An idea to remove the cap advantage for no tax states

Status
Not open for further replies.

PenguinSuitedUp

Registered User
Sponsor
Oct 2, 2019
1,165
1,457
I agree however the league already capped the spending of the rich teams instead of making the poor teams work harder to make money. Therefore you shouldn’t save one and not the other.
The wealthier teams can spend as much as they want- they can pour money into marketing, property and equipment, staff (scouting, development, etc), and numerous other things.

Meanwhile, the poorer teams are being forced to work harder, because there is a minimum spend requirement. In order to justify spending to the min, teams will need to be competitive to bring fans into the arenas and sell more merch, which will help drive revenue above and beyond spend on salary.

What the cap has done is allow franchises in smaller markets an opportunity to right the ship until they become more viable in their markets in a more sustainable way. And it’s prevented us from having to watch the same six franchises be prominent year in and year out, forcing them to finally work on spending smartly rather than just throwing piles of money wherever and hoping it sticks.

Just find out whatever the overall percentage that tax free teams get over every other team and than allow said teams to go over it by the exact same percentage.
It’s not that simple. Players will get taxed more or less in a year based on the schedule of games they play. If you live in a tax-free state, you are still going to get taxed for the days you spent working/playing games in New Jersey, California, New York, Massachusetts, etc.
 

PenguinSuitedUp

Registered User
Sponsor
Oct 2, 2019
1,165
1,457
Nobody cares how much money these millionaires are taking home. They just want their teams to be able to spend more money. With a soft cap, we can quit pretending like we care about taxes and cut to the chase.

If the owners aren’t willing to do that, they definitely won’t be willing to do any of these other more difficult or complex proposals.
A soft cap will give way more significant cap advantages to New York, Toronto, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc. that’s a non-starter for me.
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
16,150
2,105
Chicago, IL
Visit site
Nobody cares how much money these millionaires are taking home. They just want their teams to be able to spend more money. With a soft cap, we can quit pretending like we care about taxes and cut to the chase.

If the owners aren’t willing to do that, they definitely won’t be willing to do any of these other more difficult or complex proposals.
The issue is that the owners proved their resolve to get linkage between HRR revenue and player costs. They have defended that linkage at EVERY opportunity, and the VAST majority of owners want it this way. Some fans, who either don't remember the pre-cap days or were a fan of the 6-8 teams which were able to take advantage of owner/market dynamics to have a VERY significant advantage, pine for the days where the playing field was completely skewed.

The goal of the cap in the CBA was to create the linkage - with "parity" being a distance 2nd. The owners aren't going to give up the linkage aspect to slightly improve parity when the no-tax state impact is almost certainly less than a 5% difference. That's a rounding error compared to other known and allowed issues in with the Cap.
 

CheckingLineCenter

Registered User
Aug 10, 2018
9,435
10,275
What is the actual math on the difference in take home pay for avg salary ($3.5M)? I’ve seen calculations before that are just wrong (don’t account for tax law, road games, etc).

Because back of the napkin in my head… this is one of the most overblown issues there is, especially in a league that’s highest paid players are making peanuts compared to other sports leagues that have no problem with it.
 

Laus723

Graceful brutality
Sponsor
Jan 27, 2006
32,192
7,134
Wellington, FL
Should we also apply cap adjustments to teams who are in markets where more endorsement deals are available? What about adjustments for cost of living? Should we update cap for changes in the currency exchange rate?

The answer is no. Florida was a loser franchise for years, and players had no interest in sacrificing money to go there. Canadian fans complained about the fact that there is a franchise in Florida for two decades. Now that Florida is winning, they want to reduce their ability to compete. Winning is driving Florida’s contracts down, not tax dollars.
BOOM. This!! So much this.

Panthers have owners who busted ass for a decade to get a Cup, pulled the franchise up from ashes the previous ownership group burned it down to, northerners bitched and moaned our whole existence while not having a clue wtf was going on and why we were where we were…but now that we’ve won a Cup, the owners renovated War Memorial so the players have a great practice facility, owners are invested in the community overall... Zito’s found bargain players, he's spent wisely, we just lost Monty, OEL, and Lomberg to name a few…but “tax advantage.”

It’s called having a great GM and great owners
 
Last edited:

Pete Taylor

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
127
206
Pete - you are 100% incorrect. I'm a CPA, and there isn't a tax accountant on the planet that can get you out paying income taxes.
Beukeboom, I should have not said 'nothing'. In reference to tax, there are ways to significantly mitigate what you pay, and I am sure that you know this.
 

Dr Jan Itor

Registered User
Dec 10, 2009
46,763
21,530
MinneSNOWta
The league would have to pull money out of the no-tax state players at a certain %. Can't do anything with the actual cap. Not sure where that money would end up going though.
 

SomeDude

Registered User
Mar 6, 2006
18,247
31,211
Pittsburghish
So after this is tried and most good players still don’t want to go to Canadian markets I am guessing the next step would be to give Canadian teams extra cap to offset not having cities with warm climates and having to deal with insufferable and rabid fan bases and media.
 

tucker3434

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 7, 2007
20,300
11,358
Atlanta, GA
The issue is that the owners proved their resolve to get linkage between HRR revenue and player costs. They have defended that linkage at EVERY opportunity, and the VAST majority of owners want it this way. Some fans, who either don't remember the pre-cap days or were a fan of the 6-8 teams which were able to take advantage of owner/market dynamics to have a VERY significant advantage, pine for the days where the playing field was completely skewed.

The goal of the cap in the CBA was to create the linkage - with "parity" being a distance 2nd. The owners aren't going to give up the linkage aspect to slightly improve parity when the no-tax state impact is almost certainly less than a 5% difference. That's a rounding error compared to other known and allowed issues in with the Cap.

I’m just playing devil’s advocate. It is my opinion that the owners (all of them) love having a hard cap on their largest expense line item. They want their managers to figure out how to make it work in a system that rewards them with record profits year after year. This is, after all, a business.

But… if they did wake up one morning and decide they hate money, you wouldn’t have to light it on fire in the most difficult way possible.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
29,807
18,025
Pete - you are 100% incorrect. I'm a CPA, and there isn't a tax accountant on the planet that can get you out paying income taxes.

1720450965209.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad