Owners Backing off replacements?

[Jarqui]

CPP and UI are roughly 3.8% and 2.9% of earnings. Capped at $39,000 CDN a year, or the equivalent of 2 games worth of salary for someone making $1.3 million US. If owners match at the same rates it's roughly $2,600 CDN per player, a whopping $59,800 CDN a year. This is not why teams are in rough shape financially.

Why don't we try to trivialize all the other taxes and other player costs ? Should the Leafs & Sens ignore EHT employer contributions ? The courts say they can't. Here's a clue: between the two teams, it's in the low millions in CDN$ or 1 or 2% of revenues. Should we ignore that, skip counting all the player costs and just count all the salaries & revenues ?

It all adds up. All these player costs excluding salaries are directly related to employing the players and do contribute substantially to the league expenses. When you tally them all, for 2002-3, all these "player costs", of which employer tax contributions are a part, excluding pure salaries, cost the NHL around $290 million bucks USD.

Some might pretend that the costs don't matter but an accountant couldn't and neither could the team's bank account that has to pay them. And a big part of them relate directly to compensating the player for his services. Only 3.5% of league revenues go to player benefits as a direct consequence of employing the players. 71.5% of league revenues is pure salary and bonuses going into the players bank account.

 

[PecaFan]

CPP and UI are roughly 3.8% and 2.9% of earnings. Capped at $39,000 CDN a year, or the equivalent of 2 games worth of salary for someone making $1.3 million US. If owners match at the same rates it's roughly $2,600 CDN per player, a whopping $59,800 CDN a year. This is not why teams are in rough shape financially.

If you're going to post "factual" data to backup your argument, would it kill you to actually look up the numbers? You didn't get a single one right.

2005 CPP:
* Employee contribution rate is 4.95% of pensionable earnings
* Maximum pensionable earnings are $41,100
* Basic yearly exemption is $3,500
* Maximum employee contribution is $1861.20
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/business/topics/payroll/calculating/cpp/menu-e.html

2005 EI:
* Premium rate is 1.95%
* Maximum insurable earnings are $39,000
* Maximum employee contribution is $760.50
* Maximum employer contribution is $1,064.70
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/business/topics/payroll/calculating/ei/menu-e.html

Employer costs: 2925.90 per player. Multiply by say 40 players in the NHL and minors (a guess) and you're up to approx. $120,000.

No, by itself it doesn't kill them. But when added together with the rest of the expenses, it comes to $2.2 million, and in most people's worlds, that *is* significant.

 

[CGG]

If you're going to post "factual" data to backup your argument, would it kill you to actually look up the numbers? You didn't get a single one right.

2005 CPP:
* Employee contribution rate is 4.95% of pensionable earnings
* Maximum pensionable earnings are $41,100
* Basic yearly exemption is $3,500
* Maximum employee contribution is $1861.20
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/business/topics/payroll/calculating/cpp/menu-e.html

2005 EI:
* Premium rate is 1.95%
* Maximum insurable earnings are $39,000
* Maximum employee contribution is $760.50
* Maximum employer contribution is $1,064.70
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/business/topics/payroll/calculating/ei/menu-e.html

Employer costs: 2925.90 per player. Multiply by say 40 players in the NHL and minors (a guess) and you're up to approx. $120,000.

No, by itself it doesn't kill them. But when added together with the rest of the expenses, it comes to $2.2 million, and in most people's worlds, that *is* significant.

Good work. You got me. I came up with $2,600 per player off the top of my head, you spent god knows how long coming up with the actual number of $2925.90 per player. How could I be so horribly wrong. I feel shame.

Player costs: payroll ++ are 75% of 2.1 billion / 30 teams = $52.5 mil/team. With $44 mil ave team payroll, 19.3% on top of that for benefits, bonuses, employer payroll taxes, etc (or +8.5 mil) gets you to the 75% number.

So with a new 40 mil average (instead of 44 mil), times 1.193 to add on the 19.3 % of other player payroll/benefit costs, times 30 teams = 1.432 bil / 2.1 bil = 68.2 % of revenues.

Something's goofy with your math, even the NHL is saying benefits work out to $2.2 million a team, irregardless of salary. That's closer to 5% than 19.3%.

It all adds up. All these player costs excluding salaries are directly related to employing the players and do contribute substantially to the league expenses. When you tally them all, for 2002-3, all these "player costs", of which employer tax contributions are a part, excluding pure salaries, cost the NHL around $290 million bucks USD.

Some might pretend that the costs don't matter but an accountant couldn't and neither could the team's bank account that has to pay them. And a big part of them relate directly to compensating the player for his services. Only 3.5% of league revenues go to player benefits as a direct consequence of employing the players. 71.5% of league revenues is pure salary and bonuses going into the players bank account.

You're losing me again. Everything that is cash in a player's pocket would be included under a cap, be it $32 or $52 million (i.e. signing bonuses, achievement bonuses, rookie contract bonuses). Not including per diems, which equates to travel & expense reimbursement. So you're trying to tell me all the benefits that teams graciously supply their players with, plus payroll taxes are worth $290 million US? Something like $30 million a team? Methinks no. Gary himself keeps using $2.2 million a team.

 

[kdb209]

If you're going to post "factual" data to backup your argument, would it kill you to actually look up the numbers? You didn't get a single one right.

2005 CPP:
* Employee contribution rate is 4.95% of pensionable earnings
* Maximum pensionable earnings are $41,100
* Basic yearly exemption is $3,500
* Maximum employee contribution is $1861.20
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/business/topics/payroll/calculating/cpp/menu-e.html

2005 EI:
* Premium rate is 1.95%
* Maximum insurable earnings are $39,000
* Maximum employee contribution is $760.50
* Maximum employer contribution is $1,064.70
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/business/topics/payroll/calculating/ei/menu-e.html

Employer costs: 2925.90 per player. Multiply by say 40 players in the NHL and minors (a guess) and you're up to approx. $120,000.

No, by itself it doesn't kill them. But when added together with the rest of the expenses, it comes to $2.2 million, and in most people's worlds, that *is* significant.

And for completeness sake, for players on US based teams (the majority)

FICA (Social Security)
----------------
Employer Contribution: 6.2%
Earnings Cap: $90,000
Max Employer Contribution: $5580

Medicare
-------
Employer Contribution: 1.45%
Earnings Cap: none
Employer Contribution: 18,850 (assuming avg $1.3M salary)

Total team contribution (23 man roster only) = $562K

Note that the players themselves match the same contributions through payroll tax. Of course, the majority of them will never collect Social Security or Medicare - the US Gov't thanks them for their kind donations.

Although, it is likely that the $90K limit will go away as part of Social Security "reform", which means for the avg 1.3M player, both the team and player will have to pony up $80,600 and the total team contribution balloons to almost $2.3M.

 

[PecaFan]

Good work. You got me. I came up with $2,600 per player off the top of my head, you spent god knows how long coming up with the actual number of $2925.90 per player. How could I be so horribly wrong. I feel shame.

It took about 2 minutes to do a google search, another minute to add up, and copy and paste. Doing your homework on your posts is the cost of doing business, so to speak.

But then, I have unrealistic expectations that people should have actual facts behind their arguments, and actually invest the time and energy to make sure their ideas are rationally sound and accurate, before posting them. A silly thing I know, but that's how us kids were brought up in the 50's.

FICA (Social Security)
----------------
Employer Contribution: 6.2%
Earnings Cap: $90,000
Max Employer Contribution: $5580

Total team contribution (23 man roster only) = $562K

OT: It's really quite amazing how low the Canadian numbers are, especially compared to the US. I can't believe that hockey players etc stop paying taxes after *one paycheque*. With the stress on the support system, that's an obvious route to exploit by the government.

 

[Morbo]

But then, I have unrealistic expectations that people should have actual facts behind their arguments, and actually invest the time and energy to make sure their ideas are rationally sound and accurate, before posting them. A silly thing I know, but that's how us kids were brought up in the 50's.

Oh, jeez...here we go....

 

[PecaFan]

Oh, jeez...here we go....

What do you expect when handed a "Gosh, it's too hard to look up facts" speech? Of course you're going to get an "In my day" speech back.

 

[Jarqui]

Something's goofy with your math, even the NHL is saying benefits work out to $2.2 million a team, irregardless of salary. That's closer to 5% than 19.3%.

As I had previosuly and recently stated to you in this thread"All these player costs excluding salaries are directly related to employing the players ... When you tally them all, for 2002-3, all these "player costs", of which employer tax contributions are a part, excluding pure salaries, cost the NHL around $290 million bucks USD."

I think I've defined what I was talking about. Roughly 19.3% on top of players salaries gets you total player costs.