Proposal: Something has to Change - Net Salary Advantages to select NHL teams, and Disadvantages to others

[Laus723]

It is fair, just because some whinny (and HOLY SHIT are you whinny) fan on the internet says otherwise doesn't make it so.

Those players signed discounts for many reasons (weather, city, great team, great owner ect.), just because because your team doesn't have those advantages doesn't mean the NHL should or will try to even "even" things out.

Great post. He’s hopeless though. He refuses to look at reality no matter how many times it’s presented to him. What’s even more funny is that he counters his own points and still doesn’t see it.

His team is a failure because Dallas, Vegas, and Florida are tax free states…and ya can’t tell him otherwise.

 

[TBF1972]

Yes you can. Because you specifically decided to regulate the salaries and artificially created parity through a cap.

How people don’t understand this is mind boggling

The NHL is free to choose what they cap. They chose to cap the salaries. Not endorsements. Not weather. Not media. Not fans not investments.

Salaries. They created an artificial system.

The NHL to my knowledge does not limit scouts. That is not an unfair advantage.

But If they restricted the amount of scouts, but let some teams have more. Would you agree with that?

so you want simply a system that benefits your team. unless your team isn't winning the cup every other year you will crying out loud about lack of fairness. go on ....

... without me

 

[kcunac]

Any one think it's a coincidence that the final 3 of the 4 teams were from tax free states???

I actually think the lingering nepotism is the main thing keeping the Canadian ‘old boy’s club’ teams from competing.

 

[cowboy82nd]

Yes you can. Because you specifically decided to regulate the salaries and artificially created parity through a cap.

How people don’t understand this is mind boggling

The NHL is free to choose what they cap. They chose to cap the salaries. Not endorsements. Not weather. Not media. Not fans not investments.

Salaries. They created an artificial system.

The NHL to my knowledge does not limit scouts. That is not an unfair advantage.

But If they restricted the amount of scouts, but let some teams have more. Would you agree with that?

And why did they choose to put a cap on salaries, cost control for the owners. Has NOTHING to do with parity.

 

[tucker3434]

No it isn’t? Parity was specifically put into the cap.

The players get 50% of HRR. There is NOTHING in
Cost certainty that says every team gets the same cap, any more than every player gets the same salary.

It isn’t hard

I feel like it’s implied based on what the salary cap is and why it exists at all. They don’t want to spend more money on their accounting and legal payroll so that a handful of teams can spend a bit more on their player payroll. Literally all of that goes against why the cap was created.

 

[cowboy82nd]

No it isn’t? Parity was specifically put into the cap.

The players get 50% of HRR. There is NOTHING in
Cost certainty that says every team gets the same cap, any more than every player gets the same salary.

It isn’t hard

That's what cost certainty is. Knowing how much you can spend on your players payroll. Every owner know that he can spend $85 million (or less) on players salaries. Can't go higher. Doesn't have anything to do with how much players take home.

 

[saintunspecified]

Personally, school/mass shootings and racism are reasons I would not raise my kid in many places in the US, including some of the low tax cities.

As an aside, and so it doesn’t seem like I’m picking only on the US, I’m from Vancouver and had an opportunity at the end of my current position to return. I choose Ottawa. While Vancouver is beautiful, the drugs and to a lesser extent crime are out of hand and I’d rather we all freeze out butts then expose my kids to that. Ottawa has everything going for it for a family environment, just a terrible winter.

I think the thing that is most important with respect to the total cost of living in some place (taxes is only a part) is: do you feel (relatively speaking) that you are getting what you pay for? There's a TON that goes into that. As as heavily taxed NYC resident, I can say that there are times I feel I do get what I pay for, and there are times when I feel completely ripped off. I feel pretty good on balance, especially during beach season.

Anyway, that evaluation is probably different for everyone. I've been to Montreal a lot, and have family there. I find it difficult to believe that, even for high income pro athletes, that you-get-what-you-pay for balance in Montreal is anything but a advantage relative to other places on average. Maybe not a big one, but not a disadvantage.

 

[Legion34]

That's what cost certainty is. Knowing how much you can spend on your players payroll. Every owner know that he can spend $85 million (or less) on players salaries. Can't go higher. Doesn't have anything to do with how much players take home.

No. Cost certainty is knowing that the players get 50% of HRR.

There is nothing that says that every team has to have equal cap as part of certainty.

If you have 100 for groceries and have to by 32 items. Your 100 is cost certainty. There is nothing to suggest that you have to spend equally on each item. You may budget more for some than others.

The fact that the NHL makes teams all adhere to equal limits is not cost certainty. It’s parity

 

[Voight]

Maybe tell your teams owner to stop overpaying every player with QC roots. Good start.

 

[tucker3434]

No. Cost certainty is knowing that the players get 50% of HRR.

There is nothing that says that every team has to have equal cap as part of certainty.

If you have 100 for groceries and have to by 32 items. Your 100 is cost certainty. There is nothing to suggest that you have to spend equally on each item. You may budget more for some than others.

The fact that the NHL makes teams all adhere to equal limits is not cost certainty. It’s parity

It’s simplicity. The salary cap is so straight forward because nobody wants to dedicate any more time to it than they absolutely have to. Cap compliance is expense-only. You’re never adding any revenue through additional cap compliance which is why nobody would go for it.

 

[Craig Ludwig]

Funny you talk about simple math and can’t read when I started posting here. Then you claim immaturity from me while posting…whatever tf that was.

Literally nothing he’s presented here to prove why your whiny premise of “my team should get a 12 million dollar higher cap ceiling” holds water has actually held. He presents what he thinks are facts in one post then shows why they don’t matter.

It’s a lame excuse. The tax break hasn’t helped Florida in their entire existence until maybe the last two years. With two guys, and even that’s debatable. Yet it’s this big problem.

Respectfully, what hasn't helped Florida, IMHO, is lack of any attendance (or much attendance from opposing teams), and one pretty bad contract in nets. More and more teams are proving that you don't need a superstar in nets to win. Get rid of Bob's contract and hopefully Knight can come back strong and that would make a big difference. Then you can add two quality players for that salary. Correct me if I'm wrong but it just seems like guys go to Miami like it's a permanent vacation. Love what they did with Tkachuk because maybe he brings more toughness and doesn't let a bunch of the guys just play soft and thinking less about their beach houses after game/practice.

I agree with many here that Montreal media is abhorrent sometimes, but man when that arena is full of 21.000 maniacal fans, it does make a difference.

 

[cowboy82nd]

No. Cost certainty is knowing that the players get 50% of HRR.

There is nothing that says that every team has to have equal cap as part of certainty.

If you have 100 for groceries and have to by 32 items. Your 100 is cost certainty. There is nothing to suggest that you have to spend equally on each item. You may budget more for some than others.

The fact that the NHL makes teams all adhere to equal limits is not cost certainty. It’s parity

That's right, my cost certainty is $100. Just like the GM's cost certainty is $85 million. And I (just like the GM's) don't spend the same on each item.

 

[Legion34]

It’s simplicity. The salary cap is so straight forward because nobody wants to dedicate any more time to it than they absolutely have to. Cap compliance is expense-only. You’re never adding any revenue through additional cap compliance which is why nobody would go for it.

The cap is NOT in any way straight forward. They have paper transactions. Short rosters. Emergency call up rules. LTIR. That’s not simplicity. Revenue sharing. There are people who make millions to navigate the cap.

They have made the most ridiculously complicated system where people are trading for retired platers just to meet the floor.

They easily could have the top revenue teams get more cap. They could let teams buy/trade for cap

They have made it an incredibly complicated system by trying to force parity as part of certainty

 

[Legion34]

That's right, my cost certainty is $100. Just like the GM's cost certainty is $85 million. And I (just like the GM's) don't spend the same on each item.

Yes. And there is NO reason why each team has to get alotted equal cap any more than there is for all players to get the same.

If you have 30 million dollars to go over 3 teams.

You could a lot it any way as long as the total was 30

10. 10. 10
20. 5. 5
15. 10. 5


Etc. all are equally cost certain

 

[tucker3434]

The cap is NOT in any way straight forward. They have paper transactions. Short rosters. Emergency call up rules. LTIR. That’s not simplicity. Revenue sharing. There are people who make millions to navigate the cap.

They have made the most ridiculously complicated system where people are trading for retired platers just to meet the floor.

They easily could have the top revenue teams get more cap. They could let teams buy/trade for cap

They have made it an incredibly complicated system by trying to force parity as part of certainty

99% of transactions can be figured out with a piece of scratch paper and a basic 4 function calculator. For an entity the size of the NHL, that is remarkably simple. Cap proration and LTIR are a bit of a wrinkle, but you could set up an excel spreadsheet to calculate that for you and not really worry too much about it on a day-to-day basis.

People do make good money to manage the cap and I can guarantee you that the owners would do away with that if they could. There is no ROI there beyond not getting popped by the league for a violation. They want to put just enough money towards compliance to meet that goal and not another cent. Owners aren’t voluntarily increasing that number.

Trading for cap basically already happens. Buying cap defeats the purpose of a cap entirely.

 

[Laus723]

Respectfully, what hasn't helped Florida, IMHO, is lack of any attendance (or much attendance from opposing teams), and one pretty bad contract in nets. More and more teams are proving that you don't need a superstar in nets to win. Get rid of Bob's contract and hopefully Knight can come back strong and that would make a big difference. Then you can add two quality players for that salary. Correct me if I'm wrong but it just seems like guys go to Miami like it's a permanent vacation. Love what they did with Tkachuk because maybe he brings more toughness and doesn't let a bunch of the guys just play soft and thinking less about their beach houses after game/practice.

I agree with many here that Montreal media is abhorrent sometimes, but man when that arena is full of 21.000 maniacal fans, it does make a difference.

You just described the years before Zito and mostly the years prior to current ownership. You’re not at all educated on the Panthers existence, how much the game has grown here, how many transplants live here as opposed to anywhere else, or the current climate.

 

[Legion34]

99% of transactions can be figured out with a piece of scratch paper and a basic 4 function calculator. For an entity the size of the NHL, that is remarkably simple. Cap proration and LTIR are a bit of a wrinkle, but you could set up an excel spreadsheet to calculate that for you and not really worry too much about it on a day-to-day basis.

People do make good money to manage the cap and I can guarantee you that the owners would do away with that if they could. There is no ROI there beyond not getting popped by the league for a violation. They want to put just enough money towards compliance to meet that goal and not another cent. Owners aren’t voluntarily increasing that number.

Trading for cap basically already happens. Buying cap defeats the purpose of a cap entirely.

Buying cap does not defeat it. If NYR gets 91.5 and Arizona gets 71.5. It’s the same thing.

There is nothing in any argument that says that teams can not have unequal cap numbers as long as it ends up at 50% hrr

There is nothing to suggest that all these other machinations are simpler.

Funny you talk about simple math and can’t read when I started posting here. Then you claim immaturity from me while posting…whatever tf that was.

Literally nothing he’s presented here to prove why your whiny premise of “my team should get a 12 million dollar higher cap ceiling” holds water has actually held. He presents what he thinks are facts in one post then shows why they don’t matter.

It’s a lame excuse. The tax break hasn’t helped Florida in their entire existence until maybe the last two years. With two guys, and even that’s debatable. Yet it’s this big problem.

When did anyone say “my team should get an extra 12 million”.

I never said that. I used an example of how something would still satisfy cost certainty

Teams don’t need to have equal caps to provide cost certainty

 

[tucker3434]

Buying cap does not defeat it. If NYR gets 91.5 and Arizona gets 71.5. It’s the same thing.

There is nothing in any argument that says that teams can not have unequal cap numbers as long as it ends up at 50% hrr

There is nothing to suggest that all these other machinations are simpler.



When did anyone say “my team should get an extra 12 million”.

I never said that. I used an example of how something would still satisfy cost certainty

Teams don’t need to have equal caps to provide cost certainty

Trading for cap basically already exists. I wouldn’t hold my breath on it becoming an official stand-alone transaction because the optics aren’t great and we’ve already got a decent work around that accomplishes the same goal. I can’t think of a league where a salary cap isn’t uniformly applied.

It sounds like you actually want a luxury tax, but the owners aren’t giving that ground back either.

 

[Laus723]

Buying cap does not defeat it. If NYR gets 91.5 and Arizona gets 71.5. It’s the same thing.

There is nothing in any argument that says that teams can not have unequal cap numbers as long as it ends up at 50% hrr

There is nothing to suggest that all these other machinations are simpler.



When did anyone say “my team should get an extra 12 million”.

I never said that. I used an example of how something would still satisfy cost certainty

Teams don’t need to have equal caps to provide cost certainty

The OP. Again I ask, what’re you even arguing anymore?

 

[Craig Ludwig]

The OP. Again I ask, what’re you even arguing anymore?

Yup, I'm the OP and legion34 corrected me, which I appreciate. I don't see him arguing, I see him bringing up great points and a select few here discussing like adults.

 

[Laus723]

Yup, I'm the OP and legion34 corrected me, which I appreciate. I don't see him arguing, I see him bringing up great points and a select few here discussing like adults.

Lmao, he just asked who mentioned the 12 mil difference, I told him. We’ve been in a back and forth since yesterday and he wasn’t aware of what you stated in the OP (it means original post, not necessarily original postER).

And fine, wtf is he even discussing anymore. You created the thread with a demand for a $12 million difference between non-state tax teams and the others, which I and many others have said is…beyond dumb. He’s been all over the map. But go ahead and think this thread is full of wisdom.

 

[Legion34]

The OP. Again I ask, what’re you even arguing anymore?

1.) That the net income tax advantage has created an unfair landscape that has benefited no state tax teams, who have been able to sign their star players for 11-13% of the cap instead of 14-15.5%, because the players take home the same amount of money

That the RCA argument doesn’t make sense from what I have read from actual agents/players/accounts. BUT if it did create an unfair advantage I would support change.

2.) that is is silly to argue that “just because my team didnt win a cup” doesn’t mean it’s not an advantage. It just means your team didn’t Maximize the advantage

3.) that people make spurious claims about media/weather/endorsements are being silly because their is a difference between using natural advantages, and the NHL artificially stopping the use of advantages. But doing it in a way that is unfair.

4.) that the equal cap was for cost certainty and not parity is wrong. Because you could make plenty of equally cost certain caps with different teams spending different amounts

I listed this out because you seem to get stuck with analogies

 

[Crunchrulz]

Heck, if we are going to propose giving advantages to some organizations over others. why not just dump the current CAP rules and go to the system MLB is using? Let the owners spend what they want to attempt to buy a Championship, then pay a "Luxury" tax once the season has ended.
Sure it will upset things, especially with the small market teams, but what the heck, isn't what fans want is for the teams with the deepest pockets to be able to buy their way to the Cup rather than giving everyone the same level CAP to start and allowing the organizations to be creative from there?
I mean, if that system works so well for the Yankees and Mets in their quests for Championships, imagine how well the Canadians, Red Wings, and Maple Leafs will do with it?

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Coming back to this because it’s such an absurd suggestion lmao. Like how would this even work?

“Oh no, Crosby decided to sign a $100M deal with Reebok. The Pens are now $100M over the cap, time to fold the team. I hope it was worth it Crosby, you greedy bastard”.

Some guy is bitching about difference in tax burden from Canada to the US, and from US state to state. I think if you want to address that, then also address the difference in earning potential. A free agent is likely well aware he can make a lot more off ice income in Montreal, New York or Toronto than he can in Tampa, Dallas or Nashville.

Or- leave things as they are and allow each market to take advantage of their strengths, and try to minimize their weaknesses. All or none.

 

[Laus723]

1.) That the net income tax advantage has created an unfair landscape that has benefited no state tax teams, who have been able to sign their star players for 11-13% of the cap instead of 14-15.5%, because the players take home the same amount of money

That the RCA argument doesn’t make sense from what I have read from actual agents/players/accounts. BUT if it did create an unfair advantage I would support change.

2.) that is is silly to argue that “just because my team didnt win a cup” doesn’t mean it’s not an advantage. It just means your team didn’t Maximize the advantage

3.) that people make spurious claims about media/weather/endorsements are being silly because their is a difference between using natural advantages, and the NHL artificially stopping the use of advantages. But doing it in a way that is unfair.

4.) that the equal cap was for cost certainty and not parity is wrong. Because you could make plenty of equally cost certain caps with different teams spending different amounts

I listed this out because you seem to get stuck with analogies

Lmao. No, you get stuck in not seeing how you continually argue with yourself, and you apparently didn’t know/understand what the premise of the thread was as stated in the OP.

Further, two of the last 3Cups were wont with teams well over the cap as they utilized the LTIR in such a way that it allowed them to do so. These were both no state tax teams, which further throws a wrench into your carrying on.

Your argument, since you tend to get all mixed up, is that there’s an advantage that may or may not need addressing…however you still point out that multiple factors go into a team’s success. Including exceeding the cap come the post-season.

You THINK you’re cleverly proving some point, while also showing how it really doesn’t matter all that much. You say the Panthers didn’t maximize their advantage while also bringing up that they won’t the President’s and went to the Finals over two years.

So again, you can give me all the numbers you want, but what is your argument/discussion? You didn’t even realize what the OP stated yet you’re carrying on as if to prove…what?

Not spending all day going back and forth, my point is this: you’ve argued against yourself to show that each team has advantages AND disadvantages that are greater than others, which may or may not be able to factor into success. Doesn’t mean that it’s actually enabled success to the degree that it needs to be addressed.