Regular businesses don't have a cap on how much pretax money you can spend on attracting talent. Pretty obvious distinction. If you are going to make a cap on how much trams can alot , you should definitely make it fair for all teams. Or make it a luxury tax like most other major sports leagues
- Archaic

The league is trying to grow and the last teams they want to give advantages to are the ones up in Canada.

The league is trying to grow and the last teams they want to give advantages to are the ones up in Canada.
- Dozzer

I'm not suggesting advantages, I'm suggesting they make it even for all teams. There is a big difference there.

One of the main reason the NHL is growing slower then other leagues is because the lack of big market success IMO

It's a solid summary. The NHL season is approximately 180 days in length. You have 41 home games and 41 away games, but during the NHL season you are presumed to be at home except when you are actually travelling - which is less than half the time. It's not exactly 180 - 41, but's certainly closer to 110/70.

Signing bonuses are paid out to your principal residence (which is funny because Canadian tax law says it's a place you "ordinarily inhabit"; in my late 20s my principal residence was apparently Hurricanes at Bloor & Ossington) - so in Matthews' case, he has no state tax applied to his bonus on July 1 due to living in Arizona.

It's the crux of JT's issue with CRA - he claims on July 1, 2018 when he received his $15.25m signing bonus from the Leafs his principal residence was still NY - a place he had resided for nearly a decade - and CRA is claiming that since he was _going_ to be playing in Canada he owes them the taxes. I'm not a tax lawyer, but I am pretty sure JT's position is correct legally - but CRA always finds a way to get theirs.

A guy like Marner has his bonuses paid out and he resides in Ontario so he has the 53% tax application - but he can shelter and defer some of that money to retirement as a way to stave off some of the heavier tax implications - but regardless of that, whatever remains from his payouts will be taxed at the Ontario rate.

Nylander's a more a curious case because I don't know too much about international tax laws and how they're governed by other tax implications. I am fairly certain that Sweden's tax rate including their state taxes is pretty close to our 53%, but again, I'm not sure how all that crap works with international players.

There are still definite advantages to playing in a market with no state tax because you can declare residency there and gain benefit on your signing bonuses on July 1.
- Monkeypunk

Tax advantages are a problem but not the most significant one at all.
At the end of the day, the hard salary cap is a broken poopty system and needs to be scrapped as soon as Bettman (frank)s off for good. A soft cap or luxury tax will allow better growth in the NHL. As an example the salary cap in 2012 was $60M in the NHL, and about $58M in the NBA. Currently the cap in the NBA is about $140M and $88M in the NHL. This is why a bench warmer in the NBA can make more money than Connor McDavid (this sucks). Several reasons for the limited growth, I blame Bettman. The fiasco that was the Arizona Coyotes simply would not be tolerated in the NBA, NFL or MLB.

I'm not suggesting advantages, I'm suggesting they make it even for all teams. There is a big difference there.
- Archaic

That’s my point, the league doesn’t want it even, Canadian teams already make the money they want American teams making. They want to grow the sport in the US not Canada.

Tax advantages are a problem but not the most significant one at all.
At the end of the day, the hard salary cap is a broken poopty system and needs to be scrapped as soon as Bettman (frank)s off for good. A soft cap or luxury tax will allow better growth in the NHL. As an example the salary cap in 2012 was $60M in the NHL, and about $58M in the NBA. Currently the cap in the NBA is about $140M and $88M in the NHL. This is why a bench warmer in the NBA can make more money than Connor McDavid (this sucks). Several reasons for the limited growth, I blame Bettman. The fiasco that was the Arizona Coyotes simply would not be tolerated in the NBA, NFL or MLB.
- winsix

11% of people claim basketball as their favourite sport and only 4% do for hockey in North America.

Outside of Canada hockey isn’t nearly as popular.

Tax advantages and disadvantages affect every business in the world. Why would the NHL be any different? How would you fix it? Account for state, federal and local taxes and end up with 32 different cap systems that potentially change every year?
- Canada Cup

Basically, yes. Ultimately the problem is that teams with a higher tax rate do have a disadvantage but the salary cap system was put in place to create an even playing field. All it really did was shift the power away from the larger markets in Toronto, Montreal, New York and California who did have tremendous buying power.

But it doesn't necessarily make for an even playing field if you balance the taxation somehow. Assume there was a sort of escrow fund taken for taxes at the start of the year by the league and this was then distributed, as required, to the players throughout the league and it was a flat calculated rate of 50% for everyone - and you were later reimbursed by your actual tax needs - would it change a player's mind about where to play? Maybe. There would still be a lot of people who don't want to deal with Winnipeg or Alberta's harsh winters or perhaps Quebec's minor language hassles. Maybe they don't want to be on Toronto and it's hypercritical omnipresent media.

There will always be reasons for a lack of equivalency.

I hate the salary cap because it stopped Toronto from trying to buy its way out of trouble, but I love the salary cap because it stopped Toronto from trying to buy its way out of trouble.

Basically, yes. Ultimately the problem is that teams with a higher tax rate do have a disadvantage but the salary cap system was put in place to create an even playing field. All it really did was shift the power away from the larger markets in Toronto, Montreal, New York and California who did have tremendous buying power.

But it doesn't necessarily make for an even playing field if you balance the taxation somehow. Assume there was a sort of escrow fund taken for taxes at the start of the year by the league and this was then distributed, as required, to the players throughout the league and it was a flat calculated rate of 50% for everyone - and you were later reimbursed by your actual tax needs - would it change a player's mind about where to play? Maybe. There would still be a lot of people who don't want to deal with Winnipeg or Alberta's harsh winters or perhaps Quebec's minor language hassles. Maybe they don't want to be on Toronto and it's hypercritical omnipresent media.

There will always be reasons for a lack of equivalency.

I hate the salary cap because it stopped Toronto from trying to buy its way out of trouble, but I love the salary cap because it stopped Toronto from trying to buy its way out of trouble.
- Monkeypunk

The luxury tax like the NBA has would work far better then the NHL hard cap. Still penalties for dumb decisions , but allows you to resign. Your own players for example.

Tax advantages and disadvantages affect every business in the world. Why would the NHL be any different? How would you fix it? Account for state, federal and local taxes and end up with 32 different cap systems that potentially change every year?
- Canada Cup

Yeah, but Burger King and McDonalds don’t have a salary cap.

If the purpose of the cap is to level the playing field, then you know…they should level the playing field.

The luxury tax like the NBA has would work far better then the NHL hard cap. Still penalties for dumb decisions , but allows you to resign. Your own players for example.
- Archaic

The owners in general are far wealthier than the nhl owners. Using their luxury tax would create an obvious advantage for the wealthier teams in hockey.

It's a solid summary. The NHL season is approximately 180 days in length. You have 41 home games and 41 away games, but during the NHL season you are presumed to be at home except when you are actually travelling - which is less than half the time. It's not exactly 180 - 41, but's certainly closer to 110/70.

Signing bonuses are paid out to your principal residence (which is funny because Canadian tax law says it's a place you "ordinarily inhabit"; in my late 20s my principal residence was apparently Hurricanes at Bloor & Ossington) - so in Matthews' case, he has no state tax applied to his bonus on July 1 due to living in Arizona.

It's the crux of JT's issue with CRA - he claims on July 1, 2018 when he received his $15.25m signing bonus from the Leafs his principal residence was still NY - a place he had resided for nearly a decade - and CRA is claiming that since he was _going_ to be playing in Canada he owes them the taxes. I'm not a tax lawyer, but I am pretty sure JT's position is correct legally - but CRA always finds a way to get theirs.

A guy like Marner has his bonuses paid out and he resides in Ontario so he has the 53% tax application - but he can shelter and defer some of that money to retirement as a way to stave off some of the heavier tax implications - but regardless of that, whatever remains from his payouts will be taxed at the Ontario rate.

Nylander's a more a curious case because I don't know too much about international tax laws and how they're governed by other tax implications. I am fairly certain that Sweden's tax rate including their state taxes is pretty close to our 53%, but again, I'm not sure how all that crap works with international players.

There are still definite advantages to playing in a market with no state tax because you can declare residency there and gain benefit on your signing bonuses on July 1.
- Monkeypunk

The other, and probably more significant part of the dispute relates to whether his signing bonus is really an inducement (JT’s position) or part of his salary (CRA’s position). If it was salary, his 2018 tax bill and interest will be much higher. The issue is going to court. If the treatment of signing bonuses changes, it’s going to make it much tougher on Canadian teams.

Yeah, but Burger King and McDonalds don’t have a salary cap.

If the purpose of the cap is to level the playing field, then you know…they should level the playing field.
- Atomic Wedgie

Level the playing field business wise, not sport wise.

The owners in general are far wealthier than the nhl owners. Using their luxury tax would create an obvious advantage for the wealthier teams in hockey.
- Dozzer

The NHL has revenue sharing.

Also, luxury tax goes to the other teams.

When a team surpasses the luxury tax threshold and pays the fee, the money is subsequently redistributed to other teams with lower payrolls

From the tweeter

"Happy Signing Bonus Day.

Matthews $15.925M
Nylander $10M
Marner $7.25M
Tavares $7.04M
Domi $3.5M
Liljegren $2.4M
Jarnkrok $1.325M
Kampf $1.325M"

The NHL has revenue sharing.

Also, luxury tax goes to the other teams.
- Archaic

Exactly, a team who pays a higher payroll, therefore getting the better players, pays the fee to do so to the cheaper teams. Unlike basketball the ownership differences aren’t as severe as they are in hockey so it’s not nearly as dramatic in the nba as it would be for the nhl.

From the tweeter

"Happy Signing Bonus Day.

Matthews $15.925M
Nylander $10M
Marner $7.25M
Tavares $7.04M
Domi $3.5M
Liljegren $2.4M
Jarnkrok $1.325M
Kampf $1.325M"
- Fakepartofme

This one is interesting…I think he’s traded today.

11% of people claim basketball as their favourite sport and only 4% do for hockey in North America.

Outside of Canada hockey isn’t nearly as popular.
- Dozzer

Actually hockey is the 8th most popular sport in the world, just behind rugby. Popularity has nothing to do with promoting and selling the sport. You create the popularity. To give you an example of negative growth in hockey, Alex Meruelo bought the Coyotes for $425M in 2019. He bled the NHL for 5 years taking compensation to allow his bullpoop team to make it to the salary floor. Despite all the payment this wealthy owner received for five years, he walked away with a $575M capital gain when the franchise was sold. This money should have been used to grow the game. This does not happen in the NBA. You run a poopty team - you're out. Nothing to do with popularity.

Yeah, but Burger King and McDonalds don’t have a salary cap.

If the purpose of the cap is to level the playing field, then you know…they should level the playing field.
- Atomic Wedgie

They have, as far as player salaries are concerned. Coaches and GMs, salaries, training and medical facilities, sponsorship opportunities all differ between franchises. So do taxes.

I guess? One dimensional player with no defense at all. Good offense, good hustle, very dependent on supporting players to do the work that needs to be done.

I like his potential in a specific role, but I don't know if he'd be critically missed nor a desperate trade target for any team. He could likely rot as an unsigned RFA. Would you give up an asset for a very, very, very injured player who has yet to live up to any of their potential? With Nick Robertson, where do you decide not to match based on the value proposition?

AAV between $1m - $1,415,740 the compensation is none
$1,415,741 - $2,145,061 the comp is a 3rd-round pick
$2,145,062 - $4,290,125 the comp is a 2nd-round pick
$4,290,126 - $6,435,186 the comp is a 1st-round pick & a 3rd-round pick
$6,435,187 - $8,580,250 the comp is a 1st-round pick, a 2nd & a 3rd-round pick
$8,580,251 - $10,725,314 the comp is 2 1st-round picks, a 2nd & a 3rd-round pick
$10,725,315 or more the comp is 4 1st-round picks

I don't think Robertson is worth more than $1.25m at this stage in his career, maybe $1.5 . . . but is the comp of a 3rd worth it?
- Monkeypunk

Leafs have always been fairly good at moving guys like this to give them a fresh start.

Robertson isn’t playing in the top 6 in Toronto, so he is useless.

They’ll trade him for a bag of pucks and never look back.

Good riddance to crybaby Robertson and disease vector Derpluzzi.

The luxury tax like the NBA has would work far better then the NHL hard cap. Still penalties for dumb decisions , but allows you to resign. Your own players for example.
- Archaic

I don't know enough about basketball, nor do I care to, to really compare the systems. I know they have some type of thing where you can call someone a franchise player when they're a free agent - and they have some type of soft cap system.

The problem with a soft cap system - realistically - is that it doesn't stop hockey GMs from being the same dumb idiots that got them into the mess that required a hard cap to begin with. Hockey is not as big as basketball or football and it definitely has to be more conscious of its financial decisions. I'm sincerely not sure if it's financially stable enough in all of its markets to create a soft cap system.

I don't know enough about basketball, nor do I care to, to really compare the systems. I know they have some type of thing where you can call someone a franchise player when they're a free agent - and they have some type of soft cap system.

The problem with a soft cap system - realistically - is that it doesn't stop hockey GMs from being the same dumb idiots that got them into the mess that required a hard cap to begin with. Hockey is not as big as basketball or football and it definitely has to be more conscious of its financial decisions. I'm sincerely not sure if it's financially stable enough in all of its markets to create a soft cap system.
- Monkeypunk

Cost certainty which is the main advantage of a hard cap is huge for owners. They fought for it and crushed the PA to get it. They won’t give it up easily.

Actually hockey is the 8th most popular sport in the world, just behind rugby. Popularity has nothing to do with promoting and selling the sport. You create the popularity. To give you an example of negative growth in hockey, Alex Meruelo bought the Coyotes for $425M in 2019. He bled the NHL for 5 years taking compensation to allow his bullpoop team to make it to the salary floor. Despite all the payment this wealthy owner received for five years, he walked away with a $575M capital gain when the franchise was sold. This money should have been used to grow the game. This does not happen in the NBA. You run a poopty team - you're out. Nothing to do with popularity.
- winsix

The cheapest NBA team is over 2 billion in value. The NHL is nowhere near them.

This one is interesting…I think he’s traded today.
- Santo_44

Fingers firmly crossed.

Because if not our D is shaping up like ..

Rielly-Tanev
Benny-McCabe
OEL-Lilly

Not sure i love that. Lilly's big AAV is taking us out of the running for a better top 4 dman and/or better middle six centre.

That’s my point, the league doesn’t want it even, Canadian teams already make the money they want American teams making. They want to grow the sport in the US not Canada.
- Dozzer

I think you bring a lot of clarity to the discussion.

Clearly, some southern teams get a competitive advantage because of the tax differences. If they took the advantage away it would undermine the leagues efforts to grow the game in non traditional markets.

Small market Kansas City pulled in mega record ratings for the Super Bowl.

Florida and Edmonton produced great (for the NHL) Stanley Cup tv ratings.

NHL has signalled that they will feature star oriented national broadcasts. We will be seeing more of McDavid and Draisaitl in prime time.

The other, and probably more significant part of the dispute relates to whether his signing bonus is really an inducement (JT’s position) or part of his salary (CRA’s position). If it was salary, his 2018 tax bill and interest will be much higher. The issue is going to court. If the treatment of signing bonuses changes, it’s going to make it much tougher on Canadian teams.
- Canada Cup

Ah. That is a much muddier pool.

A signing bonus is not an inducement - not if you receive one every year over a multi-year contract on the same date. I think it became a part of his salary the moment he also received a signing bonus on July 1, 2019 and that consideration of what the intent of the signing bonus was became established by this part of his contract.