Do teams with lower state tax rates get significant discounts?

[razor8]

And they can also go after you forever.

How many celebrities go bankrupt?there are a whole bunch of ex stars making Netflix movies now.

Netflix happens to pay really well.

 

[MtoD]

Teams I would say no. The players that play for them? Absolutely.

The salary cap was put in place to ensure a level of parity throughout the league. That level is not an absolute black and white. There's always going to be some advantages for some teams that other teams don't have. A big market will always have an inherent advantage over a small market, a spot with great weather will always have an advantage over one that doesn't, and a team seen to be competing for a cup will always have an advantage over a team at the bottom of the standings. Just the way of the world. Totally fair and balanced is an unrealistic ideal.

Lol, no. The salary cap has absolutely nothing to do with parity.

The salary cap was put in by the owners to control costs and maximize profits. That's it. Parity had nothing to do with it.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Of course they do Stamkos at 8.5 mil, Kucherov at 9.5 mill, Karlsson at 5.9 and BARKOV at less than 6 million is you need, not to mention your boys Meier and Labanc.

It doesn't happen in 100% of cases but it happens more often than not

San Jose's state tax rate is in the top-5.

Kind of proves my point regarding confirmation bias.

 

[Dekes For Days]

While the OP seems to be using a rather limited data set, the trend we see illustrates pretty clearly that whatever advantage exists is not particularly significant.

You shouldn't blindly trust the biased OP's conclusion. Under his evaluation, the average of the 5 no-tax states is 98.38%. The average of the 5 locations with taxes over 50% is 113.16%. This evaluation is so flawed, but that is a significant difference.

They typically translate into some form of public good.

Which rich people don't use anyway.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Lol, no. The salary cap has absolutely nothing to do with parity.

This is blatantly not true. There are a lot of ways they could have implemented cost certainty, but they chose this. Parity was a word used a lot during that lockout, and for 15 years after they've been pretty clear on this issue.

 

[BlackFrancis]

You shouldn't blindly trust the biased OP's conclusion. Under his evaluation, the average of the 5 no-tax states is 98.38%. The average of the 5 locations with taxes over 50% is 113.16%. This evaluation is so flawed, but that is a significant difference.


Which rich people don't use anyway.

Insulting someone's statistical methodology while touting the averages of two separate 5 element groups will never not be funny.

 

[Legion34]

Netflix happens to pay really well.

Lol, no. The salary cap has absolutely nothing to do with parity.

The salary cap was put in by the owners to control costs and maximize profits. That's it. Parity had nothing to do with it.

It actually does. And they clearly did.


Like I said. Then there if there is NO need for parity then there’s is NO reason why the NHL has to have every team have the same cap floor and ceiling right.

If there is 2 billion to split. The owners get 1 billion and have to make sure over 31 teams. 1 billion is spent in salaries right?

They can split that anyway they want. IF there is no parity Why can’t the top revenue teams get
A cap floor of 80/100 million.
And the weak teams get 40/60 million?
Right?

If there was NO parity as part of it. Then heck 1 team could get a cap of 50% of the revenues.

There would still be cost certainty. But not parity

Except it’s not that way. Because parity is a large part of it.

 

[nbwingsfan]

The basic principles of economics don’t like it.

So just to be clear. Do you really think there is no tax advantage? Agents. Media. Players. GMs. Bill Daly acknowledge it.

But you just decide it’s not true?

Of course there’s an advantage.

Just like there’s an endorsement advantage.

Celebrity vs quiet living advantage

“Coming back home” advantage

Climate advantage

Real estate advantage

It’s never going to be equally fair for everyone

 

[Dekes For Days]

Insulting someone's statistical methodology while touting the averages of two separate 5 element groups will never not be funny.

Both are horrible statistical methodology. I haven't hid that. However, taking the average of the areas in question is closer to reality than saying that "this one no-tax state pays 5% more than the average according to this one statistical model that I've already said is majorly flawed that only looked at one contract, so I will state with confidence that there is no tax advantage".

Basically, this statistical model shows nothing and proves nothing, and is so so flawed. However, if you're going to post it, why is taking the average of the 2 groups of areas being considered not the better methodology? It increases the sample size, which is desperately needed.

You can only do so much when you have a horribly incomplete data set.

 

[hairylikebear]

You shouldn't blindly trust the biased OP's conclusion. Under his evaluation, the average of the 5 no-tax states is 98.38%. The average of the 5 locations with taxes over 50% is 113.16%. This evaluation is so flawed, but that is a significant difference.

Looking at all of the data is always better than looking at some of the data. A larger sample would be better, but his analysis is objectively better than yours.

Which rich people don't use anyway.

What? I'm not talking about welfare. Rich people use roads/schools/parks/etc

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Lol, no. The salary cap has absolutely nothing to do with parity.

The salary cap was put in by the owners to control costs and maximize profits. That's it. Parity had nothing to do with it.

The salary cap was never intended to maximize profits. Hell, 14 years into the cap system and owners still aren't maximizing profits.

 

[MtoD]

The salary cap was never intended to maximize profits. Hell, 14 years into the cap system and owners still aren't maximizing profits.

That's some amazingly selective reading you did there. Sure, if you just chose to ignore multiple words in the sentence, you can make believe it says whatever you want, I guess.

The salary cap is all about cost certainty so owners can maximize profits by.. controlling costs. Parity is a nice by-product but the owners didn't lockout the players in 2004 because they wanted parity.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Well we should tell that to fans and markets that don’t support their teams........

Remember. The NHL artificially imposed “fair”.

They just missed a big part

Actually, the league didn't impose fair in any way whatsoever. The league did change the relationship between revenues and expenses to improve opportunities for all teams to make the playing field more level, but based on all the complaining about how teams are getting screwed over because of [choose any of the following: not being able to keep drafted players, not being able to spend revenues, differing tax rates, and any number of other items mentioned around here in the last year alone], I'm pretty positive the league impose "fair" or even scratch the surface on making things fair in any way at all.

 

[MtoD]

It actually does. And they clearly did.


Like I said. Then there if there is NO need for parity then there’s is NO reason why the NHL has to have every team have the same cap floor and ceiling right.

If there is 2 billion to split. The owners get 1 billion and have to make sure over 31 teams. 1 billion is spent in salaries right?

They can split that anyway they want. IF there is no parity Why can’t the top revenue teams get
A cap floor of 80/100 million.
And the weak teams get 40/60 million?
Right?

If there was NO parity as part of it. Then heck 1 team could get a cap of 50% of the revenues.

There would still be cost certainty. But not parity

Except it’s not that way. Because parity is a large part of it.

You just wrote out a whole post about "cost certainty" but only talked about revenue and revenue splitting. You've completely missed the point of your own rant.

The bolded is the best part. That IS the point of the cap right there. If there was no cap on salaries, there wouldn't just be your mythical 1 billion spent on salaries. Costs would go up as teams compete with eachother for talent and owners would soon be spending more than their share of the revenue. Hence the cap to control costs and ensure that the owners as a whole would not be spending more than their share of the revenue.

Good luck going into a board meeting with 30 member clubs in 2004 and pitching the idea that teams wouldn't get equal revenue sharing. You wouldn't have an NHL.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

That's some amazingly selective reading you did there. Sure, if you just chose to ignore multiple words in the sentence, you can make believe it says whatever you want, I guess.

The salary cap is all about cost certainty so owners can maximize profits by.. controlling costs. Parity is a nice by-product but the owners didn't lockout the players in 2004 because they wanted parity.

I didn't do any selective reading. In fact, I've covered this a number of times in the past.

Is the salary about having cost certainty? Absolutely.
Does it control costs? Well, by definition of how it's set up, yes.
Does it maximize profits? Hell no it doesn't. It doesn't even come close.

I'll give you time to figure out why that's not the case. Here's a hint: look at spending by team.

 

[MtoD]

I didn't do any selective reading. In fact, I've covered this a number of times in the past.

Is the salary about having cost certainty? Absolutely.
Does it control costs? Well, by definition of how it's set up, yes.
Does it maximize profits? Hell no it doesn't. It doesn't even come close.

I'll give you time to figure out why that's not the case. Here's a hint: look at spending by team.

The cap itself doesn't maximize profits. Controlling costs helps maximize profits. A -> B -> C.

And I never stated the salary cap is the only component of maximizing profits. It's no-where near that simple but controlling player salaries is a large part of things. There are many other parts of that equation that aren't controlled by the salary cap.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Both are horrible statistical methodology. I haven't hid that. However, taking the average of the areas in question is closer to reality than saying that "this one no-tax state pays 5% more than the average according to this one statistical model that I've already said is majorly flawed that only looked at one contract, so I will state with confidence that there is no tax advantage".

Basically, this statistical model shows nothing and proves nothing, and is so so flawed. However, if you're going to post it, why is taking the average of the 2 groups of areas being considered not the better methodology? It increases the sample size, which is desperately needed.

You can only do so much when you have a horribly incomplete data set.

Yet another straw man argument. That is not remotely close to what the conclusion is:

Just based on this data we have here, I don't think we can really conclude that teams in states with lesser tax rates get significant discount.

Having said that, even with a model that isn't perfect, we would probably still observe a much stronger correlation between discounts and low estimated tax rates if the correlation was extremely strong.

Lol, what? How did I misrepresent that? You literally did put everything on the one evaluation model. Your whole entire "calculation" and thread is based around how close real contracts are to this one model...

You can say "oh it's a bit flawed", but that didn't stop you from using it. That didn't stop you from posting it. That didn't stop you from saying you took an "objective look" , knowing full well that you had your mind made up ages ago. That didn't stop you from saying you used "all of the data available", which is clearly untrue, and you even admit it. That didn't stop you from stating conclusions that weren't even supported by your own results, and making assumptions about what it would show you if the tax advantage was true. If you didn't put a lot into that model to be right across all players and circumstances, we wouldn't be here in this thread.

Literally all you said about the flaws of the model was that there were a couple wonky outliers that may not line up with people's thoughts. There is so much more wrong with this method, and all I did was point out some of them.

And I'll post this again, since all you seem to do is personally attack me and run away from answering things about your methods in your thread, while you literally do the thing that you ran away because of last time. Even by your evaluation, the average of the 5 no-tax states is 98.38%. The average of the 5 locations with taxes over 50% is 113.16%.

Nobody is running away here. I'm just calling you out when you blatantly lie or misrepresent my posts, so that others can see what you do. Your posts only exist to further push whatever pre-conceived narrative you've come up with, and you frequently make personal attacks to other posters who offer a different viewpoint. There's no real discussion to be had with you.

Deke for Days and Clark are like a whiny version of Batman and Robin, and Joe is like their arch nemesis the Poker.

Let's be real here; their arch nemesis is clearly the tax situation.

That's why they've taken this thread that was not about them, at all and made it about a victim narrative.

Oh and let's be real here. The teams you are speaking of Joe are Tampa, Florida, and Dallas. How do those three teams have an advantage?

Sorry, what do you mean by this?

I've seen countless people say that these teams have an unfair advantage due to the lack of state taxes. I've seen people say that Steven Stamkos's contracts can't be used as comparables for other players because of the state tax rates in those markets.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The cap itself doesn't maximize profits. Controlling costs helps maximize profits. A -> B -> C.

I'm going to presume that you have never taken an economics class of any kind, otherwise you would instantly recognize that controlling costs in no way maximizes profits. Minimizing costs would help toward maximizing profits, but even that doesn't actually do it. Setting marginal revenue such that it equals marginal cost is what maximizes profits.

Do you really think teams are doing that? Because I can pretty confidently [and pretty trivially] point to examples illustrating that they're not.

 

[Legion34]

Yet another straw man argument. That is not remotely close to what the conclusion is:





Nobody is running away here. I'm just calling you out when you blatantly lie or misrepresent my posts, so that others can see what you do. Your posts only exist to further push whatever pre-conceived narrative you've come up with, and you frequently make personal attacks to other posters who offer a different viewpoint. There's no real discussion to be had with you.



Let's be real here; their arch nemesis is clearly the tax situation.

That's why they've taken this thread that was not about them, at all and made it about a victim narrative.

Orrrrr what actually happened was you saw
A thread where multiple GM, agents. Media members, tax specialists and players were directly
Quoted As clearly stating that they know that it is an unfair advantage and no tax states signed for less

You somehow decided that you know better than actual professionals who are quoted on the record
So you made your own study for some odd reason to what? Prove that professionals who actually deal with the contracts are wrong?

Do you deny all the articles and quotes
From GMs and tax specialists?

You still haven’t answered. Why do you deny what actual professionals say? Why don’t you believe them?

 

[glovesave_35]

The basic principles of economics don’t like it.

So just to be clear. Do you really think there is no tax advantage? Agents. Media. Players. GMs. Bill Daly acknowledge it.

But you just decide it’s not true?

I said it exists. I don't think it as pronounced as you claim.

 

[Dekes For Days]

A larger sample would be better, but his analysis is objectively better than yours.

How so? I've yet to see anybody give an explanation why.

My so-called "analysis" is just using his own data to look at the impacts on no-tax and high-tax areas, creating a bigger sample than any one individual team.

His own analysis doesn't say what he's claiming.

 

[Legion34]

You just wrote out a whole post about "cost certainty" but only talked about revenue and revenue splitting. You've completely missed the point of your own rant.

The bolded is the best part. That IS the point of the cap right there. If there was no cap on salaries, there wouldn't just be your mythical 1 billion spent on salaries. Costs would go up as teams compete with eachother for talent and owners would soon be spending more than their share of the revenue. Hence the cap to control costs and ensure that the owners as a whole would not be spending more than their share of the revenue.

Good luck going into a board meeting with 30 member clubs in 2004 and pitching the idea that teams wouldn't get equal revenue sharing. You wouldn't have an NHL.

Yes? A major point is cost certainty. The cap was ONE way to do it......... probably the best way. Not the only way.

The point is that the cap was NOT just about cost certainty. You know what cost certainty is? The owner says no. That is cost certainty. You don’t pay more.

Just like Carolina is doing now with the GM. “This is what we pay”.
There are what 600 spots? There are more than. 600’players. Teams can just Not pay more. Another player will take their spot.

Cost certainty is easy. It’s a budget. Competing with bigger budgets is hard No one goes to watch a terrible team. Getting fans to watch a team
With no chance is almost impossible.

It’s NOT about just cost certainty. It’s about a teams all being able to farm competitive teams in a cost certain market.

Parity was and is an important part
Of the cap. All teams have to have a chance to be competitive

 

[Legion34]

I said it exists. I don't think it as pronounced as you claim.

Well a tax accountant for 20 NHL players showed it could easily be millions per year.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Yet another straw man argument. That is not remotely close to what the conclusion is:

Straw man, straw man, straw man. That seems to be all you can ever say.

You literally say we can't state there are discounts, and there would be a stronger correlation if tax discounts existed, which is blatantly not true. You set up an analysis that was destined to be correlated like this, and then tried to use that weaker correlation as justification for your conclusion, knowing that your data actually shows that there is a significant difference between the no-tax areas and high-tax areas.

Nobody is running away here.

You literally have run away from answering any of the points in this thread criticizing your methods.

All you do is throw personal attacks at me and then project that onto me.

I'm just calling you out when you blatantly lie or misrepresent my posts, so that others can see what you do.

The only one lying and misrepresenting here is you. Stop saying this without backing it up.

That's why they've taken this thread that was not about them, at all

Hahaha, you're not fooling anybody.

I've literally tried to make this about your data and address the data and analysis, and all you have done is run away from it and attack me. You're the one making this about me because you don't want to answer to anything.

 

[Cuphead]

teams get discounts when people want to play there.

no one is looking at tax savings and thinking "let me pass that on to the team" they're thinking "let me pass that on to my bank account"