Should the salary cap be based on after tax salary

[bleedblue1223]

I'd argue it already IS incredibly flawed.

You're right, its never going to be perfect... but I think it can be less flawed than it is now...

Right now, it's as fair as it will ever be. It's an issue made up by fans in higher taxed areas. No one else thinks it's an issue. Lower-taxed areas aren't hoarding high-caliber talent.

 

[bobermay]

Right now, it's as fair as it will ever be. It's an issue made up by fans in higher taxed areas. No one else thinks it's an issue. Lower-taxed areas aren't hoarding high-caliber talent.

Hmmm.... Lower taxed areas aren't making an issue of something that benefits them... I wonder why...

 

[bobermay]

I think a lot of players are looking for a contract at a certain number for the status of it. Not all NHL players, mind you. But some aren't concerned about their paycheque looking different when negotiating betweeen 5.9 and 6.1 million dollars. But they negotiate it anyway. Because the number is a sign of success. Tthey are thinking about other players salaries, and how the number compares.

So the difference in take home because of tax is sometimes irrelevant. Some players care more about the pre-tax number, not after-tax.

Do you honestly believe this?

A player getting 6 million in TB will pocket $500K more money than he would if he were to be playing in CGY. 500K is not chump change to these guys.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Hmmm.... Lower taxed areas aren't making an issue of something that benefits them... I wonder why...

Literally, only some fans of teams in higher-taxed areas are making an issue of it. No teams are making it an issue, no city, no player. Teams in higher taxed areas have no issue attracting and retaining talent. The issue is entirely made-up by keyboard warriors online.

 

[bobermay]

Literally, only some fans of teams in higher-taxed areas are making an issue of it. No teams are making it an issue, no city, no player. Teams in higher taxed areas have no issue attracting and retaining talent. The issue is entirely made-up by keyboard warriors online.

Oh come on... "Keyboard Warrior"? Is this a name of someone that has a different opinion?

Hey look, there are articles posted in the news about it:

http://nationalpost.com/sports/hock...ing-to-entice-free-agents-north-of-the-border

So maybe its not just a made-up issue by "Keyboard Warriors"

 

[pheasant]

Do you honestly believe this?

A player getting 6 million in TB will pocket $500K more money than he would if he were to be playing in CGY. 500K is not chump change to these guys.

Which is why players always accept smaller contracts in cities with favourable tax rates. Right? Except they don't.

I also haven't heard a player complain about their take home pay changing after a trade. In fact, I've never heard anything to suggest that the difference in taxes sways a decision in any way. But I have heard countless examples of "if he's getting X, then I deserve Y."

I'm not saying it's chump change. In fact, I went out of my way to say "some" not "all" players. I know it matters. But it needs to be said that the dollar figure means a lot to these guys for reasons other than their bank accounts.

Doughty didn't just talk to the media about how much money he wants in what tax bracket, or how much he thinks he needs when he retires at 40. He talked about how much Subban makes, and said he wants to know how much Karlsson gets.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Oh come on... "Keyboard Warrior"? Is this a name of someone that has a different opinion?

Hey look, there are articles posted in the news about it:

http://nationalpost.com/sports/hock...ing-to-entice-free-agents-north-of-the-border

So maybe its not just a made-up issue by "Keyboard Warriors"

A writer for the Leafs whining about the Leafs not being able to sign Stamkos, cry me a river.

Nominal rates mean nothing, effective rates are what you want to look at. If you want to do something like this, then you also need to factor in different sales tax rates, and other non-income taxes.

Anyone talking purely about nominal rates just prove that they don't know enough about taxes.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

No.

You can't neutralise for every advantage or disadvantage.

If we try to make it fair for taxes, or we then going to put a cap on what each team can spend on scouting, coaching, and other staff so that budget teams with small hockey personnel offices are on an equal playing field?

What about teams who live in areas of the country with really bad weather? Should they get extra cap space to account for how much harder it is to attract free agents?

What about teams that spend beyond the cap with compliance buyouts and paying non-insured LTIR players. How are we going to equalise against that?

 

[Empoleon8771]

No, it's a horrendous advantage for markets with higher taxes. Higher taxes impact players, not really teams. It's an advantage for one player to sign in one location over another, that's really it.

Should teams in the North have a higher cap because the South has nicer weather? Or should teams in the South have a higher cap because they are smaller hockey markets than teams in the North? Should teams who play in states or provinces that churn out NHLers have lower cap ceilings, so it's harder for them to sign local players (I'm talking about a Parise or Suter situation in this one)? You can make up so many salary cap breaks for silly things that it just becomes ridiculous. Adjusting based on tax rates is one of those silly things.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

Until folks are tax experts, folks are just fools if they think players pay taxes as personal taxes like most mortals. Much of players salaries are incorporated not personal taxes. And players actual residence may be different from where they actual play.
Regarding Stamkos, we will truly never know, but it likely that the Leafs never even put in an offer for Stamkos. Of course the Stamkos people would have beat the drum, that many teams were making offers. But we'll never know.
Fact is regarding the "hometown" Toronto. Stamkos had been living away from his parents and Markham since he was 15 playing hockey. His parents live in Florida too (what Eastern Canadian doesn't?). So there isn't a big draw to Toronto as people might think.

 

[KingsFan7824]

No. Do we start changing the cap in markets that have better marketing and endorsement opportunities? Dumb rabbit hole to start down.

The league opened the hole by implementing the cap to begin with. It sort of makes sense to look down into it after that. You're right though, it's a can of worms, and it was tough enough to get the cap installed.

 

[wintersej]

The league opened the hole by implementing the cap to begin with. It sort of makes sense to look down into it after that. You're right though, it's a can of worms, and it was tough enough to get the cap installed.

I just think its working. Between 3 point games and the cap the league has as high parity as ever and its financially sustainable. As a Bruins fan I LOVE the cap. Bruins ownership was never going to be willing to lose money to win like Detroit. Now they spend to the cap and its a non-issue. Most teams spend to the cap. Before the cap, we were looking at a team like Nashville spending around 20 million and the Rangers and Detroit spending 70 million. Now its 60-75 million for everyone. Its just way better.

 

[Hennessy]

In a vacuum it is a noble idea, but there are too many variables. You'd never be able to level it enough to make the ideal worth it.

 

[MikeyMike01]

If government is too big and taxes are too high in your area, elect politicians to fix it. The NHL could not and should not care less.