“parity” was absolutely a selling point. It wasn’t just about cost certainty. If it was then other teams could spend different amounts as long as it adds up to 50% of HRR
Idea re taxes and salary cap
- Thread starter tinyzombies
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
“parity” was absolutely a selling point. It wasn’t just about cost certainty. If it was then other teams could spend different amounts as long as it adds up to 50% of HRR
- Mar 4, 2004
- 30,691
- 31,209
different amounts like the difference between the cap floor and ceiling?
sure. They absolutely could. IF there was no parity requirement. Why not?
As long as the players salaries are 50% of HRR at the end of the day. There is nothing that would preclude some teams having higher cap.
ClydeLee
Registered User
- Mar 23, 2012
- 12,578
- 6,048
And thats exactly what we have here with several, mostly Leafs fans, going on and on about big markets being disadvantaged when really it's just a lack of having the total control they would prefer to have.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 27,941
- 14,874
Why not fix the exchange difference , that would be more fair for Canadian teams?
End on a Hinote
Registered Abuser
I never heard the owners of the Nordiques, Jets and all the others at the first lockout wanting parity. It was always the same things: Players salaries are getting too high, they're rising too fast, we need a system to cap the player's salary. It was always about cost certainty then, it still was in 2004. And never heard in the last lockout they wanted more parity either.
you must have missed the memo then. It has been discussed a million times.
Cost certainty does not require parity. There is no reason to make the same cap for every team if it’s not about parity.
- Mar 4, 2004
- 30,691
- 31,209
But there is no parity requirement beyond the cap floor and ceiling, which forces low spending franchises to ice a team that at least remotely resembles and NHL caliber roster.
There is nothing to preclude some teams having a higher cap because the main goal is not fairness between teams. It's cost certainty for the owners.
Why would the league get into the minutiae of regional taxes when they allow a $20 million leeway in what the franchises can spend? The goal was never to make things as fair as possible.
How much parity do you read in all of this? It was always about the $$$ or getting new arenas to generate more $$$. If owners really wanted more parity, it would have been solved a long time ago. You wouldn't see teams in the basement of the standings for years, and missing the playoff for close to 10 years. They care mainly about the % of the salaries they're paying the players, and how much they're getting back if they're paying too much.
SMALL-CITY NHL FRANCHISES CRYING POOR, BUT ARE THEY?
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 27,941
- 14,874
How would you even go about this? Let's take Matthews, who gets paid most of his salary in signing bonuses in the summer where his main residence is in Arizona, who has no state income tax. How would his count? In the US you can write off so many things, does each write off count against the cap? You also get deductions for state sales tax, property taxes etc, how are those handled? And then we're not even getting into you have to pay taxes on game day checks where you played the game so now you have to do this entire thing individually for each person for each team for each game played. How does that work?
Also please stop saying there are places with no income tax. Everyone has income tax, they might not have a state income tax but they have federal income taxes. Also states with no income tax tend to have higher property, sales, wheel and business taxes.
The government is always going to take more than their share, no matter where you live, it's just how they collect it.
Also please stop saying there are places with no income tax. Everyone has income tax, they might not have a state income tax but they have federal income taxes. Also states with no income tax tend to have higher property, sales, wheel and business taxes.
The government is always going to take more than their share, no matter where you live, it's just how they collect it.
Toronto still couldnt come close to a Cup even when they could spend as much as they want so I really dont understand why they're complaining so much
DistantThunderRep
Registered User
- Mar 8, 2018
- 21,045
- 17,815
This thread, like all of them divulged into one user who is doing this...
How many times have the Panthers made the playoffs since the cap became a thing?
Surely if the state taxation was such an advantage they’d have had some semblance of success but nope.
Vegas and Tampa draw because they can give players money, competitive team, the ability to blend into society, weather, cheap housing.
People just seem to be jealous of well run Tampa and Vegas.
Surely if the state taxation was such an advantage they’d have had some semblance of success but nope.
Vegas and Tampa draw because they can give players money, competitive team, the ability to blend into society, weather, cheap housing.
People just seem to be jealous of well run Tampa and Vegas.
ClydeLee
Registered User
- Mar 23, 2012
- 12,578
- 6,048
There's a mix of the well run. It often happens to be cup favorites who couldn't win yet that gets the lets keep this together discount deals. You do get the occasional great post win deals, but usually side pieces.
Once you win a cup, those guys with a cup on the resume begin asking for that extra boost that their value carries. It seems to be the hot topic now because it conveniently is teams like Tampa or Vegas making that status. But in thr 2010s teams like the Sharks or Ducks were seen as getting extensions on solid value deals because it's that near cup winner path. But just between them LA couldn't pull that since their players did have the cups to bargain for more with.
End of Line
Sic Semper Tyrannis
- Mar 20, 2009
- 29,343
- 6,983
Throw some shit into the harbor as a protest and dress up as a fan of another team while you do so.
A simpler, more straightforward, and total fix is to just have the salary cap be on post-tax salary, not pre-tax salary. Solves your problem right there.
I don't know why the Canadian, Californian, and Northeast teams aren't lobbying for that, though perhaps they are and I just don't know about it.
DistantThunderRep
Registered User
- Mar 8, 2018
- 21,045
- 17,815
Realistically, if you thought they were, you basically described over half the league and the majority of the biggest teams in the league. Do you think if this was such a big deal to them, they wouldn't implement the simplest solution which you proposed?
The only ones really complaining are fans, because it's our nature to dissect every facet of the sport we love. If it wasn't for hockey, there is absolutely zero f***ing reason I would know the income tax rates in a foreign country by freaking state and every province in my own country.
It would be a zero sum change leaguewide, so no it's not likely a majority of teams. Bettman and co. hold sway if it's not a clear majority of clubs pushing something.
DistantThunderRep
Registered User
- Mar 8, 2018
- 21,045
- 17,815
It's not a zero sum change. There are glaring factors of why doing money after tax is problematic.
A real basic one is the whole league would have to do a refactor of the cap, and Toronto will still cry like babies because their GM doesn't understand the word "Negotiate" when it came to their core.
Re-setting the cap is not a serious obstacle. That's easy. Transition it over like 5 years or something. No idea what you're talking about with respect to the Leafs.
DistantThunderRep
Registered User
- Mar 8, 2018
- 21,045
- 17,815
Even if you took their actual dollars after tax in the city, they are still paying a huge amount in comparison to most teams.
- Mar 4, 2004
- 30,691
- 31,209
Exactly.
I still don't follow why the league should wade into local tax differences among franchises to make things "fair" when they allow a $20 million spread in what teams can spend on players in a given year. The goal has never been absolute fairness.
Spazkat
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2015
- 4,363
- 2,277
What "exchange difference" are you talking about? Players are paid in USD which is actually worth 1.337CAD atm so... not sure what you're getting at with this
Odd that its almost exclusively Toronto fans bringing this up eh?
