Karine Hains: What if the Field Was Levelled? Every year come July 1st, Habs fans are reminded that it's hard for the team to sign free agents...What if there was a way to level the playing field so to speak?

Eh, signing UFAs usually turns out horribly anyways. It's better to avoid them.

Eh, signing UFAs usually turns out horribly anyways. It's better to avoid them.
- RogerRoeper

Says the guy who's team signed Tavares

Says the guy who's team signed Tavares
- Karine Hains

Tavares was an a very rare outlier. Probably the best UFA available since at least Neidermayer.

Most of the July 1st signing this year, yeesh.

Karine
Hains: What if the Field Was Levelled?
Every year come July 1st, Habs fans are reminded that it's hard for the team to sign free agents...What if there was a way to level the playing field so to speak?
- Karine Hains

It's not nearly as simple as looking at the general tax situation, though.

It's incredibly complex, and varies based upon factors such as signing bonuses, your nationality, where your primary residence is, and what your accountant actually does with your money.

As for the idea of using this money to fund a women's league, I don't think we need a gimmicky formula.

If the NHL deems it to be something worthy of funding (note: I hope they do), just fund the darn thing.

How's the leak?

It's not nearly as simple as looking at the general tax situation, though.

It's incredibly complex, and varies based upon factors such as signing bonuses, your nationality, where your primary residence is, and what your accountant actually does with your money.

As for the idea of using this money to fund a women's league, I don't think we need a gimmicky formula.

If the NHL deems it to be something worthy of funding (note: I hope they do), just fund the darn thing.
- Atomic Wedgie

This wouldn't be a gimmick, just a way to fund it if they deem it a good idea while also making things fairer in the NHL...

How's the leak?
- Symba007

Fixed thank god lol

I remember one of the last times Bettman was asked about the two womens hockey leagues and if the NHL had plans to support them he responded with something along the lines of "Not until there is one league". Huge paraphrase but maybe now that there is just the one league we'll see a plan develop.

It's not nearly as simple as looking at the general tax situation, though.

It's incredibly complex, and varies based upon factors such as signing bonuses, your nationality, where your primary residence is, and what your accountant actually does with your money.

As for the idea of using this money to fund a women's league, I don't think we need a gimmicky formula.

If the NHL deems it to be something worthy of funding (note: I hope they do), just fund the darn thing.
- Atomic Wedgie

this

And NY players pay almost as much if not more if you take into account the US vs CAN $ value + cost of living housing etcetc

This wouldn't be a gimmick, just a way to fund it if they deem it a good idea while also making things fairer in the NHL...
- Karine Hains

Why not just say, "Hey, we think that developing the women's game is actually good for the long-term growth of the NHL, so we are going to fund it."

Seems a helluva lot easier than amending the CBA.

Like, the NHL could do this tomorrow.

this

And NY players pay almost as much if not more if you take into account the US vs CAN $ value + cost of living housing etcetc
- WaterBoy

I know I'm vulgarizing here but I'm no actuary, surely some of the numbers brains out there could run with this though...

Taxes is the main reason why no Canadian team has won a Stanley Cup since 1993. Until the NHL figures something out, it will continue to be that way. Look at St. Louis this year, a majority of the players were Canadian, but they played in the US because their take home pay was much higher. Look at locales like Nevada and Florida, no state tax. How can Canadian teams complete with that?

Why not just say, "Hey, we think that developing the women's game is actually good for the long-term growth of the NHL, so we are going to fund it."

Seems a helluva lot easier than amending the CBA.

Like, the NHL could do this tomorrow.
- Atomic Wedgie

Would be but somehow I don't see it happening (unfortunately)

Taxes is the main reason why no Canadian team has won a Stanley Cup since 1993. Until the NHL figures something out, it will continue to be that way. Look at St. Louis this year, a majority of the players were Canadian, but they played in the US because their take home pay was much higher. Look at locales like Nevada and Florida, no state tax. How can Canadian teams complete with that?
- williamdapp

Hence my idea to try and level it while helping out the Women's game...

ok Karine - you got me away from my homebase for this reply

If I am reading this right, you are basically saying that the teams that have a tax advantage be forced to help supplement a WNHL?

Taxes is the main reason why no Canadian team has won a Stanley Cup since 1993. Until the NHL figures something out, it will continue to be that way. Look at St. Louis this year, a majority of the players were Canadian, but they played in the US because their take home pay was much higher. Look at locales like Nevada and Florida, no state tax. How can Canadian teams complete with that?
- williamdapp

Oh come on. I don't agree with this at all. Was "Taxes" the reason the NHl missed the game 6 Calgary goal in 2004? Was it the reason Edmonton lost in 7 in the final?

And the Panthers have the best tax situation and they've been just the worst franchise.

So literally rob the men of the contracts and money they've worked hard to earn so that women can get paid to play a children's game that has proven with them as the product to be a money loser? The NHLPA is rushing to sign up for that one. This is close to hockey communism.

The irony here is that saying the women shouldn't get paid if it doesn't make economic sense will get you accused of being sexist but suggesting taking money the men have rightfully earned to pay women money they haven't earned will be viewed as progressive. The world these days...

If people go online and research articles on "Taxes", they'll see from experts there's barely a difference between no tax states and everywhere else.

Matthews is making a killing in Toronto. More than he could in the U.S. The Canadian government can only tax him at %15 on his "Bonuses", which account for vast majority of his contract.

Rich teams have a big advantage with those signing bonuses.

So literally rob the men of the contracts and money they've worked hard to earn so that women can get paid to play a children's game that has proven with them as the product to be a money loser? The NHLPA is rushing to sign up for that one. This is close to hockey communism.

The irony here is that saying the women shouldn't get paid if it doesn't make economic sense will get you accused of being sexist but suggesting taking money the men have rightfully earned to pay women money they haven't earned will be viewed as progressive. The world these days...
- Takemedrunkimhome

Robbing would be taking it without warning. This is an idea which could be discussed...Why should a player who worked hard to earn his money =earn less because he plays in Canada?

Taxes is the main reason why no Canadian team has won a Stanley Cup since 1993. Until the NHL figures something out, it will continue to be that way. Look at St. Louis this year, a majority of the players were Canadian, but they played in the US because their take home pay was much higher. Look at locales like Nevada and Florida, no state tax. How can Canadian teams complete with that?
- williamdapp

yeah that's... incorrect

hihihi

Every team has advantages and disadvantages. A player in Montreal is more likely to earn cash through endorsements than a player in Columbus.

Market yourself thusly

Robbing would be taking it without warning. This is an idea which could be discussed...Why should a player who worked hard to earn his money =earn less because he plays in Canada?
- Karine Hains

They chose to sign the contract in Canada. Radulov for example made a choice not to so he could make more. That's his choice and how markets work. Why should Dallas be penalized because women's hockey isn't very popular? (And based on 20+ years of the WNBA one can guess women's hockey will never be a money maker)

Even the draft is something players accept for their job, potentially starting them in a high tax market. If they don't want the draft they can go to Europe or the KHL and come back later as a UFA. This is also why the players fight for UFA.

I understand wanting to help the women but taking from the men to do it isn't egalitarian...it's promoting one at the cost of the other, which is inequality in favour of the women. If the women can't make the economic case on their own to get paid that should tell everybody all they need to know about the viability of the league...and that isn't a problem for the men

So literally rob the men of the contracts and money they've worked hard to earn so that women can get paid to play a children's game that has proven with them as the product to be a money loser? The NHLPA is rushing to sign up for that one. This is close to hockey communism.

The irony here is that saying the women shouldn't get paid if it doesn't make economic sense will get you accused of being sexist but suggesting taking money the men have rightfully earned to pay women money they haven't earned will be viewed as progressive. The world these days...
- Takemedrunkimhome

yeah i'm having a hard time getting on board with this. not sure why the players should fund a women's league. money should come from the owners and no one else.