TSN: League looking at signing bonuses CBA

[Starat327]

If there's an actual city income tax that is assessed on a paycheck for someone working in that city (whether they live there or not), there's no issue in including it. You had this silly idea of including property taxes and everything else (including sales taxes). I have no problem including city-level taxes assessed on the income of someone working in that city (regardless of where they live). All that is is an income tax.

An actual income tax is a far cry from taking ****ing property taxes into account.

You find it funny, but is it that far fetched? It's ultimately just the next step in the process, if you dont lack vision. Once we've made a level playing field for 'income tax' the argument will be "players are signing cheaper deals in X state/province because they dont have to pay sales tax/no property tax/no whatever tax, and its creating an unfair advantage because players get more take home pay because of that."

The point isnt that i think property taxes are impactful. The point is that there is absolutely no way to even the playing field on income taxes. A state like Florida collects a large amount of income because the roads are tolled. Isnt that an unfair advantage? At what point do the advantage become 'meaningless'?

All of this compllete ignores that the impact isnt nearly as large as people are making it out to be. Players play 41 games at home. They pay taxes in every other state when they play their. cut whatever advantage people are actually getting in half, and is it really as sizable as being suggested? Likely not. Here's a fun game too - once we equal out income taxes, is it fair that Toronto gets to play more games in FLorida (against the panthers and tampa), thus paying less in income tax to a team in the Metro, who doesnt get to play as many games in tax-shelter states?

Just so we're clear, that last sentence or two isnt entirely serious - but it just reiterates the point that people are always going to have advantages. Everyone wants to play the 'parity' game until it turns on them, then its not as much fun.

 

[DanM]

I am not saying the signing bonuses are perfect, and they do stretch far past the first year of the contract, but this should not be removed. There is no reason why a team should not be able to spend the money they have earned, and the players should be allowed to have that kind of security. I do see why owner have issues with it, but not every market is created equal.

I want league parity, I want the game to be healthy, but we already have a cap and revenue sharing, and owners apparently want to take food and beverage income and keep it without sharing with players.

The league keeps trying to scale back any advantages teams or markets have, but they are not understanding that a soft cap would be better. Allow teams to be penalized, and use that luxury tax when sharing revenue. Also, not that I think tax is as bad as many think, income tax alone is an advantage (but we have tax breaks and great accountants to help) and the cap could be constructed to include the calculations after tax. If you are going to create parity, this goes for Toronto, Tampa, Carolina, or Arizona. Either have them all EXACTLY on level ground, or allow teams like the Leafs to use their financial might, just like some teams can have a tax advantage.

It's like trying to squeeze a square peg in a round hole. Not every market is the same, some are powerful, some are not, but it seems every time the large markets do anything to flex muscle, everyone views it as the CBA needs to be changed, because can't have powerful teams upping the Arizona's of the world.

The reality is Arizona is not Toronto, just like baseball has only one Yankees and Red Sox, or the NBA has only one Lakers and Knicks. Not every market can be the same. The NHL needs to fix things, and grow the game even more, but you also need your bread and butter markets to be happy and taken care of. Scratch their back, because they sure as hell scratch yours.

Hell remove any of the original 6 from the League....what kind of league would you have left. If I am Bettman, I want the owners and players to be happy, and I want growth, but I also want league health with regards to my flagship franchises.

 

[Starat327]

You are creating a make work project. You are insisting in adding Property tax and Sales tax where the difference in actual dollars spent from city to city is very minor. Income tax difference is in the millions, property tax and sales tax is no where close. Tracking this is time consuming and the net result is not worth it.

No, im asking for us to consider all things that affect a players take home pay. What you are refusing to acknowledge for some reason, is that there are other things than 'income tax' that affect players take home pay. You want to solve part of the problem because you think its the most imapactful, without any knowledge of how each l ocal jurisdiction works.

Income tax makes states and municipalities money to pay for things.
Property taxes make states and municipalities to pay for things.

Not worth the effort to you, for sure. But what happens when city x has a .2% property tax rate and city y has a 3%( im just making numbers up here) - over the course of a 10 million/year contract, thats 280K a year, and on an 8 year deal, is over 2 million. Is that impactful enough to you?

 

[Orfieus]

Can someone please tell me why this such a big deal? Why is a signing bonus taxed differently? I'm really confused here

 

[DistantThunderRep]

No, im asking for us to consider all things that affect a players take home pay. What you are refusing to acknowledge for some reason, is that there are other things than 'income tax' that affect players take home pay. You want to solve part of the problem because you think its the most imapactful, without any knowledge of how each l ocal jurisdiction works.

Income tax makes states and municipalities money to pay for things.
Property taxes make states and municipalities to pay for things.

Not worth the effort to you, for sure. But what happens when city x has a .2% property tax rate and city y has a 3%( im just making numbers up here) - over the course of a 10 million/year contract, thats 280K a year, and on an 8 year deal, is over 2 million. Is that impactful enough to you?

I live in Vancouver, so I get royally f***ed by everything out here. But a place like Vancouver, while expensive as hell, will also net you income on property if you can afford it. The cost of property out here is high, 2 bedroom condo's that are 30 to 40 years old are going for 800k in some parts. But we pay extremely low property taxes. Some of the lowest in North America if not the lowest. It is a ridiculously stupid pandora's box to open if the league wants to take into account income tax. People who don't understand this are just circle jerking the rage and or are too young to understand the other factors that need to be taken into account aside from just income tax. If the income tax was such an advantage, why isn't Dallas and Florida signing all the superstars to sweet heart contracts? If that was the case, why didn't Dallas or Florida sign Tavares? Should we now have to take into account the Tavares wanted to play for his hometown favourite team? Unfair advantage that Toronto got there because he took a hometown discount, and Toronto had the advantage of being his favourite team. The next CBA should take players bias towards their childhood teams and favourite colours into account. Expansion teams are disadvantaged because they can't pull in free-agents because no players are going to have them as their childhood favourite team. Its all just plain dumb.

 

[DistantThunderRep]

Can someone please tell me why this such a big deal? Why is a signing bonus taxed differently? I'm really confused here

Signing bonuses are supplemental money and not your actual salary. Salary is taxed differently then money you were given. Kind of like how you get taxed on winning the lottery.

 

[Orfieus]

Signing bonuses are supplemental money and not your actual salary. Salary is taxed differently then money you were given. Kind of like how you get taxed on winning the lottery.

I missed the link in the article going over all of that.

I love that, in a way, Tavares is making money simply by living in luxury in Flordia

 

[LoovTrain]

Quite frankly, the “have” teams have done enough to support the “have not” teams in my opinion.

Gone are the days when the rich could spend whatever they wanted on salaries. Hard salary cap.... check.

Let’s institute revenue sharing so that the fans of “have teams” can watch some of the dollars they spent on their team go to help other teams win a Cup and watch as teams such as Arizona get the same cut of National TV revenues as a team like Chicago or NY or Boston.... check.

And that is fine, for the good of the League as a whole.

No problem.

But now you want to whine about HOW they pay their players while being fully cap compliant?

What’s next? Limits on how much we can pay coaches, trainers, scouts, AHL and ECHL teams?

Know when to say thank-you and move along.

 

[DanM]

Quite frankly, the “have” teams have done enough to support the “have not” teams in my opinion.

Gone are the days when the rich could spend whatever they wanted on salaries. Hard salary cap.... check.

Let’s institute revenue sharing so that the fans of “have teams” can watch some of the dollars they spent on their team go to help other teams win a Cup and watch as teams such as Arizona get the same cut of National TV revenues as a team like Chicago or NY or Boston.... check.

And that is fine, for the good of the League as a whole.

No problem.

But now you want to whine about HOW they pay their players while being fully cap compliant?

What’s next? Limits on how much we can pay coaches, trainers, scouts, AHL and ECHL teams?

Know when to say thank-you and move along.

I know it's more complicated, but I do feel like this. Enough is damn enough

 

[ottomaddox]

"I'm shaking in my boots worried about a possible reform on signing bonuses" -Every Toronto Fan Ever

 

[Starat327]

Quite frankly, the “have” teams have done enough to support the “have not” teams in my opinion.

Gone are the days when the rich could spend whatever they wanted on salaries. Hard salary cap.... check.

Let’s institute revenue sharing so that the fans of “have teams” can watch some of the dollars they spent on their team go to help other teams win a Cup and watch as teams such as Arizona get the same cut of National TV revenues as a team like Chicago or NY or Boston.... check.

And that is fine, for the good of the League as a whole.

No problem.

But now you want to whine about HOW they pay their players while being fully cap compliant?

What’s next? Limits on how much we can pay coaches, trainers, scouts, AHL and ECHL teams?

Know when to say thank-you and move along.

Im on board with this as well. I dont think governing 'how' players get their money is what the cap was designed for. If the team is willing to accept the risk of paying a player all the money up front, let them.

I understand that smaller teams cant do that, and this may be a small advantage, but thats the advantage the larger teams get fr building their brand. Signing bonus vs salary makes no difference in terms of AAV, so let it be.

 

[DanM]

Im on board with this as well. I dont think governing 'how' players get their money is what the cap was designed for. If the team is willing to accept the risk of paying a player all the money up front, let them.

I understand that smaller teams cant do that, and this may be a small advantage, but thats the advantage the larger teams get fr building their brand. Signing bonus vs salary makes no difference in terms of AAV, so let it be.

Thank you. I agree, I always say that every market and brand was not created equal.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

Are you kidding?

Jamie Benn coming off a ross signed for a million less than Kopitar and Kane and toews. He signed for 9.5 when 10 plus was the going rate.

The lightning, stars and preds have consistently signed players for below average AAV. They have consistently got better deals from their players than teams like LA and Anaheim and SJ who have comparable weather and big market teams who actually have won the cup.

Kane and toews were in an original 6 dynasty and they didn’t give breaks. Kopitar and doughty won 2 cups and live in LA. No breaks there.

But somehow fans try to tell us that TBL,
Nashville and Dallas just happen to have the best negotiators in the league

I can buy the argument that Benn took less, but is that a hometown discount or a hometown discount + tax discount?

Kane and Toews, in particular, didn’t give Chicago anything in the way of a hometown discount. Both make comparatively more than Kopitar by a decent margin, for example. If they do, much of the gap disappears. All that would be left is the difference in the winning experience that hockey people adore. Benn's contract isn't out of the ordinary in comparison to comparables like Giroux, Getzlaf, Kessel, etc.

Tampa is a beneficiary here, I don't deny that, but winning is an important factor driving that advantage.

I do think that Dallas and Nashville, in particular, have smart front offices. The high value contracts (Ellis, Josi, Klingberg) that they're lauded for were a result of smart, aggressive gambles on young players prior to breakouts.

 

[LoovTrain]

Im on board with this as well. I dont think governing 'how' players get their money is what the cap was designed for. If the team is willing to accept the risk of paying a player all the money up front, let them.

I understand that smaller teams cant do that, and this may be a small advantage, but thats the advantage the larger teams get fr building their brand. Signing bonus vs salary makes no difference in terms of AAV, so let it be.

Where does it end?

Players are not allowed to go back and play for their hometown teams because it hurts teams like Carolina, Florida, Arizona etc...

How about parity for the fans? Maybe all those small market fans whining about the injustice of it all should pay the same ticket prices the fans of the “have” teams do?

Should a Leaf/Hab/Bruin/Ranger etc. fan be happy with paying ridiculous ticket prices and knowing that a chunk of that is going to support a team that few in their own market give a crap about?

 

[Starat327]

Where does it end?

Players are not allowed to go back and play for their hometown teams because it hurts teams like Carolina, Florida, Arizona etc...

How about parity for the fans? Maybe all those small market fans whining about the injustice of it all should pay the same ticket prices the fans of the “have” teams do?

Should a Leaf/Hab/Bruin/Ranger etc. fan be happy with paying ridiculous ticket prices and knowing that a chunk of that is going to support a team that few in their market give a crap about?

Revenue sharing is good for the league. The premise of " if the league grows, all teams grow", is fine with me.

Your ticket comments are inane. Leafs set those prices, not the NHL. The Leafs dont need to charge as much as the do for tickets to cover costs. Because they cant theoretically 'pay' their players, on average, any more than other teams, they arent required to operate at a higher cost than anyone else. They don't lower those prices because the masses in Toronto will still flock to see the team, regardless. If you dont like your ticket prices, band together as fans and boycott games until they become reasonable again. Thats not a 'parity' issue.

 

[zetajerk]

Where does it end?

Players are not allowed to go back and play for their hometown teams because it hurts teams like Carolina, Florida, Arizona etc...

How about parity for the fans? Maybe all those small market fans whining about the injustice of it all should pay the same ticket prices the fans of the “have” teams do?

Should a Leaf/Hab/Bruin/Ranger etc. fan be happy with paying ridiculous ticket prices and knowing that a chunk of that is going to support a team that few in their own market give a crap about?

Dude, get rid the teams you hate and your ticket prices won't go down one cent. As a fan of one of those teams, kindly soak your head.

 

[LoovTrain]

Revenue sharing is good for the league. The premise of " if the league grows, all teams grow", is fine with me.

Your ticket comments are inane. Leafs set those prices, not the NHL. The Leafs dont need to charge as much as the do for tickets to cover costs. Because they cant theoretically 'pay' their players, on average, any more than other teams, they arent required to operate at a higher cost than anyone else. They don't lower those prices because the masses in Toronto will still flock to see the team, regardless. If you dont like your ticket prices, band together as fans and boycott games until they become reasonable again. Thats not a 'parity' issue.

It’s fine with me too. I get it, I understand it. Bettman needs these markets for tv deals etc.

But you never hear fans of those small market teams even acknowledge that some of the heavy lifting is being done by other fans in other markets.

They are happy with Hockey Socialism as long as it benefits them.

 

[Starat327]

It’s fine with me too. I get it, I understand it. Bettman needs these markets for tv deals etc.

But you never hear fans of those small market teams even acknowledge that some of the heavy lifting is being done by other fans in other markets.

They are happy with Hockey Socialism as long as it benefits them.

And you never hear large market teams complaining about setting their players up with a sponsorship or endorsement deal to supplement their NHL salary, thus supplementing the players NHL salary with additional money that isn't accounted for by the cap.

Nobody is going to give up their benefits willingly.

 

[zetajerk]

It’s fine with me too. I get it, I understand it. Bettman needs these markets for tv deals etc.

But you never hear fans of those small market teams even acknowledge that some of the heavy lifting is being done by other fans in other markets.

They are happy with Hockey Socialism as long as it benefits them.

Considering the hostility we receive just for existing and participating, anything that makes traditionalists unhappy makes me very happy.

 

[LoovTrain]

And you never hear large market teams complaining about setting their players up with a sponsorship or endorsement deal to supplement their NHL salary, thus supplementing the players NHL salary with additional money that isn't accounted for by the cap.

Nobody is going to give up their benefits willingly.

Only one side has been giving up benefits.

But seriously though, to see a fan of the Devils, a team which blatantly gave out a cap circumventing contract to Kovalchuk, get called on it, lose their draft pick.... only for a little while.... complain about the Leafs paying John Tavares the vast majority of his money up front each season and derive no cap benefit from it.

Well that’s a little rich.

 

[Starat327]

Only one side has been giving up benefits.

But seriously though, to see a fan of the Devils, a team which blatantly gave out a cap circumventing contract to Kovalchuk, get called on it, lose their draft pick.... only for a little while.... complain about the Leafs paying John Tavares the vast majority of his money up front each season and derive no cap benefit from it.

Well that’s a little rich.

Thats kind of the way 'expanding the game' works. Is it 'fair' that longer existing and bigger teams have to sacrifice things? No, not necessarily. But the NHL wouldnt exist if you let them spend what they want and dominate things. Youd be back to a 10 team league, and thats not exactly fun.

My team might not contribute as much as the leafs, but im happy to watch it happen because more teams = more players = (in theory) better competition. If the NHL ever turns in to the NBA where you pretty much know who is going to win, as a fan? Im out.

 

[Pelle31]

Yeah it has nothing to do with the cap you are right. I just think it gives an unfair advantage to owners who are willing to write those checks.

The one change I would like to see with the salary cap is the cap hit for homegrown players. If you are signing a long term deal with a player that you either drafted or were his first NHL club (talking about college free agents) then the cap hit should be 75% of what it should be. Teams should be rewarded and encourage to sign and keep home grown talent at the salaries they deserve but a cap hit that will not make it hard to build around that player.

How about changing the amount of years a team can give a homegrown player compared to other teams signing that player to a free agent contract. Instead of one extra year, make it two years. So for example, so the Islanders can give Taveras an eight year deal compared to another team can only give him a 6 year deal.

 

[LoovTrain]

Considering the hostility we receive just for existing and participating, anything that makes traditionalists unhappy makes me very happy.

It has nothing to do with being a “traditionalist”.

I think all hockey fans celebrate the fact that many teams in non-traditional small hockey markets have had major success off the ice... and many on ice as well.

Nashville
Columbus
Tampa

Just to name a few.

It’s the chronic off-ice losers that bother me. And then their fans who think preventing the “have” teams from paying big upfront signing bonuses is going to change their lot.

I’m sorry if that describes your team

 

[Habs Halifax]

No, im asking for us to consider all things that affect a players take home pay. What you are refusing to acknowledge for some reason, is that there are other things than 'income tax' that affect players take home pay. You want to solve part of the problem because you think its the most imapactful, without any knowledge of how each l ocal jurisdiction works.

Income tax makes states and municipalities money to pay for things.
Property taxes make states and municipalities to pay for things.

Not worth the effort to you, for sure. But what happens when city x has a .2% property tax rate and city y has a 3%( im just making numbers up here) - over the course of a 10 million/year contract, thats 280K a year, and on an 8 year deal, is over 2 million. Is that impactful enough to you?

280k a year for a 1% difference in property tax (2%-3% tax rates) between different cities? What's that on, a 28M house? Who do you think NHL players are, Billionaires? You also going to factor in Crosby's house he build in Halifax vs what he owns in Pittsburgh? How do you evaluate how a players spends their money and how many houses he buys and the lifestyle they choose to live vs another player?

I don't agree at all with going beyond income tax. Like I said before, were not trying to create parity on John Daly type spending. Most NHL players purchase properties around $5M. Lets say we balloon that to $10M. $10M difference in taxes (2% vs 3%) is around $1M over 10 years. Compare that to Subban's contract (Montreal vs Nashville) where he is making almost $12M more in clear take home pay over 8 years. If $1M was the only difference over 10 years, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But $12M over 8 years, it's a factor and a real advantage.

Cost of living is a factor for the average person who makes average salary. It's not a factor for millionaires. So why botther waste time and resources tracking the players assets where the difference between cities is not as much as you say it is.

2% vs 3% on property tax <<<< 50% vs 31% on income tax. Not even close!

 

[LoovTrain]

Thats kind of the way 'expanding the game' works. Is it 'fair' that longer existing and bigger teams have to sacrifice things? No, not necessarily. But the NHL wouldnt exist if you let them spend what they want and dominate things. Youd be back to a 10 team league, and thats not exactly fun.

My team might not contribute as much as the leafs, but im happy to watch it happen because more teams = more players = (in theory) better competition. If the NHL ever turns in to the NBA where you pretty much know who is going to win, as a fan? Im out.

I get all that and quite frankly I have little issue with the setup of the league right now. But some just need to slow their roll. How far do you want to take this? I don’t want to see us go down the road where every little benefit certain teams have whether it be taxes, weather, endorsements, big bankrolls etc. get swept away for the sake of “parity”.

I mean, should Arizona be allowed to reach the cap floor with contracts like Datsyuk and Pronger? I say sure, if it helps them. Regardless of whether it might not exactly be in the spirit of the Cap rules.

But how much hairsplitting do we really want to do?

Was the signing bonus the real reason Tavares left?

Yeah... I think not.