Jump to content

Permanent Rumour Thread


Fanpuck33
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:


One has to combine that dollar value with age. If Carey Price was 28 years old like Hamilton and had no previous injury concerns, they would have taken him. 

If Price was 28 with no injury concerns, he would never of been exposed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

Neither is Hedman, just using those guys for comparison purposes.  Tampa was smart to lock up Hedman at 7.8M/Y, he is not going anywhere. 

They were ... in July of 2016 ($7.875 then 11% of cap) ... and in a "no state income tax" state ... his AAV is "artificially low" ... the ridiculous imbalance of the NHL salary cap system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

They were ... in July of 2016 ($7.875 then 11% of cap) ... and in a "no state income tax" state ... his AAV is "artificially low" ... the ridiculous imbalance of the NHL salary cap system.

I’ve been saying for years that with the huge disparity on team financials in the NHL, that there should be a cap system similar to MLB.  The more revenue a team has, the higher ceiling on that team’s cap.  Where cap space is traded as a commodity.

 

I don’t understand how it’s fair right now when teams like the Ranger, Leafs and Canadiens as basically paying teams like Tampa to beat them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

I’ve been saying for years that with the huge disparity on team financials in the NHL, that there should be a cap system similar to MLB.  The more revenue a team has, the higher ceiling on that team’s cap.  Where cap space is traded as a commodity.

 

I don’t understand how it’s fair right now when teams like the Ranger, Leafs and Canadiens as basically paying teams like Tampa to beat them.  

Disagree on the proposal ... it perpetuates inequality between high revenue and low revenue teams ... what I propose is a "take-home pay" salary cap (i.e., after taxes) ... teams would be allowed to issue player "pay cheques" totalling not more than cap ceiling. or less then the cap floor ... the team would report the player's salary to the government as whatever the appropriate gross amount would be to produce the net salary and pay taxes accordingly ... it would also mean that players being traded would be neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by their relocation ... the conversion to such a system could be based on the tax situation for the franchise with which a contract was signed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GHT120 said:

Disagree on the proposal ... it perpetuates inequality between high revenue and low revenue teams ... what I propose is a "take-home pay" salary cap (i.e., after taxes) ... if the cap were $70 million (example only) then every team is allowed to issue player "pay cheques" totalling not more than $70 million ... the team would report the player's salary to the government as whatever the appropriate gross amount would be for the net salary and pay taxes accordingly ... it would also mean that players being traded would be neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by their relocation ... the conversion to such a system could be based on the tax situation for the franchise with which a contract was signed.

That could be a very exploitable solution. Rich people are awesome at lowering their taxable income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BCHabnut said:

That could be a very exploitable solution. Rich people are awesome at lowering their taxable income.

Which they can do now as well.

 

Just trying to create a level salary-cap playing field where teams do not have an inherent cap advantage based on the state/province in which they play ... players negotiate the net pay the receive ... unlike current system it would be the same regardless of what team they play for ... so habs need not sign a player to a greater cap hit in order for the player to receive the same take-home pay as a TBL (for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Which they can do now as well.

 

Just trying to create a level salary-cap playing field where teams do not have an inherent cap advantage based on the state/province in which they play.

I agree. Maybe  add all state and federal tax percentages and divide by 32 teams This would be the average. Average percentage divide by real to give a multiplier. 

 

Eg.

Florida might be real × 1.1 Kucherov 10 million would average out to 11 million.

Quebec might be real x .9 Price 10 million would average out 9 million.

 

Something like that. It would be a true cap then, for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GHT120 said:

They were ... in July of 2016 ($7.875 then 11% of cap) ... and in a "no state income tax" state ... his AAV is "artificially low" ... the ridiculous imbalance of the NHL salary cap system.

 

Plus Tampa was fortunate the cap ceiling went up so his contract looks even better now. That's what is giving the Leafs problems right now. They signed a bunch of guys to huge contracts betting the ceiling would go up but it hasn't in the last few years. Now they have to watch an important piece like Hyman walk and there is nothing they can do about it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GHT120 said:

Disagree on the proposal ... it perpetuates inequality between high revenue and low revenue teams ... what I propose is a "take-home pay" salary cap (i.e., after taxes) ... teams would be allowed to issue player "pay cheques" totalling not more than cap ceiling. or less then the cap floor ... the team would report the player's salary to the government as whatever the appropriate gross amount would be to produce the net salary and pay taxes accordingly ... it would also mean that players being traded would be neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by their relocation ... the conversion to such a system could be based on the tax situation for the franchise with which a contract was signed.

 

The players will never agree to a system (and they shouldn't agree to a system) where their salary is taxed at the maximum rate.

 

Most players will invest a large portion of their salaries and take it out later (in a similar way as 401Ks and RRSPs work) so that you get deductions today and pay taxes when you cash in later after your career is over.  This reduces the tax rate. 

 

And the NHLPA will never agree to a system that says the players can't do this.  Nor should they.  In an industry where careers are short and salaries high, we should do all we can to encourage players to invest wisely and have this money as income for life, not just until they are done in the league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then what, we are asking the league office to look at each players investments and what their effective tax rate will now be?

Cause each player is going to have a different effective tax rate. 

 

And the system you've created either has to take each players effective tax rate into account or you create further inequities where certain players who are more aggressive in their tax planning have a higher net salary than those who want to spend more now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GHT120 said:

Disagree on the proposal ... it perpetuates inequality between high revenue and low revenue teams ... what I propose is a "take-home pay" salary cap (i.e., after taxes) ... teams would be allowed to issue player "pay cheques" totalling not more than cap ceiling. or less then the cap floor ... the team would report the player's salary to the government as whatever the appropriate gross amount would be to produce the net salary and pay taxes accordingly ... it would also mean that players being traded would be neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by their relocation ... the conversion to such a system could be based on the tax situation for the franchise with which a contract was signed.

I’m not sure how it’s more unequal than the current system.  There’s teams like Tampa, who has won more playoff games than Toronto, Montreal and New York combined in the last decade.  Yet despite this, those 3 team’s fan bases are paying for a significant chunk of Tampa’s players.

 

I don’t know about you, but I don’t pat myself on the back for helping to pay Kucherov’s salary in Tampa when I buy a Canadiens jersey.  That is even more unequal than the current cap system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read the Carolina submitted an offer sheet for $1.03m on KK, that was turned down.  I’m not sure how true it is as free agency isn’t open yet.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

Just read the Carolina submitted an offer sheet for $1.03m on KK, that was turned down.  I’m not sure how true it is as free agency isn’t open yet.  

 

Whoever reported that is a liar. 

 

1) KK's qualifying offer is higher than that, so why would he sign that offer sheet?

2) Its tampering to even contact him before Wednesday. 

 

So yeah, you probably should question the "insider" who is reporting things that are very obviously false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

Just read the Carolina submitted an offer sheet for $1.03m on KK, that was turned down.  I’m not sure how true it is as free agency isn’t open yet.  

$1.03mil you really think that's true.  Why would they waste the ink on the fax machine for that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

Just read the Carolina submitted an offer sheet for $1.03m on KK, that was turned down.  I’m not sure how true it is as free agency isn’t open yet.  

 

I didn't think the National Enquirer was still around? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

The players will never agree to a system (and they shouldn't agree to a system) where their salary is taxed at the maximum rate.

 

Most players will invest a large portion of their salaries and take it out later (in a similar way as 401Ks and RRSPs work) so that you get deductions today and pay taxes when you cash in later after your career is over.  This reduces the tax rate. 

 

And the NHLPA will never agree to a system that says the players can't do this.  Nor should they.  In an industry where careers are short and salaries high, we should do all we can to encourage players to invest wisely and have this money as income for life, not just until they are done in the league. 

Nothing in my proposal impacts how the player manages his personal finances ... just how NHL teams operate their salary cap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TurdBurglar said:

I’m not sure how it’s more unequal than the current system.  There’s teams like Tampa, who has won more playoff games than Toronto, Montreal and New York combined in the last decade.  Yet despite this, those 3 team’s fan bases are paying for a significant chunk of Tampa’s players.

 

I don’t know about you, but I don’t pat myself on the back for helping to pay Kucherov’s salary in Tampa when I buy a Canadiens jersey.  That is even more unequal than the current cap system.

That happens regardless of the salary cap system ... or if the cap were eliminated for that matter ... salary cap is unrelated to revenue sharing ... are you just trolling me with things unrelated to any form of salary cap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Nothing in my proposal impacts how the player manages his personal finances ... just how NHL teams operate their salary cap

 

The tax rate would never be accurate though.  Some jurisdictions have different and bigger loopholes than others.  So the tax rate as reported just by looking at what is the published state tax rate, and the actual taxes paid by a player will be different. 

 

If you don't account for that, your system can still be exploited.  Those teams that have the biggest loopholes in their jurisdiction result in the player getting more money than the "net pay" that your system shows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Commandant said:

 

The tax rate would never be accurate though.  Some jurisdictions have different and bigger loopholes than others.  So the tax rate as reported just by looking at what is the published state tax rate, and the actual taxes paid by a player will be different. 

 

If you don't account for that, your system can still be exploited.  Those teams that have the biggest loopholes in their jurisdiction result in the player getting more money than the "net pay" that your system shows. 

Would it not only work for players who are resident in that city or province/state as that is the basis for filing income taxes?

Besides, those same discrepancies exist today ... I am just trying to account for the disparity in cap-hits teams must assign to players that are caused by lower/no-state taxation ... NO system will be perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

That happens regardless of the salary cap system ... or if the cap were eliminated for that matter ... salary cap is unrelated to revenue sharing ... are you just trolling me with things unrelated to any form of salary cap?

Revenue sharing is absolutely related to the cap.  Without revenue sharing the salary cap system in the NHL won’t work.  With the current salary cap, which included league minimums, nearly half of the team in the NHL would lose money every year and go bankrupt, then have to relocate or close completely.  It’s because of revenue sharing every team can spend at or near the cap ceiling in a normal year.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TurdBurglar said:

Revenue sharing is absolutely related to the cap.  Without revenue sharing the salary cap system in the NHL won’t work.  With the current salary cap, which included league minimums, nearly half of the team in the NHL would lose money every year and go bankrupt, then have to relocate or close completely.  It’s because of revenue sharing every team can spend at or near the cap ceiling in a normal year.

So not better to continue the cap-advantage given to TBL and other "no-state income tax" teams unless EVERY SINGLE issue anyone might have with all forms of NHL finances can be "fixed"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Would it not only work for players who are resident in that city or province/state as that is the basis for filing income taxes?

Besides, those same discrepancies exist today ... I am just trying to account for the disparity in cap-hits teams must assign to players that are caused by lower/no-state taxation ... NO system will be perfect.

 

I'm just saying that such a system will continue to have exploitable loopholes, you just will have different teams now... instead of tampa, florida, dallas, seattle, it will be other teams who have an advantage. 

 

I'm not asking for perfection, i'm just wondering if this system has similar problems, just with different cities involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

The players will never agree to a system (and they shouldn't agree to a system) where their salary is taxed at the maximum rate.

 

Most players will invest a large portion of their salaries and take it out later (in a similar way as 401Ks and RRSPs work) so that you get deductions today and pay taxes when you cash in later after your career is over.  This reduces the tax rate. 

 

And the NHLPA will never agree to a system that says the players can't do this.  Nor should they.  In an industry where careers are short and salaries high, we should do all we can to encourage players to invest wisely and have this money as income for life, not just until they are done in the league. 

Ya you couldn't do it based on after tax dollars, because of deductions and loopholes. It would have to be a multiplier. If  Washington state combined tax rate at the highest bracket is 22% and new York is 44%, that's an enormous disparity and should be included in cap calculations. A multiplier based on average tax rate of all  teams would help even this out. Only for games played at home of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

So not better to continue the cap-advantage given to TBL and other "no-state income tax" teams unless EVERY SINGLE issue anyone might have with all forms of NHL finances can be "fixed"? 

As Commandant pointed out, players have accountants that use creative ways to avoid taxation.  For it to be fair, you have to take that in account when setting a cap.  You are proposing a system where every financial action of every player needs to be accounted for when setting the cap.  Without that you are basically punishing teams in no-tax states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BCHabnut said:

Ya you couldn't do it based on after tax dollars, because of deductions and loopholes. It would have to be a multiplier. If  Washington state combined tax rate at the highest bracket is 22% and new York is 44%, that's an enormous disparity and should be included in cap calculations. A multiplier based on average tax rate of all  teams would help even this out. Only for games played at home of course.

 

Again though, no one is paying the 44% or the 22%.  There are loopholes and some will be bigger than others, so the states with the biggest loopholes now have the advantage. 

 

You haven't removed the advantage, just changed what teams have it. 

All while making it more complicated to make sure there is cost certainty with 50% of total HRR being paid out (gross).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...