting playerd
To sign for less aav/same take home allowing an unfair advantage.
In the system they created to stop that.
The same teams like Tampa were the ones with the president Campbell crying about it being unfair. Only now to keep their mouths shut when they have the. Hammer
So you read the above, all the Panther players mentioned, and still wrote the second sentence? L.M.A.O.
Florida not taking advantage of their clear advantage that has been openly and repeatedly acknowledged by NHl players agents gms accountants and wealth management specialists does not mean it didn’t exist.
Toronto and NYR could buy the league and had one cup between them in the last 100 years.
I guess they didn’t have an advantage?
Considering they tried multiple times BEFORE the Cap existed and have 1 Cup between them aince 67, what did it matter? They threw money at everyone they could and didn’t take into account what I said above. Really poor examples.
Again, there’s more to it than just “tax advantage:”
Again. Lmao.
Cap’s existed 20 years, we have one of the highest paid goalies in the league (the highest?) whose contract was an albatross a couple years ago…we didn’t get here because of a “tax advantage.” But sure, “correct” it.
The point that’s over yours and others heads is, teams that struggle to get there now, will struggle then.
The systemic tax advantage is proven. Just because your team in your opinion chose not to use it.
That doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.
Just like Torontos advantage in having unlimited cap was still there. Even though they blew it.
It’s indisputable. It has been openly acknowledged and calculated
Conflating: success and advantage is just silly
It…it’s not my opinion. It’s a fact. The Panthers were crap due to ownership forever.
One more time though since it went over your head…it has a lot more to do with having a loophole. NY and Toronto proved that pre-cap. Lemme know when you figure out how, I won’t be holding my breath.
I have no idea what you are saying.
I don’t think we disagree.
Florida has made smart trades. Signings and has excellent management.
Even without the advantage. There is still plenty of reason to sign there. I would.
But there is still an advantage that needs to be corrected.
For all no state tax teams. Regardless of current success. You are the only person here who mentioned Florida.
Yeah, cause we’re a team that has the advantage.
It had nothing to do with signing, I said it in my original post. It’s about finding the right players, system, etc. And we’re going to become victims of our success. Reino, Stenlund, Lomberg, Montour, OEL, Stolarz, and others are due a new contract. Verhaeghe and Bennett right behind them. Sure, we’ll get a couple on “team/tax friendly” deals, but we’re going to lose a key player or a few.
The tax advantage won’t bring them all back; but I’ll guarantee Zito will look for guys similar to what he’s recently found.
Hint: Zito wasn’t giving Bob a $10 mil contract.
