HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   National Hockey League Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=60)
-   -   Cost for a 2 game road trip in Alberta for a 4M player ? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=29963)

Team_Spirit 11-21-2003 08:38 AM

Cost for a 2 game road trip in Alberta for a 4M player ?
 
Near $12,000 ...

Montreal media reported that for the 2 games played in Alberta this week ( Flames and Oilers ) Saku Koivu had to pay a tax .

Theodore ( who makes more than Koivu ) had to play $15,000 USD .

When Jagr or Forsberg go there it cost them $30,000 .

It's a good way for the Falmes and Oilers to have extra revenues , after 10 years or so they are gonna be able to build a new arena for free .

http://www.rds.ca/canadien/chronique...N3FBD3567.html

islandnucker 11-21-2003 09:16 AM

That money must go to the province though right?

JR#9* 11-21-2003 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jozeph_Balej
Near $12,000 ...

Montreal media reported that for the 2 games played in Alberta this week ( Flames and Oilers ) Saku Koivu had to pay a tax .

Theodore ( who makes more than Koivu ) had to play $15,000 USD .

When Jagr or Forsberg go there it cost them $30,000 .

It's a good way for the Falmes and Oilers to have extra revenues , after 10 years or so they are gonna be able to build a new arena for free .

http://www.rds.ca/canadien/chronique...N3FBD3567.html

What a joke!!!

But Canada should get more teams right????I'm sure the players would be all for that. :eek:

How about putting TAXPAYERS money behind these teams you want to keep in these cities so badly.Ifr it's such a quality of life issue for the teams to remain in the city why not back it up with tax dollars and other breaks and incentives that could put them more on equal footing with the teams in the US who recieve such incentives.

When the Habs pay more in property tax on their building then ALL 24 teams in the US combined I really have no sympathy for the "poor Canada" arguement.

loveshack2 11-21-2003 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR#9
What a joke!!!

But Canada should get more teams right????I'm sure the players would be all for that. :eek:

How about putting TAXPAYERS money behind these teams you want to keep in these cities so badly.Ifr it's such a quality of life issue for the teams to remain in the city why not back it up with tax dollars and other breaks and incentives that could put them more on equal footing with the teams in the US who recieve such incentives.

The opposing argument goes something like this....

"Would you rather have a new hospital/school? Or would you rather watch pampered grown men make millions playing a game?"




Now I happen to believe we spend far too much on health care in Canada and that the system needs a drastic overhaul, but that's another discussion entirely.

JR#9* 11-21-2003 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loveshack2
The opposing argument goes something like this....

"Would you rather have a new hospital/school? Or would you rather watch pampered grown men make millions playing a game?"




Now I happen to believe we spend far too much on health care in Canada and that the system needs a drastic overhaul, but that's another discussion entirely.

Hey, life is full of choices and if having teams remain in Canada is really such an important issue then the goverment needs to step up and lend a hand.

Amerian taxpayers don't have much say when their dollars are spend to GIVE franchises brand new arenas or when the local goverments cut all sorts of tax breaks to these pro teams so why should teams in Canada have a new CBA that would sponge off the teams making money just so that those cities local goverments can bang out these NHL teams with ridiculous tax numbers that further hurt the teams ability to compete on a level playing field?

If a team can't stand on it's own and the local goverment makes matters worse as oppossed to stepping up and providing some economic relief then that team and city shouldn't be looking for any sort of handouts and/or CBA's that specically cater to them IMO.

I don't want to see Canadian teams fold but what right is right and if teams can't compete financialy with the rest of the league it's up to the politicians in that city and/or country to weigh just how much the team means to the quality of life within that city and at that point decide if they will do what ALL US teams do and provide economic relief or let the teams fold/relocate.

Oiltalk 11-21-2003 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR#9
What a joke!!!

But Canada should get more teams right????I'm sure the players would be all for that. :eek:

How about putting TAXPAYERS money behind these teams you want to keep in these cities so badly.Ifr it's such a quality of life issue for the teams to remain in the city why not back it up with tax dollars and other breaks and incentives that could put them more on equal footing with the teams in the US who recieve such incentives.

When the Habs pay more in property tax on their building then ALL 24 teams in the US combined I really have no sympathy for the "poor Canada" arguement.

I would agree with your argument if Forsberg was whining about losing a whopping $30 000 for a few games out of his $11 M contract.

JR#9* 11-21-2003 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oiltalk
I would agree with your argument if Forsberg was whining about losing a whopping $30 000 for a few games out of his $11 M contract.

Not the point.What if EVERY team within the NHL did this too increase revenue???What happens then?Why should canadian teams have this "special" way of generating extra revenue?Is that fair?

JDB3939 11-21-2003 09:51 AM

The Penguins are poorer than the Oilers. Can't we charge players to come play in the Burgh too?

Trottier 11-21-2003 09:58 AM

Have to agree with JR on this one.

I believe it's critical for Canada to maintain viable NHL franchises, and I am not so naive to think that a country can survive without some (modest) form of taxation. And my country's tax system is dubious, to be sure.

But this is absurd. I thought the concept of players having to "pay for icetime" was limited to beer leagues and PeeWees. :p

Big Cat Davo 11-21-2003 10:01 AM

Nothing new
 
the idea is nothing new and a quick search, although I don't know where would revale that this idea was borrowed from our american counter parts . . .

Dave

gb701 11-21-2003 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR#9
Not the point.What if EVERY team within the NHL did this too increase revenue???What happens then?Why should canadian teams have this "special" way of generating extra revenue?Is that fair?

In fact, before all you geniuses lose more sleep over it, the idea was imported from the American teams - most of which collect city, state, user, luxury, entertainment or other taxes from not only hockey players (the Oilers paid in something like 22 cities last year) but from every rock star, circus, or other form of entertainment that comes into town. Do you really think the "taxpayers" are paying the bills for the arenas down there?

This is old news - the debate ran just as hot two years ago when the idea was first floated around, and the tax has been in place for a full season plus already.

And - just so you don't feel sorry for the players on this, as I recall it the reason it is collected by the government is so that tax credits can be applied against the income taxes being paid by Americans so this is not a burden on the other teams or on the players - it just allows some (very small) part of the total taxes paid out of hockey to stay where the games are played instead of just where the player lives. That is also not unusual.

before you speak, you should try to find out what you are talking about.

dem 11-21-2003 10:07 AM

Colorado does the same thing... do they not?

JR#9* 11-21-2003 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Cat Davo
the idea is nothing new and a quick search, although I don't know where would revale that this idea was borrowed from our american counter parts . . .

Dave

Ask Forsberg the last time he got charged 30k for playing vs the Isles and Rangers.

EJsens1 11-21-2003 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR#9
Amerian taxpayers don't have much say when their dollars are spend...

Yes they do....its called elections!!!

JR#9* 11-21-2003 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gb701

Do you really think the "taxpayers" are paying the bills for the arenas down there?

Is it not FACT that the Habs pay more in property tax on their building then ALL 24 US teams combined????What;s your take on that and where do you think those taxes are made up for---by the average Joe!!!!

And cities down here DO pay large amounts of money for their teams' buildings as well as provide all sorts of other economic incentives for teams to remain in their cities so what are you talking about?

As for this being common practice as I just said ask Forsberg the last time he paid 30k to play 2 games in NY or Fla and let me know since you are so informed on the situation.

JR#9* 11-21-2003 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead
Yes they do....its called elections!!!

Key word---They don't have MUCH say and on the flip side of that if the game is so dear to these fans in these cities let the local politicians know come election time up there.

dem 11-21-2003 10:17 AM

I dont know why anyone would give a **** anyway.
OH NO! FORSBERG ONLY GETS $115,000 FOR EVERY GAME HE PLAYS IN ALBERTA!!!

Even if you are angry.. what are you going to do? Tell Alberta their business?

JR#9* 11-21-2003 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dem
I dont know why anyone would give a **** anyway.
OH NO! FORSBERG ONLY GETS $115,000 FOR EVERY GAME HE PLAYS IN ALBERTA!!!

Even if you are angry.. what are you going to do? Tell Alberta their business?

Again, how much the player makes is not the point but I can see the point is getting lost by people defending this stance.

And nobodies telling Alberta their buisness but when they continue to be able to compete due to finances everybody else will mind their buisness and what you'll be left with is a team either folding up or packing the moving trucks.Sad but true.

dem 11-21-2003 10:21 AM

"Several American cities including Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Columbus and St. Louis already tax sports professionals."

gb701 11-21-2003 10:21 AM

Just in case you want to know some of the facts, here is the background:

The Alberta Personal Income Tax Act was amended in 2002 to include Part 1.1 on the NHL Players Tax. Part 1.1 on the tax and the related NHL Tax Regulation came into effect on September 1, 2002. Tax and Revenue Administration (TRA), Alberta Revenue, is responsible for the administration of the NHL Players Tax.

The legislation requires all National Hockey League (NHL) players who provide hockey duties or services to their team in hockey facilities in Alberta to pay a tax, with the tax calculated as 12.5% of the taxable salary the player earns for an NHL regular season game played in Alberta. The tax for an NHL player for a calendar year will be the sum of the tax calculated for all games the player plays in Alberta during the calendar year. NHL players required to pay the tax will normally be those players on the “twenty-three player roster” for the game. NHL teams are required to withhold, and remit to TRA, the NHL player tax for their players for regular season games played in Alberta in a month. Players are responsible for ensuring their teams have made the required remittances. Players taxable during a calendar year are generally not required to file an NHL player tax return with TRA unless their team(s) had not made any remittances on their behalf for the year.

This tax applies to all NHL regular season games played in Alberta after August 31, 2002 until December 31, 2005.

I am trying to find the list of all of the US cities who have taxes of one kind or another on visiting teams/players. The list was around the last time someone got in a twist over this.

wazee 11-21-2003 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR#9
Amerian taxpayers don't have much say when their dollars are spend to GIVE franchises brand new arenas or when the local goverments cut all sorts of tax breaks to these pro teams so why should teams in Canada have a new CBA that would sponge off the teams making money just so that those cities local goverments can bang out these NHL teams with ridiculous tax numbers that further hurt the teams ability to compete on a level playing field?

Is that what your media is telling you up there north of the border? They are saying American taxpayers don't have much of a say? That is very interesting and also very untrue.

I live in Denver. We have build a new baseball stadium and a new football staduim in the last decade. In both cases the residents of the 6 county Metro-Denver area got to vote on the increase in taxation that would finance the stadiums. In both cases, the pro-stadium side won by a substantial margin.

The Pepsi Center was privately financed. It does receive tax concessions from the city of Denver in return for an agreement that will prevent the Avs or the Nuggets from moving for 25 years. It should also be noted that the Pepsi Center was built on an empty piece of land that was part of the old railroad yard that ran through lower downtown Denver. Denver gave tax concessions to an amusement park and an aquarium built in the same area at around the same time. ANY tax money paid on that land is money the city was not getting before. But the real benefit to the city is the explosion new businesses and residences that has grown in the lower downtown area.

LoDo, as we affectionately call the area, was a rundown warehouse district where few ventured after dark. But for the past 10 years or so, LoDo, with its new ball park, new arena, restaurants, and bars has become thee place to go. And all those people who venture downtown for a meal and a game spend money...and pay taxes on every dime they spend.

Despite what you may be hearing north of the border, the American taxpayers are not total dolts. We do not run around with wool over our eyes. We keep a close eye on goverment spending at the state and local levels. We just happen to think that building ball parks and arenas is a pretty smart use of our tax dollars.

EJsens1 11-21-2003 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR#9
Key word---They don't have MUCH say and on the flip side of that if the game is so dear to these fans in these cities let the local politicians know come election time up there.

They would and have. A couple years ago, the Federal Government of Canada made an agreement to give money for Canadian teams which I'm sure you are well aware of. Within a couple days, there was a huge public outcry that the money should not be spent on professional sports teams that can't control their own costs, that the money was needed for more important social issues. The decision to give money to Canadian teams was quickly rescinded. If they had ignored this and gone on with their plan, it would more then certainly have blown up in their face!!!

JR#9* 11-21-2003 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wazee
Is that what your media is telling you up there north of the border? They are saying American taxpayers don't have much of a say? That is very interesting and also very untrue.

I live in Denver. We have build a new baseball stadium and a new football staduim in the last decade. In both cases the residents of the 6 county Metro-Denver area got to vote on the increase in taxation that would finance the stadiums. In both cases, the pro-stadium side won by a substantial margin.

.

I live in NYC Wazee but my point is that ALL new arena's in the US recieve massive amounts of financial and tax considerations and there are plenty of people that don't even give a sh$t about sports that wind up footing part of the bill.

It's a quality of life issue within each city and if a city decides it doesn't want to financially become involved with Pro teams then that is a decision they make and if they lose their team it's entirely up to them.

loveshack2 11-21-2003 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR#9
It's a quality of life issue within each city and if a city decides it doesn't want to financially become involved with Pro teams then that is a decision they make and if they lose their team it's entirely up to them.


Yes, but should it be the responsibility of the local government to support a pro sports franchise? I know that some do choose to do this. Should those that don't be blamed for losing their teams? Or is it more the fault of the teams that essentially try to hold the city hostage to get money from them?

gb701 11-21-2003 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR#9
I live in NYC Wazee but my point is that ALL new arena's in the US recieve massive amounts of financial and tax considerations and there are plenty of people that don't even give a sh$t about sports that wind up footing part of the bill.

It's a quality of life issue within each city and if a city decides it doesn't want to financially become involved with Pro teams then that is a decision they make and if they lose their team it's entirely up to them.

And the point back to you is that in virtually every city in the league, the "massive amounts of financial and tax considerations" that are provided are largely sourced through payroll, luxury, entertainment, visiting professional or other "special" taxes. The idea that the general taxpaying public is subsidizing the teams to the extent you suggest is unusual, particularly from someone in the biggest free market city in the world.

The other side of the argument is that if the private business owners, the League and the players can't generate enough to pay the bills, they shouldn't be in the business in the first place.

and, given the Rangers are a large part of the problem given that they haven't a clue how to spend money or how much to spend, someone from NYC has little to say to someone in Alberta about how to tax pro sports.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:33 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.