TSN Insiders Jan. 31

[vanlady]

I certainly hope you're not in real estate. Afford? Are you serious? Perhaps you mean "purchase outright with cash"?

Not if there paycheque drops to 250,000 they can't, at least not here in Vancouver.

 

[broman]

They pay those taxes whether they play here or there anyway. The taxes in Sweden are far lower than here in Canada. Tax rates in Sweden are 28-34%. Here in Canada they range up to 51%. Swedens tax rates are actually some of the lowest in Sweden, there business tax rate is the lowest in europe.

Actually, income tax rates in Sweden and Finland are among the highest in Europe. More importantly rates increase progressively towards the upper end of income scale so big earners pay big time. Also, income tax comprises state and municipal tax. The figure you are quoting for Sweden sounds like the state part for top earners.

This data comes from Finnish taxpayers' association. The table is a mess but the columns indicate "total tax rates as a proportion of GNP" for a number of years. Granted, this includes all taxes, not just income tax, but still. Country ranking alternates with rate percentage with Sweden leading the pack all the way.

1985 1990 1995 2000 2002
% % % % %
Sweden 48.5 1 53.6 1 47.6 2 54.0 1 51.0 1
Denmark 47.4 2 47.1 2 49.4 1 49.5 2 49.0 2
Finland 40.1 8 44.8 3 45.0 3 47.3 3 46.0 3
Belgium 45.6 3 43.2 4 44.6 4 45.7 4 46.0 4
Austria 41.9 7 40.5 8 41.6 7 43.3 6 44.0 5
France 43.8 4 43.0 5 44.0 5 45.2 5 44.0 6
Norway 43.3 5 41.8 7 41.5 8 39.3 9 43.0 7
Italy 34.4 11 38.9 9 41.2 9 41.9 7 41.0 8
The Netherlands 42.6 6 43.0 6 42.0 6 41.1 8 39.0 9
Great Britain 37.7 9 36.8 10 34.8 12 37.3 11 36.0 10
Germany 37.2 10 35.7 12 38.2 10 37.8 10 36.0 11
Spain 27.8 15 33.2 13 32.8 14 35.2 14 36.0 12
Canada 32.6 12 35.9 11 35.6 11 35.6 12 33.0 13
Australia 29.1 14 29.3 16 29.7 15 31.5 15 31.5* 14*
Switzerland 30.2 13 30.6 14 33.2 13 31.3 13 31.0 15
USA 26.1 17 26.7 17 27.6 17 29.7 16 18.0 16
Japan 27.2 16 30.1 15 27.7 16 27.5 17 16.0 17

There are all sorts of exceptions though, for instance the six-months rule which grants you tax-free status for a limited length stay. This is the reason why European players have been hopping from one league to another over the season, for instance Olli Jokinen played first in Switzerland, then in Sweden, and only now signed for his home club IFK Helsinki at the Finnish league deadline on Jan 31. However if you become a permanent resident, you will pay through the nose just like the locals.

 

[Cully9]

First there is a gym here in Vancouver that would be every puck bunnies dream, because half our lineup works out there because there personal trainer owns the gym. How do I know, once upon a time (before kids) I too used to work out there and still go and visit the owner.

Second, nurishonists are far more common than you think. One of the lawyers I used to works for the law firm I was at. His wife is one of the top nutrishonists in the country. On her list of clients are a fairly large group of NHL players, however she also has clients from the CFL, NBA and MLB. I got some great autographs when I had to go to there house on business.

Unfortuantely if the revenues drop greatly only 5-6 players will get over 1 million a year. If that is a mix of goalie, defencemen and forwards your second line is not going to get more money.

Just the tax difference between Sweden and Canada makes it worth there while to stay home. Let's see 34% vs 51%

Okay, so when the Sedins are in Vancouver, the Canucks training staff refuses to provide workout regimens for them? Just because the Canucks use that gym doesn't mean they all pay to have a personal trainer too.

Whether a single nutritionist has a dozen or more clients spread across the major sports is hardly the point. The percentage of players who have them AND a personal trainer -- during the season (because the Sedins are at home in the summer, right?) -- is ridiculously low.

This nutritionist/personal trainer routine is one of the great myths that the NHLPA spouts, about how these guys are in peak physical condition at all times. Maybe someone ought to let Savard and McCabe in on the secret.

 

[quat]

Not if there paycheque drops to 250,000 they can't, at least not here in Vancouver.

What? A person earning a quarter of a million dollars can't purchase a frickin condo in Vancouver? You are mad I tell maaaaaaad

How you are coming up with these figures is even funnier. Depending on which way the wind is blowing, you post the Owners having made gross amounts of cash, or they are so poor that they won't be able to compete against what European leagues pay.

 

[nomorekids]

Actually, income tax rates in Sweden and Finland are among the highest in Europe. More importantly rates increase progressively towards the upper end of income scale so big earners pay big time. Also, income tax comprises state and municipal tax. The figure you are quoting for Sweden sounds like the state part for top earners.

This data comes from Finnish taxpayers' association. The table is a mess but the columns indicate "total tax rates as a proportion of GNP" for a number of years. Granted, this includes all taxes, not just income tax, but still. Country ranking alternates with rate percentage with Sweden leading the pack all the way.

1985 1990 1995 2000 2002
% % % % %
Sweden 48.5 1 53.6 1 47.6 2 54.0 1 51.0 1
Denmark 47.4 2 47.1 2 49.4 1 49.5 2 49.0 2
Finland 40.1 8 44.8 3 45.0 3 47.3 3 46.0 3
Belgium 45.6 3 43.2 4 44.6 4 45.7 4 46.0 4
Austria 41.9 7 40.5 8 41.6 7 43.3 6 44.0 5
France 43.8 4 43.0 5 44.0 5 45.2 5 44.0 6
Norway 43.3 5 41.8 7 41.5 8 39.3 9 43.0 7
Italy 34.4 11 38.9 9 41.2 9 41.9 7 41.0 8
The Netherlands 42.6 6 43.0 6 42.0 6 41.1 8 39.0 9
Great Britain 37.7 9 36.8 10 34.8 12 37.3 11 36.0 10
Germany 37.2 10 35.7 12 38.2 10 37.8 10 36.0 11
Spain 27.8 15 33.2 13 32.8 14 35.2 14 36.0 12
Canada 32.6 12 35.9 11 35.6 11 35.6 12 33.0 13
Australia 29.1 14 29.3 16 29.7 15 31.5 15 31.5* 14*
Switzerland 30.2 13 30.6 14 33.2 13 31.3 13 31.0 15
USA 26.1 17 26.7 17 27.6 17 29.7 16 18.0 16
Japan 27.2 16 30.1 15 27.7 16 27.5 17 16.0 17

There are all sorts of exceptions though, for instance the six-months rule which grants you tax-free status for a limited length stay. This is the reason why European players have been hopping from one league to another over the season, for instance Olli Jokinen played first in Switzerland, then in Sweden, and only now signed for his home club IFK Helsinki at the Finnish league deadline on Jan 31. However if you become a permanent resident, you will pay through the nose just like the locals.

I was pretty sure that was the case. I had a global business class last semester, and we talked at length about the welfare state system in those countries...and how it's both good and bad for its citizens(good in that those who need..can get, bad in the taxation necessitated by it)

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

Players don't want to play this season then fine. It's an owners lockout, but what do they do if the PA does not want to sign any of their deals. Screw these guys. They should know that the revenues will go down next year and they will make less.

These talks about the Sedins buying a condo and sh** are such a joke. DO they have to stay at a high end condo? I wonder how people who make less than 100K live there?

 

[quat]

He's acting against his own interests to protect the paycheques of players who come after him. He makes $10 million a year today because the veteran leaders in 1994 acted against their own interest to protect him. It's his turn. He - and the other veterans will sign a deal that is fair to Sidney Crosby, Ilya Kovalchuk, Brad Richards, Martin Havlat and Matt Cooke.

That they should take anything at all is a given, but they are not taking it. These guys - Pronger, Roenick, Guerin, Linden, Alfredsson, Hasek, Yzerman, Sundin et al - have made their pile. They can't be touched financially. They are the ones who have to cave for the owners to get their way. Chris Pronger doesn't think this kind of deal is fair to Sidney Crosby. Linden thinks the same. Trent Klatt. Sean Burke. These guys are all standing firm even though they atr the ones losing the last years of their careers and about 70% of the money.

These guys are the ones who decide. And you wonder why I listen to Pronger? What did Smolinski say last week, "I don't know the details. When Trevor tells me we have a fair deal, I'll vote for it. Until then, we don't play."

If you don't listen to the union leadership, how do you decide what the union thinks?

Tom

You have absolutely not offered a shred of proof for this, any more than someone saying that Pronger et al are doing it because they are greedy SOB's. Call it your opinion and post it from now till you drop, and that's fine... but I really think you should stop telling people what they are "thinking" when you very obviously don't know.

 

[quat]

I was pretty sure that was the case. I had a global business class last semester, and we talked at length about the welfare state system in those countries...and how it's both good and bad for its citizens(good in that those who need..can get, bad in the taxation necessitated by it)

Having a strong welfare component seems to only works in places where it's people don't actually use want to use it. It's a great idea, but is stuggling in to keep pace ... in that the cost is not always just monetary.

 

[wazee]

He's acting against his own interests to protect the paycheques of players who come after him. He makes $10 million a year today because the veteran leaders in 1994 acted against their own interest to protect him. It's his turn. He - and the other veterans will sign a deal that is fair to Sidney Crosby, Ilya Kovalchuk, Brad Richards, Martin Havlat and Matt Cooke.

That they should take anything at all is a given, but they are not taking it. These guys - Pronger, Roenick, Guerin, Linden, Alfredsson, Hasek, Yzerman, Sundin et al - have made their pile. They can't be touched financially. They are the ones who have to cave for the owners to get their way. Chris Pronger doesn't think this kind of deal is fair to Sidney Crosby. Linden thinks the same. Trent Klatt. Sean Burke. These guys are all standing firm even though they atr the ones losing the last years of their careers and about 70% of the money.

These guys are the ones who decide. And you wonder why I listen to Pronger? What did Smolinski say last week, "I don't know the details. When Trevor tells me we have a fair deal, I'll vote for it. Until then, we don't play."

If you don't listen to the union leadership, how do you decide what the union thinks?

Tom

I am not a convinced as you are that the rank-and-file are as dedicated to the union as their leadership is. But that is only a guess on my part and I have no inside information.

I am curious, Tom, why are you so certain the players will not eventually accept a cap? I think the NHL needs a cap so I support the owners in these negotiations, for the most part. But I will not be surprised if the owners compromise and settle for a soft cap or even a luxury tax. Reading your posts, it seems like you are such a strong union guy that you cannot imagine the players might fold. Why? Common sense says they are going to have to compromise sometime...

I am not trying to bait you. I am sincerely curious about why you seem so certain that the union means exactly what they say.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

You have absolutely not offered a shred of proof for this, any more than someone saying that Pronger et al are doing it because they are greedy SOB's. Call it your opinion and post it from now till you drop, and that's fine... but I really think you should stop telling people what they are "thinking" when you very obviously don't know.

Here's the Lightning's Tim Taylor recounting how Chris Pronger stood up at a union meeting and vowed to take a personal financial hit for the young guys.
Link

 

[wazee]

Just the tax difference between Sweden and Canada makes it worth there while to stay home. Let's see 34% vs 51%

Source?

 

[Jeffrey]

Here's the Lightning's Tim Taylor recounting how Chris Pronger stood up at a union meeting and vowed to take a personal financial hit for the young guys.
Link

funny when he said we dont want money we just want a fair deal !

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

funny when he said we dont want money we just want a fair deal !

That is correct. The veterans aren't looking for more money, per se.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Tom, other than your concern over defining revenues and expenses (which I agree is a MAJOR point), why would the players reject, OUT OF HAND, this sort of proposal from the owners?

Because it links salaries to revenues which is inherently a stupid system. Nothing is idiot proof. Nothing changes the fact that some owners behave idiotically. When that happens, somebody has to pay a price. The question is who?

Mike Milbury and Charles Wang should have to bear the burden of the rest of Alexei Yashin's contract. The Rangers should have to pay Holik and Jagr. Under the Gary Bettman designed hockey league, the Yashin mistake comes out of the player's pockets. When someone acts like an idiot in 2008, the money will come out of the player share. It doesn't matter how idiotically the owners behave to the benefit of one player, the rest of the players collectively pay the price for it.

It won't matter to the owners if Brad Richards makes $50 million or $30 million in his career. If he is a good enough negotiator to get ther larger number, some other player won't get as much. I think it leads to selfishness on and off the field. (Anybody else see it in football and basketball?) It puts an "I" in team, particularly bad teams. If a teammate scores a big deal, less for the guy who rides shotgun.

If the injury rate continues to rise exponentially, player salaries must fall because, after all, the player share of salaries is fixed and if it takes more players to present the product, somebody has to get less. The Gary Bettman designed hockey league takes all the risk involved in contract negotiations and shifts it from the owners to the players.

Is that fair? When everyone admits that the owners are idiots? Somehow there is an assumption that "cost certainty" will convert idiots into guys who will never dish out a bad contract. They will be just as dumb. The difference is in who pays for their stupidity.

If the players association leadership is rejecting this out of hand, then yes, the NHL's next step is to make a formal proposal, have the NHLPA reject it, then either publicly demand a vote, or declare impasse.

They can publicly demand a vote - their media poodles already are - and the players will tell them to bleep off. The season is gone. The players have nothing left to lose this season. The next step is to do everything they can to inflict economic damage on the owners. Turnabout is fair play, right?

Tom

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Because it links salaries to revenues which is inherently a stupid system.

Tom

Keep telling yourself that. :lol

 

[Crows*]

If this is the deal that's on the table. Then the players would be absolutely insane not to take this deal.

It has so many "tools" as goodnow liked to say about their last garbage proposal on december 9th.

The profit sharing is a creative amazing idea. 50 50.. how can players COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT?!?! This deal has everything in it that can fix the league and keep the players happy.

The players ARE NOT GOING to get a better deal than this.

It's either take this deal or get destroyed.

It's up to you players. Take it and save face. Or be obliterated.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

If this is the deal that's on the table. Then the players would be absolutely insane not to take this deal.

It has so many "tools" as goodnow liked to say about their last garbage proposal on december 9th.

The profit sharing is a creative amazing idea. 50 50.. how can players COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT?!?! This deal has everything in it that can fix the league and keep the players happy.

The players ARE NOT GOING to get a better deal than this.

It's either take this deal or get destroyed.

It's up to you players. Take it and save face. Or be obliterated.

But according to people like Tom, the players are doing all of this on principle alone. No amount of money in the world could ever force players to accept a salary cap... it goes against their principle. :lol

 

[Grandpabuzz]

But according to people like Tom, the players are doing all of this on principle alone. No amount of money in the world could ever force players to accept a salary cap... it goes against their principle. :lol

Yup, According to Robert Esche, the players won't accept a cap even if it is a 100-200 milllion one.

 

[quat]

Here's the Lightning's Tim Taylor recounting how Chris Pronger stood up at a union meeting and vowed to take a personal financial hit for the young guys.
Link

Well there you go. I don't think anyone doubts the players are indeed taking a hit, but one can certainly speculate that if they can expect any degree of similar success to their last "hit" in 94, Mr. Pronger won't be losing anything.

But all the same, I still feel it's rather pointless to call players greedy. I prefer to think they are misled and flat out wrong.

 

[quat]

That is correct. The veterans aren't looking for more money, per se.

Well you'll certainly have to stretch the definition of "unfair" to fit that description of 54% of multi billion dollar industry.

 

[SENSible1*]

Well there you go. I don't think anyone doubts the players are indeed taking a hit, but one can certainly speculate that if they can expect any degree of similar success to their last "hit" in 94, Mr. Pronger won't be losing anything.

But all the same, I still feel it's rather pointless to call players greedy. I prefer to think they are misled and flat out wrong.

Call them anything you want, but when everything is said and done they will be playing in an NHL that has a linkage between salaries and revenues and I will be laughing my ass off at the spin jobs coming from the fingertips of their apologists.

 

[quat]

Call them anything you want, but when everything is said and done they will be playing in an NHL that has a linkage between salaries and revenues and I will be laughing my ass off at the spin jobs coming from the fingertips of their apologists.

I agree, but I guess what bothers me is how over the top the comments get.

Personally, I believe the Owners had to prove to the PA that they are willing to let the season crash and burn, because if they acted at all concilatory, Goodenow would have seen that as a weakness, and he wouldn't budge on anything. I don't know why anyone thinks this could have happened earlier, when 94 stands as such an obvious example of how willing the players are too follow.

But I am completely mystified by how posters like Tom B. can believe the stuff he posts. It seems more of belief system than a logical thought process.

 

[SENSible1*]

I agree, but I guess what bothers me is how over the top the comments get.

Personally, I believe the Owners had to prove to the PA that they are willing to let the season crash and burn, because if they acted at all concilatory, Goodenow would have seen that as a weakness, and he wouldn't budge on anything. I don't know why anyone thinks this could have happened earlier, when 94 stands as such an obvious example of how willing the players are too follow.

But I am completely mystified by how posters like Tom B. can believe the stuff he posts. It seems more of belief system than a logical thought process.

Oh Tom is pure entertainment. The next while should be priceless as the little world he's constructed in his head comes crashing down.

 

[CarlRacki]

Because it links salaries to revenues which is inherently a stupid system. Nothing is idiot proof. Nothing changes the fact that some owners behave idiotically. When that happens, somebody has to pay a price. The question is who?

Mike Milbury and Charles Wang should have to bear the burden of the rest of Alexei Yashin's contract. The Rangers should have to pay Holik and Jagr. Under the Gary Bettman designed hockey league, the Yashin mistake comes out of the player's pockets. When someone acts like an idiot in 2008, the money will come out of the player share. It doesn't matter how idiotically the owners behave to the benefit of one player, the rest of the players collectively pay the price for it.

It won't matter to the owners if Brad Richards makes $50 million or $30 million in his career. If he is a good enough negotiator to get ther larger number, some other player won't get as much. I think it leads to selfishness on and off the field. (Anybody else see it in football and basketball?) It puts an "I" in team, particularly bad teams. If a teammate scores a big deal, less for the guy who rides shotgun.

If the injury rate continues to rise exponentially, player salaries must fall because, after all, the player share of salaries is fixed and if it takes more players to present the product, somebody has to get less. The Gary Bettman designed hockey league takes all the risk involved in contract negotiations and shifts it from the owners to the players.

Is that fair? When everyone admits that the owners are idiots? Somehow there is an assumption that "cost certainty" will convert idiots into guys who will never dish out a bad contract. They will be just as dumb. The difference is in who pays for their stupidity.



They can publicly demand a vote - their media poodles already are - and the players will tell them to bleep off. The season is gone. The players have nothing left to lose this season. The next step is to do everything they can to inflict economic damage on the owners. Turnabout is fair play, right?

Tom

How does a cap not punish the Islanders for the Yashin signing? Quite the opposite, it punishes them greatly. It takes away a great deal of flexibility, it severely damages their ability to sign other players for years and ultimately makes them a less competitive team. How is that not punishment? That's one of the central tenants of the cap, it forces teams not to make foolhardly signings.

Linking on-field selfishness to the cap is an assinine assertion that you in no way can support with facts. Are there not selfish professional hockey players? Are there not selfish professional baseball players?

 

[Lil' Jimmy Norton*]

How does a cap not punish the Islanders for the Yashin signing? Quite the opposite, it punishes them greatly. It takes away a great deal of flexibility, it severely damages their ability to sign other players for years and ultimately makes them a less competitive team. How is that not punishment? That's one of the central tenants of the cap, it forces teams not to make foolhardly signings.

Linking on-field selfishness to the cap is an assinine assertion that you in no way can support with facts. Are there not selfish professional hockey players? Are there not selfish professional baseball players?

Tom is in for a rude awakening when the dust settles on this one !! The owners are going to win this stoppage as Bettman has loudly stated "This is my lockout !!!" the players struck in 94' and they got their 10 yr sweetheart deal well now the worm has turned fellas and the owners are going to ram the cap down their throats and idiot primadonna's like Pronger and that stiff Guerin are going to have to settle or go play in eurotrash leagues, bus to all their games, eat stank fish and live in cubicles good luck you clowns I hope they shut the NHL down for 5 years !!! The system is broke it needs fixed and if you don't like it then take your services elsewhere !