Let’s even the playing field…after tax payroll cap

[Hedmonster Bolt]

 

[Flipwon]

Players are paid in USD, so factor that in too as a pro for players playing in Canadian markets.

Someone making 1mil walks away with 1.28 CAD.

Tax loopholes, charity etc. Thered ways to minimize the discrepancy.

Also, I believe when Tampa plays in OTT, MTL, TOR, they get taxed by the canadian tax code.

There is a slight difference but not as big as people make it out to be. I think weather and media and quality of life play more of a role. The States are just a better place to live if you're rich.

This tax conversation comes up a lot, and there is always someone that comes up with this absolutely dog water argument and a host of people that agree with them. This to me is proof enough that a lot of people on this board have zero common sense and are not worth debating with.

 

[LOFIN]

Let's not pretend like there aren't any advantages with some of the highly taxed cities of NHL teams. I don't want to hear a Toronto fan crying about how the taxes are unfair, when basically the majority of Canadian players would like to play there at some point of their career and the players can earn stuff on advertising much more than in the states etc.

Tampa isn't a b2b champion because of the low taxes. They just have a really well ran organization.

 

[TGWL]

And then let's make sure to adjust cost of living - because paying 3k+ for an apartment is just too much.

 

[THE HOFF]

THE HOFF probably doesn't even realize that all Canadian other teams other than Toronto and Montreal would have folded in the 1990s without the NHL welfare he loves to rant about.

hey man, If you are not educated on the matter feel free to sit one out - The salary cap and revenue sharing were adopted in 2005, 10 years after the Nordiques and the Jets were relocated.

 

[TaLoN]

I mean truthfully this should be done. I thought the NHL was all about fairness between teams? Best part is the fans of the poor teams in low tax areas, who all wanted a cap, are soo against this because they lose their advantage.


And the Rangers stunk without the salary cap even though they spent the most money, what's your point?

The cap is about cost certainty for the owners and thus allows all teams to survive financially. The Rangers were never in danger of struggling financially before the cap.

The tax situation in Florida is not why Tampa is succeeding now vs Toronto. Good drafting/ development and management are.

The Panthers have the same tax benefits and have not remotely had anything close to the success in Tampa.

Boston and their higher taxes have been another very successful franchise of recent times.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I mean truthfully this should be done. I thought the NHL was all about fairness between teams? Best part is the fans of the poor teams in low tax areas, who all wanted a cap, are soo against this because they lose their advantage.


And the Rangers stunk without the salary cap even though they spent the most money, what's your point?

The point is that the OP's premise is wrong.

And where did you get the idea the NHL was about fairness between teams? The cap is about cost certainty.

And as has been explained to death in this thread and all the previous ones, trying to sort out the taxes would be incredibly complicated while also ignoring other factors cost of living, endorsement potential, quality of life for each player.

The no-tax silliness didn't start until Tampa started dominating and Canadian teams that were supposed to be winning kept crapping the bed.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

The cap is about cost certainty for the owners and thus allows all teams to survive financially. The Rangers were never in danger of struggling financially before the cap.

The tax situation in Florida is not why Tampa is succeeding now vs Toronto. Good drafting/ development and management are.

The Panthers have the same tax benefits and have not remotely had anything close to the success in Tampa.

Boston and their higher taxes have been another very successful franchise of recent times.

Eh, see I never fully bought that, IMO it was more about making an even playing field. If what you said was the truth then they would or should have went a to a luxary tax. That way the rich teams could spend as much as they want and would end up giving the poor teams money and help their financial situation. They didnt do that however.

The point is that the OP's premise is wrong.

And where did you get the idea the NHL was about fairness between teams? The cap is about cost certainty.

And as has been explained to death in this thread and all the previous ones, trying to sort out the taxes would be incredibly complicated while also ignoring other factors cost of living, endorsement potential, quality of life for each player.

The no-tax silliness didn't start until Tampa started dominating and Canadian teams that were supposed to be winning kept crapping the bed.

Because if it was about cost certainity they would have implemented a luxury tax, not a hard cap. In a luxury tax world the poor teams would have gotten a lot more money.

 

[dekelikekocur]

Eh, see I never fully bought that, IMO it was more about making an even playing field. If what you said was the truth then they would or should have went a to a luxary tax. That way the rich teams could spend as much as they want and would end up giving the poor teams money and help their financial situation. They didnt do that however.


Because if it was about cost certainity they would have implemented a luxury tax, not a hard cap. In a luxury tax world the poor teams would have gotten a lot more money.

A luxury tax doesn't ensure cost certainty. A hard cap sets the revenue share to be an explicit percent value ie cost certainty. A luxury tax would just screw over players more with higher escrow values while also decreasing the owners share of revenue, you know, the exact opposite of what owners wanted.

 

[triggrman]

This dead horse again. Quick, grab my whip.

 

[Golden_Jet]

A luxury tax doesn't ensure cost certainty. A hard cap sets the revenue share to be an explicit percent value ie cost certainty. A luxury tax would just screw over players more with higher escrow values while also decreasing the owners share of revenue, you know, the exact opposite of what owners wanted.

Well written, that’s exactly what would happen, fans don’t think of escrow etc.

 

[LaCarriere]

Eh, see I never fully bought that, IMO it was more about making an even playing field. If what you said was the truth then they would or should have went a to a luxary tax. That way the rich teams could spend as much as they want and would end up giving the poor teams money and help their financial situation. They didnt do that however.


Because if it was about cost certainity they would have implemented a luxury tax, not a hard cap. In a luxury tax world the poor teams would have gotten a lot more money.

Yes and no. The cap was for cost certainty and to try and have parity.

However you can't have a hard cap without a cap floor. You can't have a hard cap of say, 80M, and small market team spend 5M on basically an AHL roster, that wouldn't be good for the game. It would look bad. And there arent enough markets that can freely spend that kind of money. You need a cap floor. That's where revenue sharing came in.

And I personally don't want to see a soft cap/luxury tax, just to watch toronto and NY buy contention yearly with 150M rosters. We already have seen toronto willing to throw 50M at a coach since they couldnt spend it on players, only to fire him 4 years into his 8 year deal.

 

[kaiser matias]

hey man, If you are not educated on the matter feel free to sit one out - The salary cap and revenue sharing were adopted in 2005, 10 years after the Nordiques and the Jets were relocated.

He's referring to the Canadian Currency Assistance Plan, which was implemented late in the 1990s and ran through the 2004 lockout: NHL extends Canadian assistance.

If you're going to call someone out for being uneducated on a subject, it's best you know what is being discussed first.

 

[THE HOFF]

He's referring to the Canadian Currency Assistance Plan, which was implemented late in the 1990s and ran through the 2004 lockout: NHL extends Canadian assistance.

If you're going to call someone out for being uneducated on a subject, it's best you know what is being discussed first.

I did not think someone would actually dare consider the Canadian assistance plan ''safety net'' as a comparable to a salary cap and revenue sharing like we know today. but okay, Just as a comparable, 2.7 millions for 4 teams every year is still quite a few millions off what the coyotes get every year. Between 12 to 15 other franchises are collecting every year as well.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

I love the threads on this topic. So funny and pathetic at the same time, that's rare.

 

[BayStBullies]

I love the threads on this topic. So funny and pathetic at the same time, that's rare.

If you're a Vegas fan, I can see why you'd want to ignore your team being advantaged.

This dead horse again. Quick, grab my whip.

Yup, a persistent issue that has never been addressed feels like a dead horse. Forgetting all problems because they tire you isn't a productive way to live.

 

[BB88]

So why did Stamkos sign for 8.5 after fielding offers of 10 on the open market.

Vasilevsky takes 9.5 after Price gets 10.5.

Pretty sure Kucherov settled for 9.5 after the Matthews and McDavid contracts.

Point took 9.5 after Marner’s 10.9 with less term.

Hedman has a 7.875 cap hit.

There’s guys who want to win and there’s guys who want to get paid.

For example Bergeron/Marchand/Pasta have all talked about it’s about winning, if you want the most money go elsewhere.

Tampa players are as well clearly committed to winning

 

[letsgrowcactus]

Florida and Dallas has consistently excelled? Panthers have missed the playoffs in 3 of the past 5 seasons and Dallas has also missed twice. Both teams were demolished in the most recent playoffs as well.

Seriously. Starting from the 2000/2001 season, the Panthers have played all of 31 playoff games. Remove this season and it's 21 playoff games. Remove the so-called play-ins and you get to a whooping 17 playoff games in 19 seasons of hockey. What a successful franchise!!!

One playoff series won since 1996. Including the play-ins, they've made the playoffs 5 times since the 2000/2001 season. To be clear, this futility was caused by awful front office and ownership. But to make an argument "massive tax advantage, need to fix it ASAP!!!" and then name the Florida Panthers as a team who benefited from it and "excelled"? ROTFLMAO.

Yes, there are multiple reasons that play into where a players signs and not all of them are hockey-related. But this "even the taxes!" crusade is honestly getting old. Will we re-calculate things next by considering the price of hausing in the area? "Previous success" tax because obviously guys want to play for successful teams and that is unfair?

How do you account for trades in this fantastic new system?

 

[triggrman]

If you're a Vegas fan, I can see why you'd want to ignore your team being advantaged.


Yup, a persistent issue that has never been addressed feels like a dead horse. Forgetting all problems because they tire you isn't a productive way to live.

Everyone pays taxes. If it’s not income, it’s sales tax, wheel, gas, property, etc. Incime tax is just a method of collecting it. You’re taxed in where you earn the money, so only the home games or signing bonus, if you live there during the off season. Tax shelters are real. The only true fair way would be for everyone to make their tax returns public, good luck with that.

 

[kerrabria]

Haven't read through this thread, but let's even the playing field: no signing bonuses

Everyone pays taxes. If it’s not income, it’s sales tax, wheel, gas, property, etc. Incime tax is just a method of collecting it. You’re taxed in where you earn the money, so only the home games or signing bonus, if you live there during the off season. Tax shelters are real. The only true fair way would be for everyone to make their tax returns public, good luck with that.

In all fairness, Vegas residents pay very little. Not only do they not have any state tax, but they have some of the lowest property taxes in the country and very modest sales tax.

 

[kerrabria]

Eh, see I never fully bought that, IMO it was more about making an even playing field. If what you said was the truth then they would or should have went a to a luxary tax. That way the rich teams could spend as much as they want and would end up giving the poor teams money and help their financial situation. They didnt do that however.

It is a non-debatable fact that the hard cap was implemented to shield owners from rapidly rising player contracts. "Parity" is just the PR fig leaf that the league uses to deflect from an uncomfortable truth. Same way the "geographic balance" talking point is demonstrably horsecrap, but they'll say it anyway to avoid admitting the legal issues with putting a team in Hamilton, the million reasons why a team doesn't belong in Quebec, and play down the concerns of southern teams relocating.

 

[Djp]

The point is that the OP's premise is wrong.

And where did you get the idea the NHL was about fairness between teams? The cap is about cost certainty.

And as has been explained to death in this thread and all the previous ones, trying to sort out the taxes would be incredibly complicated while also ignoring other factors cost of living, endorsement potential, quality of life for each player.

The no-tax silliness didn't start until Tampa started dominating and Canadian teams that were supposed to be winning kept crapping the bed.

i laugh at this too….the income tax is a non factor.

in the US state sales tax+ state income tax+ state property taxes is what funds the government. A state that has no state income tax have higher taxes elsewhere.

also players pay taxes based on where the games are played. Half the income earned is tied to road site locations.

other factors are lifestyle, local housing costs, education systems ( UFAs start having kids).

if you are making millions youare very well off that the taxes is negligible.

 

[HisNoodliness]

If you guys think NHL players pay taxes then you've never met an accountant

 

[VivaLasVegas]

If you're a Vegas fan, I can see why you'd want to ignore your team being advantaged.


Yup, a persistent issue that has never been addressed feels like a dead horse. Forgetting all problems because they tire you isn't a productive way to live.

It's never been addressed because it's a non-issue. It is, however, a convenient excuse for consistent suckage.

 

[CanadienShark]

I would say high cost of living, shitty weather and overall quality of life are a bigger issue than taxes. As mentioned above players get taxed on road games.

I mean Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton are all terrible compared to the majority of US cities in the NHL.

What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Montreal is incredible. I'd call it the best city in North America.

You sound like someone who's never left their small town in some rural state.