HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Luxury tax

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-11-2010, 08:59 AM
  #1
TheHotRock
Registered User
 
TheHotRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: nyc
Country: United States
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Luxury tax

Not your thoughts on wether or not the NHL should switch to this model (hint: they should) but what do you think a fair threshold would be?

I'd say 50 cents on the dollar between 55 and 60 mil, then dollar for dollar after that. I'd also be an advocate of having to pay a tax if you can't reach a certain cap floor (say 38 mil)

i think something like this would make much more sense for the small market owners.

TheHotRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 09:14 AM
  #2
pwoz
Registered User
 
pwoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,644
vCash: 500
I'd just like cost-of-living bonuses that don't impact the cap (I hate the cap!). If you live in NY, you get a certain amount of $... if some small market, you get less.

pwoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 09:16 AM
  #3
arunnair87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwoz View Post
I'd just like cost-of-living bonuses that don't impact the cap (I hate the cap!). If you live in NY, you get a certain amount of $... if some small market, you get less.
This.

Other than this, I have no problem with the cap (it keeps teams competitive.)

arunnair87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 09:23 AM
  #4
TheHotRock
Registered User
 
TheHotRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: nyc
Country: United States
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwoz View Post
I'd just like cost-of-living bonuses that don't impact the cap (I hate the cap!). If you live in NY, you get a certain amount of $... if some small market, you get less.
i say this to a lot of friends.

the cap really isn;t fair when you take into account that it costs a lot more to live in this city.

on top of that, as fans, we pay more per ticket than any other fanbase that isn't located in toronto. our team should be allowed to spend more money.

TheHotRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 09:25 AM
  #5
pwoz
Registered User
 
pwoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,644
vCash: 500
I just hate the cap. The NHL was fine for years without it, until idiot deals like the Holik contract came about.. Montreal did fine with no cap.. lots of cups... same with other successful teams. The problem was GMs like Slats giving insane contracts to 3rd liners.

Or how about this... no more agents (lol).. no more NTCs/NMCs.

I'm looking at you, captain intangible$!

pwoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 09:37 AM
  #6
Yuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 15
vCash: 500
I'm not a fan of the luxury tax, but I do believe some rules could be added to alleviate some of the issues today. Two come to mind right away...

1) The ability to buyout players without cap hits. The cost of the buy-out should be penalty enough. If a player doesn't perform, your GM is an idiot, or if they just don't fit any longer they should be able to be bought out. I'm sure players (and the teams) rather be bought out and sign with another team then be locked down in the minors for the remainder of their contract -- The way its currently structured just seems unnecessary painful to all parties involved.

2) To help teams stay together, and encourage good drafting, signing players drafted by that team (and their rights were never owned by another team) incur only 80% cap hit. This should help make it easier for teams to keep the players they drafted. Even though I'm a Ranger fan, watching the Blackhawks get butchered was painful...

Yuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 10:44 AM
  #7
Puckface NYR*
R.I.P. Boogyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuck View Post
I'm not a fan of the luxury tax, but I do believe some rules could be added to alleviate some of the issues today. Two come to mind right away...

1) The ability to buyout players without cap hits. The cost of the buy-out should be penalty enough. If a player doesn't perform, your GM is an idiot, or if they just don't fit any longer they should be able to be bought out. I'm sure players (and the teams) rather be bought out and sign with another team then be locked down in the minors for the remainder of their contract -- The way its currently structured just seems unnecessary painful to all parties involved.

2) To help teams stay together, and encourage good drafting, signing players drafted by that team (and their rights were never owned by another team) incur only 80% cap hit. This should help make it easier for teams to keep the players they drafted. Even though I'm a Ranger fan, watching the Blackhawks get butchered was painful...
This.

The NHL should have modeled themselves after the NFL. Instead they had to be unique and in doing so created an awful situation.

For the record I am against the luxury tax since it basically alleviates the cap. Just look at baseball, there is actually a cap and a luxury tax.....do you think the yankees care?

Puckface NYR* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 11:23 AM
  #8
DrAStuart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 404
vCash: 500
I would like to know one case of a professional athlete who said, "I'm not coming to New York because it is too expensive to live there".

As F.Scott Fitzgerald said, "The rich are different"...And as Hemingway replied, "Yes, they have more money"

The cost of living in NYC is high...but even NHL league minimum affords you a reasonably comfortable life...and if there weren't compensations for that cost of living then everyone would be packing up and heading to Montana because it is so much cheaper to live there....

If anything, players should be paid extra for having to live in St. Louis...

DrAStuart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 11:36 AM
  #9
TreeSapLlama
Registered User
 
TreeSapLlama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 713
vCash: 500
I think it is a slipperly slope though. If you compensate players for living expenses, do you then compensate players based on how much Income Tax they pay? Off the top of my head, Quebec + Canada federal Income tax comes in around ~54%.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea, but I just don't see how it can be logically implemented.

TreeSapLlama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 11:37 AM
  #10
freewheeler
Registered User
 
freewheeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 219
vCash: 500
The luxury tax in baseball is a disaster. It doesn't fix the problem, it placates the losers. MLB is not healthy, but revenue is high enough to mask the disparity. Why should the Pirates/Marlins etc spend money when they can lose with low payroll and rake in the luxury taxes? Losing needs consequences. Simply being a member of club "NHL" should not be enough. Phoenix should be on the hot seat. These are businesses, as is the NHL on the whole. Carrying around anchors does not make you more buoyant.

freewheeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 11:56 AM
  #11
allstar3970
Registered User
 
allstar3970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckface Avery View Post
This.

For the record I am against the luxury tax since it basically alleviates the cap. Just look at baseball, there is actually a cap and a luxury tax.....do you think the yankees care?
Uh...there is no cap in baseball

allstar3970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 12:00 PM
  #12
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,167
vCash: 500
Actually, the target of the cap was to break up good teams, not keep them together. Their goal was parity. I think a strong argument could be made that parity existed prior to the lockout but I guess at this point the argument should be if 1) the cap is creating more competition top to bottom and 2) is the league better for it?

With the current point system, it's almost impossible to distinguish the overriding factor in the bunching of the standings. I think the loser's point is a bigger factor. If there was decent parity, I would imagine you would see an impact in ticket sales... better product on the ice, more people at the games since this is a ticket driven league. I don't think we are seeing enough impact in markets that used to struggle, but are turning the corner. Florida, Atl, Nash and Phx just aren't generating good attendance numbers despite fielding competitive teams that make or almost make the playoffs. My guess is that the parity in talent is not benefiting them as much as the point system.

I have felt for some time now that there simply is not enough talent to go around to all 30 teams, at least not enough to make the cap system work or to provide enough entertainment and star power to all 30 arenas. See, if there was more talent, you can shift the supply/demand line so that price drops. Not enough stars, you see overpayment for 2nd and 3rd tier talent (Drury/Gomez/Campbell).

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 12:02 PM
  #13
Staals Eye
What me worry?
 
Staals Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by allstar3970 View Post
Uh...there is no cap in baseball
I believe there is, its a soft cap tho. If a team goes over the cap, they just pay a penalty.

Staals Eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 12:02 PM
  #14
Sour Shoes
lol u mad cam?
 
Sour Shoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Home of Black+Gold
Posts: 2,478
vCash: 500
the cap is here to stay... as it should be. buying championships is weak. the nhl would lose a lot of fans if it went back to the MLB model. (where titles can be purchased)

Sour Shoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 12:13 PM
  #15
allstar3970
Registered User
 
allstar3970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torts Kinda Guy View Post
I believe there is, its a soft cap tho. If a team goes over the cap, they just pay a penalty.
Right, that's a luxury tax, not a cap. A soft cap is what the NBA has, where you can go over to retain your own players.

allstar3970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 12:34 PM
  #16
ruckus*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandma Caprio View Post
the cap is here to stay... as it should be. buying championships is weak. the nhl would lose a lot of fans if it went back to the MLB model. (where titles can be purchased)
This argument is incredibly short sighted though. It's not that cut and dry.

Spending money certainly has its benefits but it has to be used correctly. No cap didn't do the Rangers any favors.

Plenty of teams in the NHL before the cap and in baseball who don't spend tons of money field extremely competitive teams.

I see pros and cons in both systems but I absolutely can't stand how certain teams and fans should get penalized because other teams don't want to spend money.

Any one who knows anything about baseball can tell you that the Pirates could spend way more money than they do, but they choose not to. The Twins have the richest owner in baseball, and while they still produce competitive teams every year, they could easily be the team who goes out and gets every big name free agent. Their owner chooses not to though.

Tampa and Calgary spent $33.5 and $35.2 million respectively in 03-04 when they played for the Stanley cup. That was less than Anaheim, Boston, Carolina, Colorado, Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, Montreal, New Jersey, NYI, NYR, Ottawa, Philadelphia, Phoenix, St. Louis, Toronto, Vancouver, Washington, and San Jose was dead smack between the two.

That's more than half the league that spent more money than those two teams and didn't make it. And I only went back to the first year before the lock out. I'm sure I could keep going back.

Money does not equal championships. Everyone looks at the Yankees and just thinks this is fact, but it's not.

ruckus* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 12:38 PM
  #17
LamoTheKid
Registered User
 
LamoTheKid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 1,411
vCash: 500
I'd be ok with a Luxury Tax if it was required that said money be spent on players, not line the pockets of greedy owners who continuously field a losing product (I'm looking at you Pittsburgh Pirates).

LamoTheKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 12:50 PM
  #18
Sour Shoes
lol u mad cam?
 
Sour Shoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Home of Black+Gold
Posts: 2,478
vCash: 500
the product is competition. removing the cap creates a competitive advantage for larger cities... which is bs. the salary floor is for the pittsburgh pirates of the world.

Sour Shoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 12:51 PM
  #19
dtrap
Registered User
 
dtrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,720
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dtrap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torts Kinda Guy View Post
I believe there is, its a soft cap tho. If a team goes over the cap, they just pay a penalty.
There is a luxury tax in baseball. No salary cap.

dtrap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 01:58 PM
  #20
frozenrubber
Registered User
 
frozenrubber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckface Avery View Post
This.
The NHL should have modeled themselves after the NFL. Instead they had to be unique and in doing so created an awful situation.
Ugh! I don't think there is a single league w/ a worse cap system than the NFL. Say what you want about the NHL's salary cap structure, but guaranteed contracts are the best and most fair system. But maybe you like holdouts, ludicrous signing bonuses for players who haven't proven a damn thing, or a team salary cap that takes a team of forensic accountants to understand.

Please continue hating bad contracts, as everyone should, but don't wish for a NFL like system.

frozenrubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 02:20 PM
  #21
pwoz
Registered User
 
pwoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,644
vCash: 500
I like the idea of some kind of soft cap or percentage taken off the hit, especially for players you drafted.

pwoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 02:28 PM
  #22
ruckus*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandma Caprio View Post
the product is competition. removing the cap creates a competitive advantage for larger cities... which is bs. the salary floor is for the pittsburgh pirates of the world.
Please provided some evidence that the product is more competitive now than before.

ruckus* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 02:54 PM
  #23
Sour Shoes
lol u mad cam?
 
Sour Shoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Home of Black+Gold
Posts: 2,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
Please provided some evidence that the product is more competitive now than before.
i'm sure as a NY fan, you don't see anything wrong with simply outspending your opponents. a capped system doesn't guarantee success for everybody. but it does remove the competitive advantage that NY, philly, toronto, and detroit enjoyed for most of the 90s and early 00s.


Last edited by Sour Shoes: 08-11-2010 at 03:00 PM.
Sour Shoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 03:13 PM
  #24
ruckus*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandma Caprio View Post
i'm sure as a NY fan, you don't see anything wrong with simply outspending your opponents. a capped system doesn't guarantee success for everybody. but it does remove the competitive advantage that NY, philly, toronto, and detroit enjoyed for most of the 90s and early 00s.
Except Detroit has won in both systems, Philly hasn't won in 40 years, the Leafs haven't won in almost 50, and the Rangers have one Stanley Cup in the last 70 years.

I'm sure as a fan of a franchise that shouldn't even exist anymore, you like to think that if a team can spend more money than you that that's unfair. Unfortunately, there's no evidence to back it, only evidence to the contrary. Which is why I'm sure you didn't provide any.

You don't like teams being able to spend more. That's your opinion. Doesn't prove at all that a salary cap makes things more competitive.

ruckus* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 03:25 PM
  #25
Sour Shoes
lol u mad cam?
 
Sour Shoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Home of Black+Gold
Posts: 2,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
Except Detroit has won in both systems, Philly hasn't won in 40 years, the Leafs haven't won in almost 50, and the Rangers have one Stanley Cup in the last 70 years.

I'm sure as a fan of a franchise that shouldn't even exist anymore, you like to think that if a team can spend more money than you that that's unfair. Unfortunately, there's no evidence to back it, only evidence to the contrary. Which is why I'm sure you didn't provide any.

You don't like teams being able to spend more. That's your opinion. Doesn't prove at all that a salary cap makes things more competitive.
i just took a tour of our shiny new arena last night. the pens have a 30 year lease on that bad boy. over 150 consecutive sellouts, and a cup in '09. anyway, you proved my point. detroit has won in both systems. they are clearly a top-notch organization that doesn't need the competitive advantage.

Sour Shoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:26 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.