Salary Cap: The three things ruining the NHL (Especially Canadian Teams)

[Nineteen67]

Seeing Canada win made me think to myself, why is it that Canadian teams struggle to win? How long can we go without a cup before a course correction is made?

These are the things I identified.

1. The Cap vs Canada's higher taxes. Some sort of resolution must be made at the govt level for pro athletes. It needs a pro sport competitive fairness lobby to ensure that leagues which allow betting have a level playing field.

2. The NMC should not exist. No teams should be bound to a player. It does not make sense and a limited NMC generally should suffice. This obviously again affects cap if you are stuck with a non performing player.

3. The buyout should be a one and done final option with no cap penalty. 1 a year at the very least, why are teams bound to this crazy concept.

Made it a poll to see how others feel.


[[[If you borrow this for your tv segment wave at the camera or something]]]

California has won 3 Cups in 18 yrs. Taxes can’t be the problem.

 

[TMLBlueandWhite]

Seeing Canada win made me think to myself, why is it that Canadian teams struggle to win? How long can we go without a cup before a course correction is made?

These are the things I identified.

1. The Cap vs Canada's higher taxes. Some sort of resolution must be made at the govt level for pro athletes. It needs a pro sport competitive fairness lobby to ensure that leagues which allow betting have a level playing field.

2. The NMC should not exist. No teams should be bound to a player. It does not make sense and a limited NMC generally should suffice. This obviously again affects cap if you are stuck with a non performing player.

3. The buyout should be a one and done final option with no cap penalty. 1 a year at the very least, why are teams bound to this crazy concept.

Made it a poll to see how others feel.


[[[If you borrow this for your tv segment wave at the camera or something]]]

I'm not on board with any of these.

1. Is outside the box thinking. And I mean waaaaay outside the box. Most teams and leagues operate under a principle of transparency anyway. So all public knowledge regarding gambling bets is generally under full disclosure for the bettor. Taxes and gambling don't have anything in common other than taking the average citizen for a ride. It's not up to the league to manage players and teams finances and I doubt they would want the league doing it anyway.

2. Once upon a time a NMC was used as a reward for a star player at the end of his career. Now every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the league gets one as soon as they are eligible. As much as I can understand why a Leafs fan would want them abolished it's not up to the league to prevent teams from shooting themselves in the foot.

3. Compliance buyouts reward inept managers. It's not up to the league to prevent teams from shooting themselves in the foot.

The only one that has any chops is the first one.

That's the only one that is dictated under third party. The other two are fully under a team's control. Too bad taxes are unavoidable and life ain't fair.

These guys are all in the platinum card club anyway so they receive favourable treatment and tax havens us poor working slobs know nothing about.

 

[seanlinden]

That’s just part of the business. The player is still getting millions. I would be ok with a limited trade clause I guess so the players can have a bit of a say but these no move ones really bother me.

"The business" is what players (as a collective) and the league (as a collective) determine it to be. Collectively, they've determined that once a guy has put in an amount of "service" in the league, or has reached an age where he might have kids, that he should be able to negotiate movement protection into his contract.

Don't get me wrong, I have a problem with no-move clauses as well, as I think it would be unreasonable for the guy that signs in Tampa for $9m (turning down Winnipeg at $11m) to be traded to Winnipeg a week later for a 1st round pick. However, I do think players owe the team sort of a 'bare minimum of performance' that they wouldnt want to be rid of him for nothing.

That being said, I think it's on GMs, not the league, to regulate how and when they're giving out the full no-Moves.

 

[thewave]

California has won 3 Cups in 18 yrs. Taxes can’t be the problem.

California has to be the top destination for wealthy young couples. Anywhere Canada is not that and not just for tax reasons.

 

[thewave]

"The business" is what players (as a collective) and the league (as a collective) determine it to be. Collectively, they've determined that once a guy has put in an amount of "service" in the league, or has reached an age where he might have kids, that he should be able to negotiate movement protection into his contract.

Don't get me wrong, I have a problem with no-move clauses as well, as I think it would be unreasonable for the guy that signs in Tampa for $9m (turning down Winnipeg at $11m) to be traded to Winnipeg a week later for a 1st round pick. However, I do think players owe the team sort of a 'bare minimum of performance' that they wouldnt want to be rid of him for nothing.

That being said, I think it's on GMs, not the league, to regulate how and when they're giving out the full no-Moves.

I still believe the only resolution is to lobby a unified tax treaty for professional sports players. It wouldn't be hard to do. There are only what? 4000 pro athletes making over 1 million? Probably even less. They just need to have a special filing designation. They could probably level the playing field in an afternoon brainstorm and pitch it between states.

They could also make a designation and tax pool and split the money equally among states and provinces.

How about if states used pro player taxes into a fund for use for specifically state and provincial sprts and rec initiatives.

How about harmonizing it and earmarked those monies for olympic programs?

Aren't those better ideas?

 

[seanlinden]

I still believe the only resolution is to lobby a unified tax treaty for professional sports players. It wouldn't be hard to do. There are only what? 4000 pro athletes making over 1 million? Probably even less. They just need to have a special filing designation. They could probably level the playing field in an afternoon brainstorm and pitch it between states.

They could also make a designation and tax pool and split the money equally among states and provinces.

How about if states used pro player taxes into a fund for use for specifically state and provincial sprts and rec initiatives.

How about harmonizing it and earmarked those monies for olympic programs?

Aren't those better ideas?

It would be wholly irresponsible for a government to dedicate time and/or resources thinking "how can fix things for 4000 people".

Not sure how many states have teams in them, but asking somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 governments to get together on this? Pigs will fly first.

At the end of the day, a state / province doesn't care, and cannot care, whether somebody is a hockey player or laywer when it comes to taxation purposes.

 

[TMLBlueandWhite]

I still believe the only resolution is to lobby a unified tax treaty for professional sports players. It wouldn't be hard to do. There are only what? 4000 pro athletes making over 1 million? Probably even less. They just need to have a special filing designation. They could probably level the playing field in an afternoon brainstorm and pitch it between states.

They could also make a designation and tax pool and split the money equally among states and provinces.

How about if states used pro player taxes into a fund for use for specifically state and provincial sprts and rec initiatives.

How about harmonizing it and earmarked those monies for olympic programs?

Aren't those better ideas?

I think the whole tax thing is overblown anyway.

Not everyone can play in a sunshine state with no taxes. There's only a few limited number of spaces available. So not many athletes make a move because of tax reasons.

Most just follow the bigger paycheque and use different tax shelters and havens to reduce their amount owing.

 

[MK78]

Interestingly, Kane was making $6.3mm against the Cap their last win.
The next year he was making $10.5mm against the Cap.

Ditto: Jonathan Toews

Now they're a bottom feeder.

Any Leaf fan would take 3 cups in 5 years and they could be bottom feeders for a decade.

 

[ULF_55]

Any Leaf fan would take 3 cups in 5 years and they could be bottom feeders for a decade.

Yep.

As soon Hawks had to pay full rate for Toews and Kane they were done.

Leafs paid full without ever having success.

 

[Guy Boucher]

I have other questions:

Why are teams limited in what % of salary they can retain? Why is it 50%? Why not 100%?

Also why are they limited in how many players they can retain salary on? Why is it only 3?

These things make little sense to me. If I'm a rebuilding team, I want to maximize the returns I get on players (and retain more). If I'm a contending team, I want to add the best players for the lowest price and will pay futures to get that.

This doesn't effect the salary cap (it's one system in the end and revenue is shared with the players).

It just makes player movement more difficult and the league less exciting.

 

[thewave]

It would be wholly irresponsible for a government to dedicate time and/or resources thinking "how can fix things for 4000 people".

Not sure how many states have teams in them, but asking somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 governments to get together on this? Pigs will fly first.

At the end of the day, a state / province doesn't care, and cannot care, whether somebody is a hockey player or laywer when it comes to taxation purposes.

So why doesn't Canada ever win a cup?

MTL got close a couple times and EDM in 34 years is it? How could that be?

Are Canadians less intelligent? Do the smartest Canadians leave Canada to work in the USA? Statistically there myst be a reason for the lack of success we have here. 1/3 of the league give or take goes 0 for 34, why do you think that is if not for the cap?

It would not be that hard to create a classification. There are diplomats, ambassadors and all sorts of classifications which could be repurposed IMHO. T999 tax forum whatever.

I think the whole tax thing is overblown anyway.

Not everyone can play in a sunshine state with no taxes. There's only a few limited number of spaces available. So not many athletes make a move because of tax reasons.

Most just follow the bigger paycheque and use different tax shelters and havens to reduce their amount owing.

How does Canada go 0 for 34 years without a cup? Are we just stupid business people? Maybe we are just a country of backwoods dopes. I mean, there has to be a reason for such a crazy stat

 

[ULF_55]

Crazy and impossible are indeed words that come to mind.

Even making some generalized adjustments that vary from franchise-to-franchise would cause major grief in calculating and applying a cost-certain salary cap that is determined in advance of the season and doesn't change substantially based on based on player movements including trades etc.

My spitball suggestion doesn't need to impact the League Cap.

Cap remains the same for the league.

What I suggest, again just throwing things at the wall is for example:

Very very basic:

$100mm cap.

Highest taxed teams get Cap+6%
Lowest taxed teams get Cap -6%

Pro-rate other teams that fall between the 2 extremes.

Total Cap dollars do not change.

In reality nothing is going to happen, as the league doesn't care who wins, just want it to be a good American market. Canadian and small market teams they could give two poops about.

 

[MK78]

Canadian players get paid in US dollar as well. If they live full time in Canada, isnt that an advantage or at least a wash in being paid in USD while spending in CAD?

I don't blame Americans though for not wanting to sign with Canadian teams when they have a choice. The covid travel restrictions & mandates soured a lot of them, not just hockey players. If it happened once, it can happen again.

 

[thewave]

My spitball suggestion doesn't need to impact the League Cap.

Cap remains the same for the league.

What I suggest, again just throwing things at the wall is for example:

Very very basic:

$100mm cap.

Highest taxed teams get Cap+6%
Lowest taxed teams get Cap -6%

Pro-rate other teams that fall between the 2 extremes.

Total Cap dollars do not change.

In reality nothing is going to happen, as the league doesn't care who wins, just want it to be a good American market. Canadian and small market teams they could give two poops about.

It's probably one of the better solutions but likely needs to be about 10%

Players signed in that state or province withn+10 can take the bonus to a low tax state