Jump to content

Permanent Rumour Thread


Fanpuck33
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

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.

I am not proposing that at all ... nor was I proposing perfection ... it is simply an alternative to a system under which teams can sign players for reduced AAVs because of their tax situation ... but clearly maintaining the system under which "no-state tax" teams will continue to be able to sign players for lower AAVs than other teams is perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GHT120 said:

I am not proposing that at all ... nor was I proposing perfection ... it is simply an alternative to a system under which teams can sign players for reduced AAVs because of their tax situation ... but clearly maintaining the system under which "no-state tax" teams will continue to be able to sign players for lower AAVs than other teams is perfect.

 

Ok, so now tampa can't have lower AAVs than others.

 

But now the team with the biggest tax loopholes can. 

 

You have done nothing to remove inequality... you've just changed the team that has the advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Commandant said:

Ok, so now tampa can't have lower AAVs than others.

 

But now the team with the biggest tax loopholes can. 

 

You have done nothing to remove inequality... you've just changed the team that has the advantage.

The NHL can do nothing to combat tax loopholes but it can control its own processes ... and these loophole inequalities already exist ... a revised salary cap does not create them ... it just addresses the ONE element that the NHL can control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To what end though.  To change the team with the advantage from Tampa, Florida, Seattle, Dallas, to someone else?

 

What's the point of that?

 

Why make everything more complicated for the NHL to calculate Escrow and everything else , cause we still want to make the total payout be 50% of HRR.  Thats the key. 

 

And at the end of the day we haven't created a system that is equal, we've just changed who has the advantage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's ridiculous that the top-earning clubs in the NHL can't even pay as much net salary as many of the bottom-feeders, and have to send a cut of their profits away to those clubs to boot. There should at the least be cap compensation for the various tax rates of the different jurisdictions, so that the net salary cap of each club is closer to equal. Unfortunately, nothing franchises like Arizona and Florida have as much say in Bettman's league as Montreal and Toronto.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

I am not proposing that at all ... nor was I proposing perfection ... it is simply an alternative to a system under which teams can sign players for reduced AAVs because of their tax situation ... but clearly maintaining the system under which "no-state tax" teams will continue to be able to sign players for lower AAVs than other teams is perfect.

Ok, so in your system what happens here;

 

Nashville, a no-tax state, signs Weber for $7.5m AAV, the equivalent contract in Quebec, is something like $8.6m, rough number accounting for 37% federal US tax and 33% Canadian federal plus 21% Quebec provincial.

 

Weber now gets traded to Montreal.  Does contracted AAV increase?  Or does his AAV stay at $7.5m, effectively  him making less money?  Both situations are equally unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

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).

So loopholes can reduce taxes enough that it's not an issue?  Ok. Strange that state tax is discussed with every contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

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).

So loopholes can reduce taxes enough that it's not an issue?  Ok. Strange that state tax is discussed with every contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

Ok, so in your system what happens here;

 

Nashville, a no-tax state, signs Weber for $7.5m AAV, the equivalent contract in Quebec, is something like $8.6m, rough number accounting for 37% federal US tax and 33% Canadian federal plus 21% Quebec provincial.

 

Weber now gets traded to Montreal.  Does contracted AAV increase?  Or does his AAV stay at $7.5m, effectively  him making less money?  Both situations are equally unfair.

Nope. It's not an issue on account of the loopholes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, BCHabnut said:

So loopholes can reduce taxes enough that it's not an issue?  Ok. Strange that state tax is discussed with every contract. 

 

There will always be differences.... it will still be an issue. 

 

Its almost never as big a difference as reported. 

Here's a good article.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/when-it-comes-to-taxes-athletes-better-off-in-canada/article545719/

 

"Athletes have relatively short careers and typically only a few years when they earn hefty sums that push them into the top tax bracket. Proper financial planning dictates that they minimize the tax bite when they're bringing in maximum earnings and defer taxes to those years when their incomes drop, said Gavin, whose firm specializes in wealth management for executives and athletes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TurdBurglar said:

Ok, so in your system what happens here;

 

Nashville, a no-tax state, signs Weber for $7.5m AAV, the equivalent contract in Quebec, is something like $8.6m, rough number accounting for 37% federal US tax and 33% Canadian federal plus 21% Quebec provincial.

 

Weber now gets traded to Montreal.  Does contracted AAV increase?  Or does his AAV stay at $7.5m, effectively  him making less money?  Both situations are equally unfair.

His "net take-home pay" AAV would not be its current  $7,857,143, it would be whatever the conversion process to "net take-home pay" produced (see below) ... but whatever the figure, it would stay the same just as his regular paycheque stays the same ... however, the Habs would have to report his gross salary to the Quebec and Canadian governments as whatever amount would produce the net salary, with appropriate deductions.

 

It is not intended to create complete equality ... to do that a system would have to be far, far more complex, and include  many elements beyond the salary-cap itself (e.g., expanded revenue sharing) ... there would still be inequalities, there always will be ... but while the habs would have to spend more real dollars, Webers contract would take up the same percentage of the habs cap as it did the Predators, and would take up the same percentage of another team if he was traded there ... basic player "real $$ take-home pay" would always remain the same ... the specific inequality of the current cap system that this concept seeks to address is that, using your example, Montreal would have had to commit a greater percentage of their cap to have signed Weber to a contract that provided him the same actual paycheque than did Nashville ... the actual internal budgets owners allow GMs temperate within would always be determined by each owner. 

 

Conversion: my concept is that current contracts would be converted to "take-home pay AAVs" based on the tax situation under the tax terms of the state/province and country (and city/county if it imposes income tax) of the team with which the contract was signed at the time it was signed (i.e., the take-him player the player was agreeing to when the contract was signed) ... but more expert financial minds with the NHL and NHLPA might find a better process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From that article

[quote]The key is a tax strategy centred on income deferral, which is easier under Canadian rules. How much can an athlete in the know save? The top marginal tax rate exceeds 40 per cent in all but one Canadian province, topping out at 48.6 per cent in Newfoundland. Alberta is the exception at 39 per cent. But with effective long-term tax planning, the annual bill can be reduced to 25 per cent or less.[/quote]

So... you'd be giving Canadian teams a credit for taxes at 39-45%, but the players would only be actually paying 25% in taxes. 

So we've just changed the huge benefit from Tampa and Florida and Dallas and Seattle, and given it to the Canadian teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Commandant said:

There will always be differences.... it will still be an issue. 

 

Its almost never as big a difference as reported. 

Here's a good article.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/when-it-comes-to-taxes-athletes-better-off-in-canada/article545719/

 

"Athletes have relatively short careers and typically only a few years when they earn hefty sums that push them into the top tax bracket. Proper financial planning dictates that they minimize the tax bite when they're bringing in maximum earnings and defer taxes to those years when their incomes drop, said Gavin, whose firm specializes in wealth management for executives and athletes."

True ... but that financial planning will occur under the current cap system, a revised cap system or no cap system ... the specific cap inequality intended to be addressed is that teams currently have to use up different percentages of the cap to provide players the same paycheque ... everything else is beyond the bounds of NHL policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

True ... but that financial planning will occur under the current cap system, a revised cap system or no cap system ... the specific cap inequality intended to be addressed is that teams currently have to use up different percentages of the cap to provide players the same paycheque ... everything else is beyond the bounds of NHL policy.

 

Sure.... but the differences are actually smaller with the current system... see the quote where canadian taxes can be reduced to as low as 25%

 

Then they would under your system.

 

 

The thing is taxes are just an excuse... players (and their families) prefer cities with nice weather, they can go to the beach, and the family faces little pressure in the media. 

 

California is one of the highest tax states, and they don't have issues getting UFAs in San Jose, Anaheim or Los Angeles.  

 

The real issue isn't taxes here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

His "net take-home pay" AAV would not be its current  $7,857,143, it would be whatever the conversion process to "net take-home pay" produced (see below) ... but whatever the figure, it would stay the same just as his regular paycheque stays the same ... however, the Habs would have to report his gross salary to the Quebec and Canadian governments as whatever amount would produce the net salary, with appropriate deductions.

 

It is not intended to create complete equality ... to do that a system would have to be far, far more complex, and include  many elements beyond the salary-cap itself (e.g., expanded revenue sharing) ... there would still be inequalities, there always will be ... but while the habs would have to spend more real dollars, Webers contract would take up the same percentage of the habs cap as it did the Predators, and would take up the same percentage of another team if he was traded there ... basic player "real $$ take-home pay" would always remain the same ... the specific inequality of the current cap system that this concept seeks to address is that, using your example, Montreal would have had to commit a greater percentage of their cap to have signed Weber to a contract that provided him the same actual paycheque than did Nashville ... the actual internal budgets owners allow GMs temperate within would always be determined by each owner. 

 

Conversion: my concept is that current contracts would be converted to "take-home pay AAVs" based on the tax situation under the tax terms of the state/province and country (and city/county if it imposes income tax) of the team with which the contract was signed at the time it was signed (i.e., the take-him player the player was agreeing to when the contract was signed) ... but more expert financial minds with the NHL and NHLPA might find a better process.

So basically you are putting the team on the hook for the taxes where it is located.

 

Now teams like Nashville and Tampa are paying players less due to not having state taxes.  Meanwhile to accommodate for most US-based teams and the 2 rich Canadian teams, we would realistically have to relocate Ottawa, Winnipeg and possibly Calgary to the US, where they could take advantage of the new cap system because they can’t afford to pay players.  The alternative is they slap all their fans with massive pricing increases, especially since merchandising and ticket are purchased in CAD which is roughly worth 3/4 the USD.  That’s already a huge obstacle to overcome.

 

A few years ago I watched a Tampa vs Habs game on Center Ice.  They were advertising 2 tickets, 2 drinks and 2 slices of pizza for $50.  Meanwhile I couldn’t go see an oilers game for any less than $100 a ticket, no other perks other than being granted a seat in the nosebleeds.

 

The biggest issue with you plan is the owners would never in a million years go for it.  If you owned a business would you really go broke to pay the taxes of your employees?  Nobody would.
 

At least with my proposed MLB-style cap system, Montreal might have $150 million in cap space and Tampa might only have $60 million, but there is nothing stopping Montreal from trading $10 million in cap space for 5 years for someone like Kucherov.  The lower cap team will typically do worse, draft higher, pick better players, and use them as commodities to increase their cap.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TurdBurglar said:

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

That has nothing to do with the discussion. The question was why wasn’t he picked up, and the reason was cap hit combined with age. Hamilton would have been picked up were he exposed with a 10 million cap hit because he is also younger. And if he would not have been, then I simply disagree with Francis’ approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Trizzak said:

Can't remember how many times Laraque has been right, but he's got a checkmark on twitter so here we are.

 

The number of times he has been wrong is much, much higher but he has gotten enough right that this can't be outright dismissed either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paquette is not really a replacement for Danault.  He's more a fourth line centre than anyone you want playing 2nd/3rd minutes. 

 

Need a bit more offence to insulate Suzuki/KK. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those would both be depth signings. neither played many nhl games last season and would both most likely be in Laval?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

David Savard wouldnt be a depth signing headed for Laval.

Agreed ... and I expect Paquette would be signed as being intended to be the 12/13 forward but with the Laval option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Interesting ... 24 hrs 3 minutes to go ... not certain he fits with habs ... maybe in deal that sends Drouin+ west ... but also not certain I see Drouin as a fit for Calgary

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still would like to see more $$ put up front and not on the d, so a Gaudreau seems like a nice upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We’re not getting Gaudreau for Drouin straight up (LOL) so any trade for him would involve actually significant hockey assets. I’m not sure off the top of my heard what those might be - but we certainly could use a productive LW. Probably the initials “KK” would be involved…or maybe Toffoli +?

 

Gaudreau is another puzzler, a guy who went from 99 (!!) points to 58. I guess the coaching carousel worked against him. His output last year was better, but I imagine that 65-70 points might be a reasonable projection going forward than the kind of eye-popping numbers he once put up.

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...