State Taxes Just Not Fair

[Hawksfan2828]

How is that all Bettman's doing? The previous owner in Chicago didn't care about fans. The guy in Boston is a hardliner. The Leafs were horribly run for a long time, but they're the Leafs, so people showed up.

3 of the 4 major leagues in NA have some form of a cap. Baseball even has revenue sharing. It's not like the NHL is out on a socialist limb there. The individual franchises in each league aren't trying to put the others out of business, or buy them out and put their team on TV in the new market.

It's Bettmans doing because he invented this stupidity, and other leagues have a SOFT CAP..... The NHL is like the Soviet Union under Stalin..... Their CBA disputes (from both sides) is actually pretty funny....

IF it matters the NHL will adopt a "soft cap" at some point....

 

[aemoreira1981]

In the case of New York, it tends to even itself out for those who can amrket themselves. However, for someone like Steven Stamkos, take-home pay was seen as more important, hence why he signed an extension in Florida rather than test free agency, and that is also why a large part of his contract is structured as bonus money parked in Florida, so that the income subject to tax in other states and Canadian provinces is even less. It's even worse for Canadian-based teams. For example, in Ontario (province) one can lose about half or the pay in taxes.

This argument also exists in other sports, not just hockey. I have to wonder if that is why James Harden in basketball re-signed with the Rockets (like Florida, no state income tax). This off-season, Alex Radulov took less cap money to sign in Dallas over staying in Montreal, but his take-home pay will be significantly more in Dallas than Montreal, according to CapFriendly (via Sportsnet). Radulov will take home about $3.8M (minus whatever taxes are paid on a few days' basis elsewhere); Montreal would have to offered 5/8.1 per to equal that in real dollars of take-home pay. Rod Langway a long time ago wanted out of Montreal for the same reason---taxes.

 

[patnyrnyg]

People keep mentioning endorsements that are more readily available in bigger cities (TOR, NYC, MTL), but what do they mean? Are these endorsements that many players playing for that team are entitled to, or just the stars of that team? Are third and fourth line players receiving endorsements by playing for big market teams?

There is not much endorsement money available in NYC for hockey players? Baseball? Football? basketball? Hell, yes. Hockey? Very little, relatively speaking.

 

[billybudd]

Lobby your state Senator and quit whining. New York's poor governance is not the Vegas Knights' (or whoever's) problem.

 

[KingsFan7824]

It wasn't the expansion that made people mad, it was the expansion concurrent with the departure from smaller northern cities. If the North Stars, Nordiques, Jets, and Whalers had stuck around to this day while the league expanded, I don't think there would be this endless civil war. Of course, burning expansion slots on Denver and Dallas, which reasonably needed to be in the NHL, on the way to 30 probably means some places that have teams now don't get them.

The North Stars merged with the Barons back in the day, so they had issues even before free agency and money became a big thing in the mid 90's. The other 3 teams were former WHA franchises, that weren't treated like NHL franchises from day 1, and they were in the smallest of small markets when free agency and money started to become a thing. The PA had flexed its muscles and gone on strike, Lindros said no to the team that drafted him, a lot was changing.

I'm not saying those cities should've lost their teams, but who knows what would've happened had the league been able to get a cap in the first lockout. It was only after team after team left that the league started caring about the fate of franchises. Put some sort of infrastructure in place to help teams like Edmonton, Calgary, Buffalo, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, and the list goes on. That then helped lead to the 2nd lockout. There's only a small handful of teams that never have issues.

 

[glovesave_35]

It's Bettmans doing because he invented this stupidity, and other leagues have a SOFT CAP..... The NHL is like the Soviet Union under Stalin..... Their CBA disputes (from both sides) is actually pretty funny....

IF it matters the NHL will adopt a "soft cap" at some point....

You are getting way too political here. The real reason the NHL has a hard cap is that it isn't in the same financial ballpark as the big 3. Yes, the big 3 not the big 4. NBA, NFL and MLB rake in and pay out money on a scale completely different from the NHL.

If Canada didn't have the population of California this could be a very different story.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

You are getting way too political here. The real reason the NHL has a hard cap is that it isn't in the same financial ballpark as the big 3. Yes, the big 3 not the big 4. NBA, NFL and MLB rake in and pay out money on a scale completely different from the NHL.

If Canada didn't have the population of California this could be a very different story.

None of that matters, governed economies implode......

Look, what do you think would happen if the cap dropped by say 10M???

Few teams don't have much cap space as it is and you cant force teams to take on contracts (not yet)....

Now do you see how the cap is a gong show and totally useless? The cap will continue to rise due to players salaries - not revenue, because with these large contracts there is no way to go but up.... Few can even rationalize this..... The only reason why these "budget" franchises exist is because of revenue sharing so they will gladly take on terrible contracts just as long as it's profitable for them to do such.....

The NHL's salary cap is without question one of the most insane concepts after 12 years of practice I have ever seen..... I said this 12 years ago and I still say it....

One of these days 90% of the league will be at the cap max and what happens then? Will the NHL force the teams that aren't to take on contracts they don't want any part of?...... This will happen eventually...

 

[KingsFan7824]

It's Bettmans doing because he invented this stupidity, and other leagues have a SOFT CAP..... The NHL is like the Soviet Union under Stalin..... Their CBA disputes (from both sides) is actually pretty funny....

IF it matters the NHL will adopt a "soft cap" at some point....

What did Bettman invent? Apparently Stalin did it before Bettman. Players had less freedom of movement prior to Bettman. The PA went on strike prior to Bettman. Lindros said no to Quebec prior to Bettman. Edmonton's dynasty dissolved prior to Bettman. All of the issues that helped one strike and three lockouts happen existed before Bettman, and finally had to be dealt with, basically all at the same time, because Eagleson was gone.

The NBA has a soft cap, but the NFL is a hard one. They just have so much money, and can cut guys at the drop of a hat.

And of course it matters if the NHL were to adopt a soft cap. That would be a fairly significant change.

 

[madinsomniac]

The salary cap is meant to keep teams from inflating contract values in a way that bankrupts half the league... its not meant to factor in anything but how much the league has in profits divided by the teams ... its not looking at tge value of the canadian dollar, cost of living, or taxes

 

[Hawksfan2828]

What did Bettman invent? Apparently Stalin did it before Bettman. Players had less freedom of movement prior to Bettman. The PA went on strike prior to Bettman. Lindros said no to Quebec prior to Bettman. Edmonton's dynasty dissolved prior to Bettman. All of the issues that helped one strike and three lockouts happen existed before Bettman, and finally had to be dealt with, basically all at the same time, because Eagleson was gone.

The NBA has a soft cap, but the NFL is a hard one. They just have so much money, and can cut guys at the drop of a hat.

And of course it matters if the NHL were to adopt a soft cap. That would be a fairly significant change.

What does any of that have to do with a salary cap?

Let players sign where they want, let teams sign those players -- what is wrong with that?

And Lindros? are you saying he should have been forced to sign with Quebec? I get it - what Lindros did was a total ****** thing to do, but obviously he never signed and you cant force a dude to sign a contract - what he did was well within his rights...

 

[glovesave_35]

None of that matters, governed economies implode......

Look, what do you think would happen if the cap dropped by say 10M???

Few teams don't have much cap space as it is and you cant force teams to take on contracts (not yet)....

Now do you see how the cap is a gong show and totally useless? The cap will continue to rise due to players salaries - not revenue, because with these large contracts there is no way to go but up.... Few can even rationalize this..... The only reason why these "budget" franchises exist is because of revenue sharing so they will gladly take on terrible contracts just as long as it's profitable for them to do such.....

The NHL's salary cap is without question one of the most insane concepts after 12 years of practice I have ever seen..... I said this 12 years ago and I still say it....

One of these days 90% of the league will be at the cap max and what happens then? Will the NHL force the teams that aren't to take on contracts they don't want any part of?...... This will happen eventually...

Player salaries do not determine the salary cap. The cap goes up and up for reasons I thought were self evident, but apparently aren't.

 

[None Shall Pass]

There is not much endorsement money available in NYC for hockey players? Baseball? Football? basketball? Hell, yes. Hockey? Very little, relatively speaking.

Yeah the meme that NYC is a hockey town or that it should be mentioned in the same breath as the Canadian cities, or even Chicago or Detroit, needs to die. Hockey is, at the very best, the 4th most popular sport here, and I don't think it will challenge for 3rd unless the Rangers go on some dynastic streak.

Outside of Lundqvist, who is both a career Ranger and incredibly good looking, you'd be hard pressed to find any Rangers in ads, let alone Devils or Islanders.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

The salary cap is meant to keep teams from inflating contract values in a way that bankrupts half the league... its not meant to factor in anything but how much the league has in profits divided by the teams ... its not looking at tge value of the canadian dollar, cost of living, or taxes

If a team cannot financially compete (or be relevant) then that team should not exist...

I get the purpose of the cap but that doesn't make the cap right.....

In the end the cap has the potential to do exactly what it set out to prevent.....

Look, if hockey fails in your city - you fold the team, but the NHLPA wants their guys employed so they're opposed to clubs folding.... Of course you have these same clubs that wouldn't exist if not for the existing CBA and revenue sharing being the main ones pushing for the cap and the CBA .......

It's almost like if you can come up with the $500,000,000 you too could start a franchise in Boise, Idaho and become a member of the revenue sharing, and all you have to do is take on bad contracts and spend to the cap floor...

 

[madinsomniac]

I mean its an unfair advantage that players are so close to beaches in Florida.... its unfair advantage that new york has the popular nightlife it has... its unfair that some guys pick their hometown over some other team... its not an equal playing field in any case... but the cap keeps idiotic big market teams like the rangers from grossly overpaying role players and escalating salaries especially when arbitration exists like it does... and the Rangers were famous for that back in the day....

The league needed cost stability. Thats why there was a cap. Teams that develop players benefit.. teams that chase big names lose out

 

[KingsFan7824]

What does any of that have to do with a salary cap?

What does any of it not have to do with a salary cap? The league was shut down for the cap, so basically everything has to do with the cap.

Let players sign where they want, let teams sign those players -- what is wrong with that?

Nothing. It's easy to say let the league contract if need be, but leagues tend to not like to contract, or even relocate franchises. Again, 3 of the 4 leagues have some form of a cap, and enjoy having 30+ teams. Right or wrong, good or bad, the NHL isn't by itself.

And Lindros? are you saying he should have been forced to sign with Quebec? I get it - what Lindros did was a total ****** thing to do, but obviously he never signed and you cant force a dude to sign a contract - what he did was well within his rights...

I did not say that. I'm saying Lindros not going to Quebec, in the same time frame as the PA going on strike, were the first instances of the PA showing off its strength. It set the ground for the battles that would eventually come. If the PA could, they'd get rid of the draft altogether.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

Player salaries do not determine the salary cap. The cap goes up and up for reasons I thought were self evident, but apparently aren't.

In theory....

But like I said, drop the cap by 10M and tell me what happens?

Oh right, teams will have to trade players to teams that don't even want their contracts... So like I said, how do you sort that out?

So indeed the cap is without question driven by salaries, or rather cap hits.....

And that is one of the MAJOR problems with the cap -- there is no relation to players salaries - it's league revenue driven and you know what? when players are signing 8-year 12 million dollar contracts -- no one knows what the financial state of the league will be in 8 years...... League revenue could drop 2 years from now yet that salary (or at least cap hit) still exists, it hasn't been adjusted...

Look, the cap was designed by a bunch of fools that have absolutely no education in economics.....Yes, the CBA and the cap is an economic model....

 

[madinsomniac]

If a team cannot financially compete (or be relevant) then that team should not exist...

I get the purpose of the cap but that doesn't make the cap right.....

In the end the cap has the potential to do exactly what it set out to prevent.....

Look, if hockey fails in your city - you fold the team, but the NHLPA wants their guys employed so they're opposed to clubs folding.... Of course you have these same clubs that wouldn't exist if not for the existing CBA and revenue sharing being the main ones pushing for the cap and the CBA .......

It's almost like if you can come up with the $500,000,000 you too could start a franchise in Boise, Idaho and become a member of the revenue sharing, and all you have to do is take on bad contracts and spend to the cap floor...

Tv isnt paying them for a ten team league and tv money ultimately can dwarf ticket money when you are popular enough. Again the cap was forced when 9 teams banded together because they were all going bankrupt.... morecthan half the leagues was losing money and even some of the bigger teams were supposedly outspending their profits...

its not going away... the league couldn't survive without it at this point cause if anything has held up through the years its that idiot ex player gms dont have money management skills

 

[KingsFan7824]

I get the purpose of the cap but that doesn't make the cap right.....

Is it really about right and wrong? It's what the two sides agreed to. In other words, business. Players don't have to play in the NHL. They don't even have to play hockey for money. Let the owners lock you out, and then walk away. Unfortunately for the players, the lure of just enough money is still too strong.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

What does any of it not have to do with a salary cap? The league was shut down for the cap, so basically everything has to do with the cap.



Nothing. It's easy to say let the league contract if need be, but leagues tend to not like to contract, or even relocate franchises. Again, 3 of the 4 leagues have some form of a cap, and enjoy having 30+ teams. Right or wrong, good or bad, the NHL isn't by itself.



I did not say that. I'm saying Lindros not going to Quebec, in the same time frame as the PA going on strike, were the first instances of the PA showing off its strength. It set the ground for the battles that would eventually come. If the PA could, they'd get rid of the draft altogether.

Yea, because the league has too many teams in all the wrong places...... So we have a salary cap to basically save a few teams that cant compete, and guess what? where will those players play? The NHLPA wants these teams to stay so their players have NHL jobs...

My point is if these franchises aren't successful they shouldn't be bailed out by a salary cap and revenue sharing just so 100 guys can make an NHL salary.......

The CBA is total manipulation of basic economic ideas....

 

[Hawksfan2828]

Is it really about right and wrong? It's what the two sides agreed to. In other words, business. Players don't have to play in the NHL. They don't even have to play hockey for money. Let the owners lock you out, and then walk away. Unfortunately for the players, the lure of just enough money is still too strong.

I get all of that, I personally see the stupidity in the CBA...

Yes they agreed to it and I'm not saying agreements shouldn't be honored, however I don't like it and I'm criticizing it and pointing out that economic factors play a role in the sport, hence where players end up.....

Imagine wanting to sign with a team and the team wants you to sign with them, however a) the team has no cap space or b) the team cant fit you into their budget....

Yea I know, take a "pay cut"...... Would you in your prime?

Also, you can bet NHPA reps highly advise players not to take "team discounts" in their primes because it not only hurts their market value for their next contract but it reduces similar players market values...

 

[madinsomniac]

I mean average player salaries in the early 90's were 500k... they are over 3 million now... the cap forced a lot of owners to shell out money too, or take contracts on at least... its been quite lucrative for the players in all truth

 

[KingsFan7824]

Yea, because the league has too many teams in all the wrong places...... So we have a salary cap to basically save a few teams that cant compete, and guess what? where will those players play? The NHLPA wants these teams to stay so their players have NHL jobs...

My point is if these franchises aren't successful they shouldn't be bailed out by a salary cap and revenue sharing just so 100 guys can make an NHL salary.......

The CBA is total manipulation of basic economic ideas....

Society, and civilization as a whole, is a manipulation of basic economic ideas.

I get what you're saying. Survive or die. At the same time, the NHL is currently surviving. Not the way you want, but surviving nonetheless. The players are free to walk away any time they want though. They don't have to keep living by these rules. There are other leagues they can play in.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

I mean average player salaries in the early 90's were 500k... they are over 3 million now... the cap forced a lot of owners to shell out money too, or take contracts on at least... its been quite lucrative for the players in all truth

The cap had nothing to do with that.......Unrestricted free agency did...

I mean Fedorov one year make something like 18M pre salary cap.... Players were getting paid... Hawks signed Fleury for something like 6 per and Gilmour too...

The cap is in place to make sure NHL players have jobs via keeping teams alive via revenue sharing .... Why do you think these "budget" teams are willing to take on salaries? because they get free money, and if you give them a cost controlled prospect they will attempt to improve their team instead of pocketing that cash.... I mean some of these teams are basically being paid just to exist so NHL'ers have jobs and the bigger market teams are footing the bill for it....... I don't like this system....

 

[Hawksfan2828]

Society, and civilization as a whole, is a manipulation of basic economic ideas.

I get what you're saying. Survive or die. At the same time, the NHL is currently surviving. Not the way you want, but surviving nonetheless. The players are free to walk away any time they want though. They don't have to keep living by these rules. There are other leagues they can play in.

Capitalism doesn't work when it's manipulated, that's the problem... When you adopt the capitalist model and manipulate it it doesn't work the way it should and that's exactly what the CBA does, it manipulates the economy - their internal economy (which is capitalist) and now it doesn't work....

Look, I just don't want this idea to kill the league, I love hockey but outside factors such as this CBA have the potential to destroy the NHL.....We could see a lockout again because the economics of the salary cap...... I don't want to see that....

 

[KingsFan7824]

I get all of that, I personally see the stupidity in the CBA...

Yes they agreed to it and I'm not saying agreements shouldn't be honored, however I don't like it and I'm criticizing it and pointing out that economic factors play a role in the sport, hence where players end up.....

Imagine wanting to sign with a team and the team wants you to sign with them, however a) the team has no cap space or b) the team cant fit you into their budget....

Yea I know, take a "pay cut"...... Would you in your prime?

Also, you can bet NHPA reps highly advise players not to take "team discounts" in their primes because it not only hurts their market value for their next contract but it reduces similar players market values...

Alright, so not quite the Soviet Union. Players do still have some sort of choice.

If the PA wants it bad enough, they can fight everything tooth and nail. You know, like you would in a more natural setting when your life is on the line. Screw the cap, screw the draft, screw any age requirements for unrestricted free agency. Go toe to toe with the owners. If they want to lock you out to squeeze more out of your labor, fight it. Bring the whole thing down. Don't negotiate with authoritarians.