News Article: Dubas: unlikely Matthews and Marner would sign an extension before Oct. 3

[Peasy]

You are going to see me lose my absolute **** with rage, when both Marner and Matthews ask for the ****ing moon while Point in Tampa comes in as the lowest of the three...

cap penalty should be calculated by take home pay AFTER TAXES.

Not before.

That would put every ****ing market on the same playing field and remove taxes as a consideration for contract negotiations.

Oh you know it will happen.

Its ridiculous the contracts players in Nashville sign with no trade protection...

Seems like that will never happen with someone in Toronto, they seem to want above market value. It doesn't help that the media constantly pushes this as well...

I would personally wait until Rantanen signs to sign Marner because that would essentially be Marner's ceiling contract wise. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Rantanen settles for under 10m yet somehow Marner ends up getting more than Rantanen even though it makes 0 logical sense.'

Larkin signed for 6.1 at 5 years, plays C and is killing it this year. But to get Nylander to play for us it costs us way more.

 

[Drytoast]

I think people forget that there are a bunch of teams for affordability reasons that play at the cap floor and spend $16-18 mil less than some big market teams. That is a much bigger disadvantage than state taxes advantages.

UPPER LIMIT: 79.5M - LOWER LIMIT: 58.8M

Then increase rev share. It's not up to use to tell a team to spend.

I only focus on what could hurt the team I follow and right now all things being equal that f***ing tax all I think of and I solved it.

Cap penalty should be calculated after taxes, not before.

 

[Drytoast]

Oh you know it will happen.

Its ridiculous the contracts players in Nashville sign with no trade protection...

Seems like that will never happen with someone in Toronto, they seem to want above market value. It doesn't help that the media constantly pushes this as well...

I would personally wait until Rantanen signs to sign Marner because that would essentially be Marner's ceiling contract wise. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Rantanen settles for under 10m yet somehow Marner ends up getting more than Rantanen even though it makes 0 logical sense.'

Larkin signed for 6.1 at 5 years, plays C and is killing it this year. But to get Nylander to play for us it costs us way more.

We need to be louder on this. I mean it's not a league who's revenue is driven by these tax haven markets. It's rev from New York and Montreal and us.

If we've decided we've had enough of this imbalance and stop paying attention to the league, it would get addressed in a heart beat as we are the bread winners.

 

[RalphKing]

So what happens if a government raises or lower taxes and a team unwittingly goes over the cap?

 

[Mess]

Then increase rev share.

I only focus on what could hurt the team I follow and right now all things being equal that ****ing tax all I think of and I solved it.

You might have solved it, but that is not how the CBA works.

Parity in the NHL is based on a hard cap system with a Floor and Ceiling for spending, and the gap between all teams spending in a range is for fairness and competitiveness.

I think you will be waiting a long time before Bettman decides to give big market free spending teams and even greater advantage over many smaller market budget teams.

 

[Drytoast]

So what happens if a government raises or lower taxes and a team unwittingly goes over the cap?

I guess they need to adjust then, huh?

I mean it's not unheard of for teams to have to shed contracts now is it?

 

[Drytoast]

You might have solved it, but that is not how the CBA works.

Parity in the NHL is based on a hard cap system with a Floor and Ceiling for spending, and the gap between all teams spending in a range is for fairness and competitiveness.

I think you will be waiting a long time before Bettman decides to give big market free spending teams and even greater advantage over many smaller market budget teams.

There is grants us no more advantage than we already have. You want to work me through the logic as to how a recalculation of cap penalty after taxes penalizes teams that don't spend to cap ceiling?

 

[Bluelines]

Then increase rev share. It's not up to use to tell a team to spend.

I only focus on what could hurt the team I follow and right now all things being equal that ****ing tax all I think of and I solved it.

Cap penalty should be calculated after taxes, not before.

Why?

 

[ACC1224]

Then increase rev share. It's not up to use to tell a team to spend.

I only focus on what could hurt the team I follow and right now all things being equal that ****ing tax all I think of and I solved it.

Cap penalty should be calculated after taxes, not before.

What happens if a player is traded? Say a Leaf traded to a zero tax haven.

 

[Drytoast]

Why?

Why?

So that there is parity between various tax markets.

(but you already knew that)

 

[Drytoast]

What happens if a player is traded? Say a Leaf traded to a zero tax haven.

I guess you need to take that in account when you make a trade as to what the return cap hit is?

Oh well.

Much better than having no tax teams having the ability to squeeze in extra talent under the cap because everyone from the back up goalie on out can take home more for less of a cap hit.

 

[RalphKing]

So can we work in sponsorship deals so smaller market teams can compete with the Rangers and the Leafs? It's a dumb idea. How it is now is fine.

 

[Mess]

There is no advantage that would give anymore than we already have.

Sure there is because you want Leafs to get better players for less cap hit (AAV ), so that big market teams can spend even more on actual talent per team..

That increases the parity gap for small market teams that struggle to play near the cap floor and already $16 mil or more less than big market teams.

Bettman wants big market teams to be capped at ceiling spending, and then perhaps forced to trade/lose players for the benefit of the smaller market teams to maintain parity.

 

[Drytoast]

So can we work in sponsorship deals so smaller market teams can compete with the Rangers and the Leafs? It's a dumb idea. How it is now is fine.

No how it is now is NOT fine. And after this summer's nonsense will further prove how it is not fine.

And to be absolutely bias. The teams who's fans support and drive the health of the league with life blood revenue SHOULD see some form of advantage versus those markets who don't.

 

[ACC1224]

I guess you need to take that in account when you make a trade as to what the return cap hit is?

Oh well.

Much better than having no tax teams having the ability to squeeze in extra talent under the cap because everyone from the back up goalie on out can take home more for less of a cap hit.

Yeah, I get it's not perfect but I don't think your solution would fly because of those trade implications.
Maybe it would make more sense to have the ceiling based on the local tax?

 

[Bluelines]

Why?

So that there is parity between various tax markets.

(but you already knew that)

Why do we want that?

To be totally upfront , I don't like any sort of cap to begin with.

There are a multitude of reasons why someone would pick one spot over another spot.

This is a true story someones wife didn't want to live in a certain western Canadian city because of the weather, she forced him to demand a trade. Based on interviews I've read the cities weather, nightlife and quality of life for their family rank quite highly on the where will I sign meter.

Money is a factor but I doubt one GM will say that Fla/TBL has a competitive advantage, you don't see a lot of stars making Fla a destination spot for their UFA contracts. Montreal has the French factor , where many francophone people want to play in their home province. Many BC guys want to play in Van City because its close to home. Winning a championship is high on players lists.

IMO I really don't think the tax implications are really that big of a factor for most players, it might be for some but I doubt it becomes a burden for other teams.

 

[Spirit of 67]

I suppose, since we're changing the rules based on organisations in zero state tax areas, we need to change the rules so that if you get traded to a Canadian team, you get paid in Canadian dollars.

 

[Drytoast]

Sure there is because you want Leafs to get better players for less cap hit (AAV ), so that big market teams can spend even more on actual talent per team..

That increases the parity gap for small market teams that struggle to play near the cap floor and already $16 mil or more less than big market teams.

Bettman wants big market teams to be capped at ceiling spending, and then perhaps forced to trade/lose players for the benefit of the smaller market teams to maintain parity.

If someone want's there take home pay to be 5 mil, and have a cap hit of 5 mil, then you gotta pay out what that would be based on your market's tax rate

Post-Tax Earnings Calculator - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

fairly easy to do.

You could work out that part of the trade would cancel the existing contract values and have them adjusted so that his new home would also have him take home 5 mil with a cap hit of 5 mil.

A team like Phoenix who isn't spending to the cap floor is going to be no more competitive under this system or under a new system. They are still going to continue to release their talent rather than pay them out. They would essentially still be living off of their draft pick's entry contract years.

Nothing changes, except they would have to consider the impact of contract adjustments when handling trades.

Not a big a deal. At all.

 

[MeowLeafs]

I can definitely see Marner getting 10+ million if he hits 100+ points. He won’t get the tax benefits that Kucherov (and the rest of the Tampa tax friendly deals) gets and there’s another year of cap increase.
10+ mil for Marner and 12 mil for Matthews.
I hope they take less though…
Sidenote: I’d pay money to see how these negotiations go down in real life and how much things like taxes and endorsements get discussed.

 

[Drytoast]

Why do we want that?

Because I don't like seeing small market tax havens able to sign players at cheap rates and stack their teams because they happen to reside in a tax free market.

Every tax free market is relatively new to the league, has a fringe fan base and to be honest, hasn't earned the right to have any advantages in a league that's over 100 years old and to which they have never supported.

If any teams deserve an advantage, it should be to the most loyal fan bases because they are the reason we still HAVE an nhl.

That's me being completely honest.

 

[thewave]

I suppose, since we're changing the rules based on organisations in zero state tax areas, we need to change the rules so that if you get traded to a Canadian team, you get paid in Canadian dollars.

They should just add the luxury tax cap system. Most high tax state teams are already more profitable anyways.

Canada should just ammend the tax code for Pro athletes. They represent us globally and give us free PR etc.

 

[Spirit of 67]

They should just add the luxury tax cap system. Most high tax state teams are already more profitable anyways.

Canada should just ammend the tax code for Pro athletes. They represent us globally and give us free PR etc.

I've been suggesting a luxury tax for a while. Penalty money would go into escrow.

Other than that, I find that hand wringing about this issue to be somewhat comical.

 

[Bluelines]

Because I don't like seeing small market tax havens able to sign players at cheap rates and stack their teams because they happen to reside in a tax free market.

Every tax free market is relatively new to the league, has a fringe fan base and to be honest, hasn't earned the right to have any advantages in a league that's over 100 years old and to which they have never supported.

If any teams deserve an advantage, it should be to the most loyal fan bases because they are the reason we still HAVE an nhl.

That's me being completely honest.

Fair enough, which tax haven teams have stacked their team?

 

[thewave]

I've been suggesting a luxury tax for a while. Penalty money would go into escrow.

Other than that, I find that hand wringing about this issue to be somewhat comical.

The gov could also offer tax exemptions to players of a sport but charge a special pro sports flat rate tax that essentially covers the players tax. So it's a tax transfer scheme for cap based leagues. Teams can opt in or out.

 

[Bluelines]

They should just add the luxury tax cap system. Most high tax state teams are already more profitable anyways.

Canada should just ammend the tax code for Pro athletes. They represent us globally and give us free PR etc.

Why do I care about giving millionaires tax breaks? I'm already in one of the higher tax brackets, why would I want to pay more to cover the breaks we give these guys?