Should teams salary cap be based on taxable income in that location?

rboomercat90

Registered User
Mar 24, 2013
14,598
8,770
Edmonton
I feel that you are partially right, parity was a consideration as well.
You’re pretty naive if you think the salary cap has anything to do with parity. It was about cost certainty as many others have pointed out. Parity was achieved with loser points and game management.
 

EakinsMVP

Registered User
Apr 23, 2015
234
523
Looking that that, It plays in somewhat but not really. Then again, look at the teams listed below:

TEAMFEDERAL RATESTATE RATECITY RATEESTIMATED TAX RATETAX PAIDNET SALARY
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Nashville Predators39.31%--39.31%
(-8.50%)
$5,896,170$9,103,830
(+$1,275,145)
vegas_golden_knights.svg
Vegas Golden Knights
39.31%--39.31%
(-8.50%)
$5,896,170$9,103,830
(+$1,275,145)
florida_panthers.svg
Florida Panthers
39.31%--39.31%
(-8.50%)
$5,896,170$9,103,830
(+$1,275,145)
tampa_bay_lightning.svg
Tampa Bay Lightning
39.31%--39.31%
(-8.50%)
$5,896,170$9,103,830
(+$1,275,145)
dallas_stars.svg
Dallas Stars
39.31%--39.31%
(-8.50%)
$5,896,170$9,103,830
(+$1,275,145)

[TBODY]
[/TBODY]

Coincidentally, the top teams that have been linked to EK: Vegas, Tampa, and Dallas...

Hmmmmmm......
 

joestevens29

Registered User
Apr 30, 2009
52,498
15,066
Just looked at all the pro sports teams in Florida. It's quite clear that taxes aren't giving them a benefit.

One team is doing well. 10 teams if you include MLS and one of them has done well in the past bunch of years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summary

EakinsMVP

Registered User
Apr 23, 2015
234
523
How many of those teams have a salary cap? I'm actually curious, and don't really follow other sports. I imagine if there was any kind of advantage, it would probably involve a cap of some sort
 

oobga

Tier 2 Fan
Aug 1, 2003
22,936
17,813
How does the tax on signing bonus work? 100% taxed based on home town city? Kuch gets 11M next July.
 

Weitz

Registered User
Sep 23, 2014
2,786
1,162
I believe this is true for players playing in US markets, but I was under the impression it was managed differently in Canada/CRA.

Yah you just pay your tax where you reside. I know a few guys who live in Kelowna but work in Fort Mac. They pay BC tax.
 

Summary

Registered User
Oct 13, 2009
658
28
No, of course it shouldn't. This is idiotic

What other factors should the league equalize so that you can feel the game is more "fair"? Travel? Climate? Lifestyle? Local media? Team legacy? Property values? Arena age? Dressing room size? Population? Fan enthusiasm? Height? Skill? McDavids?
 

Delicious Pancakes

Top Pocket Find
Apr 23, 2012
5,324
5,306
Home
I've wondered about this myself in the last year with the media reporting on it. It would make sense for this to be brought up in the next CBA since it's a competitive balance issue and ought to be factored into each team's cap ceiling/floor.
 

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,186
5,110
Regina, Saskatchewan
Or maybe the Lightning are just a well run organization with an elite roster and a GM that has convinced his stars to buy in?

This new thing where we cry about taxes is rather embarrassing quite frankly.

Yeah, why would people complain about something that gives another team an advantage. Being able to sign players for 10-15% cheaper due to taxes surely to god isn't an advantage, so why worry about it. Jeebus.

The straw-man argument about weather, location, and other variables is ridiculous as well. The NHL con't control the location or weather of cities for example, but they CAN control the cap of each team rather easily. The NHL should control the reasonable variables that can be controlled. Doing a tax-adjusted cap would be exceptionally easy, and would take a few accountants at most to accomplish. So for less than a million bucks, the NHL could solve this problem. Why wouldn't they do it? What is the argument against it?
 

oXo Cube

Power Play Merchant
Nov 4, 2008
10,796
10,523
In your closet
Yeah, why would people complain about something that gives another team an advantage. Being able to sign players for 10-15% cheaper due to taxes surely to god isn't an advantage, so why worry about it. Jeebus.

The straw-man argument about weather and location are ridiculous as well. The NHL con't control the location or weather of cities, but they CAN control the cap of each team rather easily. Why wouldn't they do it? What is the argument against it?

Since when is the tax situation of Canadian provinces or US states the NHL's jurisdiction?

Nobody cared about this 8 years ago when the Lightning were trash. The motivation is simple jealousy.
 

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,186
5,110
Regina, Saskatchewan
Since when is the tax situation of Canadian provinces or US states the NHL's jurisdiction?

Nobody cared about this 8 years ago when the Lightning were trash. The motivation is simple jealousy.

The NHL doesn't, it cares about (or should at least) fairness within its own league. I never heard about this until recently, but it makes a LOT of sense. It has nothing to do with jealousy at all, I'd just never heard about it. I *like* Tampa Bay, lol, I think they've built a great team and its a fun team to watch. I'd like to see Stamkos win a cup, I'd like to see Yzerman win a cup as GM.
 

oXo Cube

Power Play Merchant
Nov 4, 2008
10,796
10,523
In your closet
Just because some teams are able to overcome their inherit disadvantage doesn't mean that the NHL, if it actually cares about fairness, shouldn't attempt to reasonably control the cap in a fair manner.

Once again this post misses the actual point of the salary cap entirely.

It was never about making the player acquisition process more balanced.
 

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,186
5,110
Regina, Saskatchewan
No, of course it shouldn't. This is idiotic

What other factors should the league equalize so that you can feel the game is more "fair"? Travel? Climate? Lifestyle? Local media? Team legacy? Property values? Arena age? Dressing room size? Population? Fan enthusiasm? Height? Skill? McDavids?

All of these are ridiculous straw-man arguments. Literally nobody is arguing for including those items, or anything approximating them. Ridiculous.
 

Fixed to Ruin

Come wit it now!
Feb 28, 2007
23,521
25,081
Grande Prairie, AB
Yeah, why would people complain about something that gives another team an advantage. Being able to sign players for 10-15% cheaper due to taxes surely to god isn't an advantage, so why worry about it. Jeebus.

The straw-man argument about weather, location, and other variables is ridiculous as well. The NHL con't control the location or weather of cities for example, but they CAN control the cap of each team rather easily. The NHL should control the reasonable variables that can be controlled. Doing a tax-adjusted cap would be exceptionally easy, and would take a few accountants at most to accomplish. So for less than a million bucks, the NHL could solve this problem. Why wouldn't they do it? What is the argument against it?
So the trick around this is to sign a mega deal with a poor tax jurisdiction with a no trade clause. Suck for half a season. Get traded to a good tax jurisdiction.

Lucic is smarter than we thought!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summary

Spawn

Something in the water
Feb 20, 2006
43,589
14,952
Edmonton
The biggest problem with this notion is that the cap isn’t about creating a level competitive playing field. It is about cost certainty for the owners. Whether a player takes home 80% of their check or 45% of their check it is going to cost the owner of the team the same amount. Whether that is in Florida or California.
 

Jumptheshark

Rebooting myself
Oct 12, 2003
99,859
13,840
Somewhere on Uranus
While this is very true, they still play 41 how games in a tax free state. So half their money is taxed at a very good rate.


those tweets are what I have been trying to get through people heads everytime we have this discussion

the main board people are trying to say that I am wrong

But (flame away) I have dealt with and grew up with NHLers and they gave me incite into just how they pay taxes and it is not as us NORMAL people do

99.99% of this site just do not understand how the 1% pay taxes or do not pay taxes
 

joestevens29

Registered User
Apr 30, 2009
52,498
15,066
All of these are ridiculous straw-man arguments. Literally nobody is arguing for including those items, or anything approximating them. Ridiculous.
Lol, then you obviously don't pay attention to what is happening in the league. All of those things have come up at one point in time.

Heck in Edmonton the dressing room and new arena was a way to sway players and counter our poor climate, travel, lifestyle etc...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summary

Spawn

Something in the water
Feb 20, 2006
43,589
14,952
Edmonton
All of these are ridiculous straw-man arguments. Literally nobody is arguing for including those items, or anything approximating them. Ridiculous.

It’s no less ridiculous. Every market is going to have advantages. 2 million dollars for a home goes a lot further in Edmonton than it does in New York City. Should Edmonton be punished on the cap because it’s cheaper to live here than New York? Why would that be any different than “tax advantages” certain markets have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summary

bucks_oil

Registered User
Aug 25, 2005
8,328
4,513
Yeah, why would people complain about something that gives another team an advantage. Being able to sign players for 10-15% cheaper due to taxes surely to god isn't an advantage, so why worry about it. Jeebus.

The straw-man argument about weather, location, and other variables is ridiculous as well. The NHL con't control the location or weather of cities for example, but they CAN control the cap of each team rather easily. The NHL should control the reasonable variables that can be controlled. Doing a tax-adjusted cap would be exceptionally easy, and would take a few accountants at most to accomplish. So for less than a million bucks, the NHL could solve this problem. Why wouldn't they do it? What is the argument against it?

Completely agree. Having a "post-tax" cap would hardly be rocket science and it would level that single aspect of the playing field. It's a controllable variable and in the spirit of the CBA anyway. What's the harm?

I suppose the only negative about this... and perhaps this was discussed and discarded is that it would have the effect of high-tax regions (i.e. Canadian teams) having a higher tax burden (employer is paying the taxes) and therefore a higher (still) cost of doing business. Given the first cap CBA as we know it was put in place in 2006, and the "small market Canada" was a (at least a lip-service) issue back then, you wouldn't have wanted to put that "burden" on the Canadian teams. Having them spend to a "post-tax" Cap would essentially make their carrying costs for competitiveness higher.

I think it's an interesting discussion and I don't understand some of the aggressive resistance people are putting forward.
 

Summary

Registered User
Oct 13, 2009
658
28
All of these are ridiculous straw-man arguments. Literally nobody is arguing for including those items, or anything approximating them. Ridiculous.

Someone did you a disservice when they fooled you into thinking sports are fair. Taxes are one factor out of many that set a team/city's competitiveness.

You can call any of those strawman if you can't approach them but they're all as valid as this new idiotic notion. We've seen arguments that have been made regarding equalizing for many of them.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->