"I'd rather smash my toy against the concrete than share it"
What is the solution to balancing the salary cap with no tax states?
- Thread starter LaffyTaffy13
- Start date
Burke the Legend
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2012
- 8,319
- 2,854
It would be “fairer” if the leagues goal is parity. It would be fairly complex but doable.
You would need to calculate an index based on net taxation in any given area. Probably some people will suggest adding in purchasing power/cost factor too. Then every team gets a multiple based on where they land on that index. The final calculation would also be done in the context of CBA’s agreed upon salary revenue split. So there’s some actual work involved and some debate on how deep they want to go but it could be done.
The other complex question is if enough owners actually want this based on their own internal budgeting and profits motives determining how they vote. The lower tax sunbelt teams maybe will ending with a cap penalty. Some of their owners maybe against this because they like the advantage, but other owners would not mind spending less on salary so could vote for this. Likewise for high tax coastal/Canadian owners. Some who are trying to win may welcome it, but others maybe won’t like the idea of having to spend another 10-20$ million USD on salary (even big market owners might prefer profits over a marginal competitive edge).
You would need to calculate an index based on net taxation in any given area. Probably some people will suggest adding in purchasing power/cost factor too. Then every team gets a multiple based on where they land on that index. The final calculation would also be done in the context of CBA’s agreed upon salary revenue split. So there’s some actual work involved and some debate on how deep they want to go but it could be done.
The other complex question is if enough owners actually want this based on their own internal budgeting and profits motives determining how they vote. The lower tax sunbelt teams maybe will ending with a cap penalty. Some of their owners maybe against this because they like the advantage, but other owners would not mind spending less on salary so could vote for this. Likewise for high tax coastal/Canadian owners. Some who are trying to win may welcome it, but others maybe won’t like the idea of having to spend another 10-20$ million USD on salary (even big market owners might prefer profits over a marginal competitive edge).
5 of 9.
But still doesn't prove your case.
Any number of factors can account for this.
Of those 5, two were TB who had their core in place through the draft
FerrisRox
"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
As a fan, I would be really, really disappointed if the league removed the salary cap.
That would be an absolutely disastrous move from the league.
As a baseball fan, I wish MLB had a salary cap.
WTFMAN99
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 33,180
- 13,358
That'll take a team of accountants a little bit I imagine.
I'd be fine with a luxury tax but not an unlimited one.
10M at most would be the way to go but maybe $2 for every dollar at a certain tier from like 7.5-10M so 10M over costs you $30M?
$10M for the players + $20M for the tax
$20M split amongst the other teams?
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 29,264
- 27,044
This is BS. The no state income tax advantage will have always existed regardless of a maximum contract length. There is no conceivable reason that would make a difference. A no state income tax team would do the same thing with the 15 year contract length and drive AAV down further. This point is nonsensical.
Teams follow a general cyclical pattern, and the only thing that operates outside the cycle or that explains highs/lows within it is bad management. The 3 California teams, Chicago, Pittsburgh, LA all had their highs and then what goes up must come down. Edmonton had their lows and is now firmly in a Stanley Cup window with a great shot to win it.
When the Florida teams were garbage, it was all about how they're "not a hockey market". Nobody is denying state tax doesn't matter at all but the framing like it's the primary thing doesn't pass the sniff test. Canadian teams have such a long collective drought from combo of some bad end of variance and a lot of collective mismanagement (often as a result of impatience and going "all in" when they absolutely should not have). Toronto with Tavares the latest example. That had nothing to do with too much taxes, it was pursuing the wrong guy at the wrong time for what they needed.. because "when John Tavares is available you have to take it!" and possibly costing themselves a Cup or two because of it.
Cool Hand Puke
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2008
- 5,401
- 7,125
You’re the one who said immediately after 2013 these teams started being the best and benefiting…Don’t get mad at your own parameters
Regular season wins over an entire 11 year sample isn’t indicative of who’s actually been performing well to you? It eliminates things like injuries and cap circumventing we’ve seen in the playoffs and offers a MUCH larger sample to judge.
Even if you add Vegas into that mix, it’s still doesn’t look very good on your end….
You’re simply wrong on this my guy
Last edited:
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 23,569
- 16,730
Poster has been constantly lobbying for more cap space for the leafs.You’re the one who said immediately after 2013 these teams started being the best and benefiting…Don’t get mad at your own parameters
Regular season wins over an entire 11 year sample isn’t indicative of who’s actually been performing well to you? It eliminates things like injuries and cap circumventing we’ve seen in the playoffs and offers a MUCH larger sample to judge.
Even if you add Vegas into that mix, it’s still doesn’t look very good on your end….
You’re simply wrong on this my guy
We saw how that worked out, when they could spend all they wanted up to 2005. They’ve still never been able to win 3 rounds.
- Aug 24, 2011
- 27,913
- 15,818
The CBA expires September 15th, 2026. If this is actually a major concern between the owners I'm sure we'll see it addressed then. I doubt they even mention it however.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 23,569
- 16,730
The NHL was hoping to have the CBA done by the end of this playoffs, other than the paperwork.
We could know soon, if it was a concern or not.
Kaners PPGs
Registered User
lol- I'm not a fan of any team nor am I searching for excuses. And who said we are just talking about Florida? Add Dallas, Nashville, Seattle, and Vegas to the mix. Sorry your head hurts. Wonder how bad it would hurt if you actually used it.
You’re the one who said immediately after 2013 these teams started being the best and benefiting…Don’t get mad at your own parameters
Regular season wins over an entire 11 year sample isn’t indicative of who’s actually been performing well to you? It eliminates things like injuries and cap circumventing we’ve seen in the playoffs and offers a MUCH larger sample to judge.
Even if you add Vegas into that mix, it’s still doesn’t look very good on your end….
You’re simply wrong on this my guy
33% of the no state tax teams didn’t play at least 3 seasons.
Of the only non expansion. Teams.
Nashville, Tampa, Florida have all won the presidents trophy.
If you want to count regular seasons success. Winning the presidents trophy is the cup.
I said the rule changes after the lockout. There were still plenty of cheater contracts that lasted and were aging out. The teams took advantage of the equal term limits and since that time there have been 18 finalists
Tampa x3
Florida x2
Vegas x 2
Dallas x 1
Nashville x 1.
50% of the finalists have come from no state tax teams.
The facts are indisputable
1.) since the elimination of the back diving contracts. No state tax teams have been consistently getting players to sign for cheaper. This is indisputable
2.) they have also been much higher in success in the regular season and finals in terms of championship then the 22% of the league they are. This is indisputable
3.) the only thing that would be in dispute is why the players sign for less. People here talk about weather/lack of media/chance ro win. But this doesn’t hold water when you see that high state tax markes
That have similar weather/pressure/championships/prestige all
Have to sign more.
Most importantly. The players. Agents. GMs. Accountants. ALLL say it is an advantage.
They openly admit it.
Machinehead
The Olli react should add points!
If you removed revenue sharing there would be like 9 teams lol
bert
Registered User
Its not good enough to have a huge competitive advantage being the rangers? You need a bigger one?
bert
Registered User
Imagine the Oilers ability to draw if they didnt have Mcdavid and Draisaitl. You should probably be pretty happy about the cap there big guy.
The argument I've always heard (and I think I mostly agree with) in favor of revenue sharing in a closed league such as the NHL is that the teams that are net "takers" from the revenue sharing pool are worth paying this shared revenue because of the value they add to the league so the main revenue drivers (who are net "givers" into the revenue sharing pool) have someone to play against.
In an extreme example of a two-team league, a hypothetically profitable team (on its own) would have no opponents if not for the hypothetically unprofitable (on its own) team's existence, and without them there would simply be no revenue at all. In older times, revenue sharing kind of existed in the form of giving the visiting team a cut of the gate revenue, which occasionally resulted in the funny situation of a team refusing to travel for a game because they thought their cut of the potential gate revenue wouldn't be enough to cover their travel expenses. That situation would also result in the compromise that the team scheduled to be the home team would instead volunteer to switch the game to the home venue of the team that was originally scheduled to be the visiting team. As a side note, this happened a lot to the 1899 Cleveland Spiders, who finished with an MLB-worst 20-134 record, and set a record that is considered unbeatable: 101 losses as the visiting team.
In any case, that leaves me basically with the opinion that I'm in favor of some form of revenue sharing, because I can buy the main argument in favor of it. I don't really care to have an opinion on debating how much is enough/too much, on the other hand. I'll leave that one to the experts as it's beyond my pay grade, so to speak.
bert
Registered User
Its a small market in one of the least desirable locations to live in the league. Is the revenue coming in if they dont have the best player alive and another top 5 guy? Time to be happy where you are but also realistic about the situation.
One significant point to add to this conversation:
Canada’s federal tax rate increased increased by 4% in 2016
Canadian provincial rates have increased by approx 2%
The US federal rate decreased by 2% during Trumps first term
That alone counts for an 8% swing beginning in 2016 - without factoring in US state income tax increases. There was always a discrepancy in tax rates, but now its gotten to the point where its ugly, and its big enough to influence where you want to play.
I think if you are looking for a reason why this has become an issue - this is it.
Canada’s federal tax rate increased increased by 4% in 2016
Canadian provincial rates have increased by approx 2%
The US federal rate decreased by 2% during Trumps first term
That alone counts for an 8% swing beginning in 2016 - without factoring in US state income tax increases. There was always a discrepancy in tax rates, but now its gotten to the point where its ugly, and its big enough to influence where you want to play.
I think if you are looking for a reason why this has become an issue - this is it.
Did you not see the Decade of Darkness prior to McDrai?
If there's one city that can carry their own weight even during a rebuilding period, it's Edmonton.
Counter, no ELC/RFA status, eliminate the draft. UFA status on 18th b-day. Your ideas don't fix anything and objectively makes everything significantly worse.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 23,569
- 16,730
lol says the the one that just made a proposal that’s infinitely worse.
But do you have anything that shows this is more than a sample hunch/assumprion on your part?
Over an 11 year sample, 2 teams are in the top 10 in wins who are no state tax teams. FACT.
Cool they did good a couple seasons, they also sucked horribly other seasons as well. How can that be with their unjust advantages???
You realize the back contracts could have also been signed by these teams with the exact same benefits… right?
This is sad dude
