What is the solution to balancing the salary cap with no tax states?

[Beukeboom Fan]

14% is a big number. Youre talking about Florida being able to spending around $13-14mm more on players than NYR for example. $14mm gets you alot player wise in the nhl

14% is a total BS number. Would love to know how you think that is anywhere close to the real differential.

 

[CrazyDuck4u]

People don't want to admit this. But politics has alot to do with it too

 

[Golden_Jet]

14% is a total BS number. Would love to know how you think that is anywhere close to the real differential.

Yep poster had already been proven wrong on that, as didn’t understand how/where players pay taxes.

 

[nbwingsfan]

1.) teams can overcome advantages. Tampa won a cup pre cap. Toronto and New York won 1 between them in 50 years. Does that mean being able to spend 60 million more wasn’t an advantage?

Teams score short handed goals. Is a power play and not an advantage?

2.) when 4/32 teams had no state tax advantages. You have to get some high tax teams winning.

The fact that despite only being 21% of the league

the finalists have been
Tampa 3
Florida 3
Vegas 2
Nashville 1

Is insane. Especially considering
Florida/tampa
Nash/dallas

Are in the same division.

one single example doesn’t blow up any Clear and distinct correlation.

My grandfather smoked two packs a day until he was 93 and his lungs were perfect. Doesn’t that blow up the narrative that smoking causes cancer

You keep bringing up 2016 and beyond while completely ignoring the DECADE of salary cap that existed before hand where the no tax states were garbage.

You have yet to once explain why this is? Why couldn’t these teams also use the “back loaded” contract excuse you seem to think is valid? You keep avoiding the question over and over again…

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

You should like at matthew tkachuk and barkov’s salary structure. 90% of it is paid out in signing bonus each season. Only $1mm is salary. Meaning 90% of their pay is not subject to state or city taxes

You are incorrect that signing bonus is not subject to city/state taxes. It is subject to tax where the player resides.

 

[Golden_Jet]

You keep bringing up 2016 and beyond while completely ignoring the DECADE of salary cap that existed before hand where the no tax states were garbage.

You have yet to once explain why this is? Why couldn’t these teams also use the “back loaded” contract excuse you seem to think is valid? You keep avoiding the question over and over again…

Dodged the question every time so far, not shocking.

 

[Legion34]

You keep bringing up 2016 and beyond while completely ignoring the DECADE of salary cap that existed before hand where the no tax states were garbage.

You have yet to once explain why this is? Why couldn’t these teams also use the “back loaded” contract excuse you seem to think is valid? You keep avoiding the question over and over again…

1.). I absolutely have.
When big marketteams in 2014 stopped being able to sign their star players to giant long term back diving deals

2.) They could have in theory. They weren’t able to compete. Just like pre cap. Thats like asking. Why couldn’t Columbus and Carolina have 100 million dollar contracts?

The big market teams could still flex their muscle and keep the cap hit down by artificially adding on years to make the numbers work. They could nullify any take home advantage by just adding fake years to the end and then the cap hit was lowered.

 

[Golden_Jet]

2.) They could have in theory. They weren’t able to compete. Just like pre cap. Thats like asking. Why couldn’t Columbus and Carolina have 100 million dollar contracts?

All teams could afford that,
spreading it out over 14 years, it’s like pizza slices and smoking .

 

[Legion34]

Dodged the question every time so far, not shocking.

Nope. Answered every time.

You haven’t answered why

1.) when Grier says that Tampa etc have an advantage based on taxes. Is he wrong or dumb?

2.) why does JB mention a favourable tax situation if it doesn’t exist?

All teams could afford that,
spreading it out over 14 years, it’s like pizza slices and smoking .

Not all teams could afford that. Because they weren’t actually doing it.

You pay all the money up front. Then the guy retires. You realize the 14 year deals all the money was paid out in like the first 5 right?

you seem to spend a lot of time arguing without understanding the basic rules

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Seems like a luxury tax system for maybe one or two contracts or getting rid of signing bonuses over a certain percent of the total contract fixes everyone's issues that are realistically fixable without having to change any govt/political figures/practices

Except that it luxury tax system breaks the cost certainty that the league sacrificed a season+ to get in place.

IMO, the league would rather deal with the tax differences rather than break the cost certainty.

 

[JaegerDice]

1.). I absolutely have.
When big marketteams in 2014 stopped being able to sign their star players to giant long term back diving deals

My dude, there were 21 contracts made illegal by the changes to the CBA in 2013, in the entire NHL.

I'm sorry, but if you think changing a rule that affected 21 active players out of 700 was the dam holding back the advantage of the no tax states, then you are nuts.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Not false or misleading. Of course they pay federal on it. The point is, no state/city tax like NYR players would be subject to. Panarin would pay 10.3% to NY state and 3.87% NYC city tax. A little over 14% total. 14% he would NOT have to pay in florida with barkov or tkachuks contract.

Trust me as a guy from NJ I am VERY well versed in taxes and 6 months and a day. Tkachuks residency is florida, as is barkovs. They are paying $0 state or city income tax on 90%~ of their contracts.

Its a competitive advantage to say otherwise is INSANE

The 14% only applies to Panarin's games played in NYC. It should be noted that Barkov and Tkachuk pay the same exact taxes when on the road (for their non signing bonus portion of their salary) vs. the Rangers. Just like Panarin plays no state taxes when playing the Panthers or Lightining.

The tax system is ridiculously complex, and if you want to be accurate there is no way to boil it down to just the tax rate difference to do a high level calculation.

 

[Score8]

Get rid of state income taxes, plenty of states exist without them

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Not at all. You use a generic template. There are websites that already calculate after tax income that allow you to compare between teams.

And those websites over-simplify the issue assuming that all games are played in the "home team" municipality.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

I didn't either, and then it dawned on me that the "put stuff in nets" sports are better without the goalies.

Says the guy whose team by far and away has been blessed with the best goaltending in the league for the last 25 years!

Also had no idea what league the Liberty were jn!

 

[nbwingsfan]

1.). I absolutely have.
When big marketteams in 2014 stopped being able to sign their star players to giant long term back diving deals

2.) They could have in theory. They weren’t able to compete. Just like pre cap. Thats like asking. Why couldn’t Columbus and Carolina have 100 million dollar contracts?

The big market teams could still flex their muscle and keep the cap hit down by artificially adding on years to make the numbers work. They could nullify any take home advantage by just adding fake years to the end and then the cap hit was lowered.

The money spent is still the same my guy.

And now you’re just contradicting yourself… isn’t being a rich team an unfair advantage vs small market teams then… how should the league fix this then?

And as someone else already mentioned, there 21 total contracts that affected. The only team that won a Cup doing so with them was Chicago. Thats it.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

The NHL is limiting the leafs/rangers to spend like Columbus

Which the Leafa and Rangers organizations agreed too because they make a metric shyte-ton of cash. The fans are salty because their team can't flex their financial muscle to give them an unfair competitive advantage.

 

[Legion34]

The money spent is still the same my guy.

And now you’re just contradicting yourself… isn’t being a rich team an unfair advantage vs small market teams then… how should the league fix this then?

And as someone else already mentioned, there 21 total contracts that affected. The only team that won a Cup doing so with them was Chicago. Thats it.

1.)What do you mean the money spent is the same?

Are you suggesting that paying all up front is the same as paying over 15 years?

Do you have a mortgage? Poile said the Weber offer sheet almost bankrupt the team.

2.) 21 contracts is a heck of a lot when it’s 5 or 6 teams.
especially when the names are

Hossa. Keith
Luongo
Carter. Quick.
Weber
Datysuk/zetterberg etc.

I would have to see the list. Again but regardless. Even IF we ignored the obvious correlation. Sure. Its still an advantage.


Teams exploiting a loop hole that wasn’t used in the past doesn’t mean that it isn’t a problem now.

 

[Golden_Jet]

You pay all the money up front. Then the guy retires. You realize the 14 year deals all the money was paid out in like the first 5 right?

you seem to spend a lot of time arguing without understanding the basic rules

perfectly understood, what front loaded contracts are,
Seems like you were confused , calling them back-loaded.

 

[Legion34]

Which the Leafa and Rangers organizations agreed too because they make a metric shyte-ton of cash. The fans are salty because their team can't flex their financial muscle to give them an unfair competitive advantage.

The did not need to do that. They definitely did not need to make it exactly equal. As long as the players got 50% there was nothing to say all teams have the same.

All that did was make teams fake the cap with ltir contracts.

Why would it be ok for some teams to have unfair financial advantages over other?

 

[Legion34]

perfectly understood, what front loaded contracts are,
Seems like you were confused , calling them back-loaded.

Back diving.

Also so grier and Brisebois are wrong?

 

[VivaLasVegas]

Truth is also that some organizations grossly overuse these external factors as excuses for chronic poor performance, i.e., they have management teams that were going to bomb anyway.

 

[Legion34]

Truth is also that some organizations grossly overuse these external factors as excuses for chronic poor performance, i.e., they have management teams that were going to bomb anyway.

That doesn’t mean an unfair advantage didn’t exist.

That’s like saying “it doesn’t matter if Mike Tyson used steroids, he was going to win anyway”

 

[Fatass]

That doesn’t mean an unfair advantage didn’t exist.

That’s like saying “it doesn’t matter if Mike Tyson used steroids, he was going to win anyway”

It’s an interesting thread. Lots of good discussion. But like any thread it’s not going to change how the league operates. The big money makers (like the Leafs) will continue to subsidize the clubs that don’t make very much. The fans of the rich teams will pay more for their club’s product and watch the poor teams use that added cash to beat them. The on ice disparity has little to do with taxes, and a lot more to do with the quality of management.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Back diving.

Also so grier and Brisebois are wrong?

Chicago, One team winning, isn’t a trend,

Sure no tax state, helps, but there are so many other factors, It’s so complicated to address, that I’m not going to lose sleep over it. Until I see a solution proposed, that keeps the 50/50 split intact, the current system stays.
Not to mention every time this topic comes up, we have to educate people, that taxes are paid in every state/ province the game is played in.
Then depending on player nationality, and residency, some players can use signing bonuses, to pay less overall taxes than no tax states. So I assume your in favour of getting rid of those as well.

Now that I’ve addressed your question, you can answer all the questions you’ve been dodging, right.