Sol
Smile
- Jun 30, 2017
- 23,153
- 18,747
I only disagree with the bottom statement.
The hard cap helps protect owners from themselves. Is it unfair there's no tax in Florida? Maybe. Is it unfair California doesn't have an annual hurricane season? Is it unfair that Edmonton and Winnipeg have some unforgiving winters?
Players make decisions based on what's best for them. Taxes/finances is certainly a tangible benefit. But I would rather Florida benefit from no taxes than Toronto, Detroit, New York etc benefit from no hard cap.
That's completely irrelevant though. So just because there are nicer places to live they should get taxed for it? Tell me, how is it fair that Florida can offer the equivalent of after taxes money in the form of exact salary when teams like the Kings have to offer higher salaries to get comparable numbers. Why does one team get to escape taxes and another doesn't? If the purpose of a hard cap is to level the playing field for cheap teams vs rich teams then how come the areas with low tax or no income tax get a benefit for the cap ?
Why isn't the cap adjusted for after taxes if they truly want to level the playing field for all teams ?
You shouldn't get levied a penalty against you in a sense for being supposedly a better place to live.
Hurricanes have nothing to do with making a financially fair environment for all teams because taxes in a sense give teams more or less money to spend so the "hard cap" pretty much screws teams with higher income taxes, and let's be honest that's not fair at all.
Last edited: