HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

A luxury Tax that would work

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-06-2004, 10:29 AM
  #1
HabsoluteFate
Registered User
 
HabsoluteFate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,869
vCash: 500
A luxury Tax that would work

Just sent this to TQS (110%). My idea on a disguised Salary Cap.
English version follows my french version.

Bonjour,
Je ne sais pas si vous pourier parler sur 110% sur ce sujet.
L'association des joueurs avait donner une offre de taxe de luxe de 20 cents sur le dollar le
9 Septembre dernier. Cette semaine l'offre aurais changer a 75 cents sur le dollar.
Pourquoi ne pas aller plus loin...que chaque equipe ais une taxe de luxe differente.
Pour example Les Rangers de New York aurais une taxe de luxe de 200 cents sur le dollar si
ils vont plus au que la limite, New Jersey une taxe de luxe de 75 cents sur le dollar, etc.
Comme example (cap de 40 million, apres quoi une equipe doi payer une taxe de luxe):

Salaire des Rangers de New York avant taxe de luxe: 60 millions. Aprais taxe de luxe: 80 millions
Salaire des Devils de New Jersey avant taxe de luxe: 45 millions. Aprais taxe de luxe: 48.75 millions
Le 23.75 million va dans un "pool" (avant tous les autre taxe de luxe) qui sera partager avec tous les equipes avec un salaire
entre 30 et 40 million.

Les chiffres pourais changer mais l'idee reste la meme...une equipe comme Les Rangers, Avalanche, Dallas, et
Toronto quie depense beaucoup aura a payer plus pour obtenir un jouer. Peut etre qu'il vont penser un peut
plus avant de payer 22 million par anner pour un Jagr par example a la place de 11 millions.

Hi,
I don't know if you could speak about this subject on 110%.
The player's association gave an offer back on September 9th for a luxury tax that would cost
a team 20 cents on the dollar. This week the offer supposively changed to 75 cents on the dollar.
Why not go one step further...have each team with their own luxury tax.
For example the New York Rangers would have a luxury tax of 200 cents on the dollar if they go
over the pre-determined limit, New Jersey would have a luxury tax of 75 cents on the dollar, etc.
For example (cap of 40 millions, after which a team must pay the luxury tax):

New York Rangers Salary before luxury tax: 60 millions. After luxury tax: 80 millions
New Jersey Devils Salary before luxury tax: 45 millions. After luxury tax: 48.75 millions
The 23.75 million goes into a "pool" (with all other luxury taxes accumulated) which will be
divided between all teams with a salary between 30 and 40 millions.

The numbers could change but the idea stays the same...a team like the Rangers, Avalanche, Dallas, and
Toronto who spends a lot on salaries would have to pay more to obtain a player. Perhaps they will
think a little more before paying 22 million a year for a Jagr for example as opposed to 11 millions.

Oops make that 33 million for a jagr since its 200 cents per dollar. I probably should have re-read this
before sending it to tqs Oh well...

HabsoluteFate is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 10:37 AM
  #2
jacklours
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Magog
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,222
vCash: 500
Non, pense tu sérieusement que les propriétaires vont accepter ca? Honnetement la ?

jacklours is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 10:41 AM
  #3
Habs4ever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal, (Quebec)
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,535
vCash: 500
League can't treat teams differently!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsoluteFate
Just sent this to TQS (110%). My idea on a disguised Salary Cap.
English version follows my french version.

Bonjour,
Je ne sais pas si vous pourier parler sur 110% sur ce sujet.
L'association des joueurs avait donner une offre de taxe de luxe de 20 cents sur le dollar le
9 Septembre dernier. Cette semaine l'offre aurais changer a 75 cents sur le dollar.
Pourquoi ne pas aller plus loin...que chaque equipe ais une taxe de luxe differente.
Pour example Les Rangers de New York aurais une taxe de luxe de 200 cents sur le dollar si
ils vont plus au que la limite, New Jersey une taxe de luxe de 75 cents sur le dollar, etc.
Comme example (cap de 40 million, apres quoi une equipe doi payer une taxe de luxe):

Salaire des Rangers de New York avant taxe de luxe: 60 millions. Aprais taxe de luxe: 80 millions
Salaire des Devils de New Jersey avant taxe de luxe: 45 millions. Aprais taxe de luxe: 48.75 millions
Le 23.75 million va dans un "pool" (avant tous les autre taxe de luxe) qui sera partager avec tous les equipes avec un salaire
entre 30 et 40 million.

Les chiffres pourais changer mais l'idee reste la meme...une equipe comme Les Rangers, Avalanche, Dallas, et
Toronto quie depense beaucoup aura a payer plus pour obtenir un jouer. Peut etre qu'il vont penser un peut
plus avant de payer 22 million par anner pour un Jagr par example a la place de 11 millions.

Hi,
I don't know if you could speak about this subject on 110%.
The player's association gave an offer back on September 9th for a luxury tax that would cost
a team 20 cents on the dollar. This week the offer supposively changed to 75 cents on the dollar.
Why not go one step further...have each team with their own luxury tax.
For example the New York Rangers would have a luxury tax of 200 cents on the dollar if they go
over the pre-determined limit, New Jersey would have a luxury tax of 75 cents on the dollar, etc.
For example (cap of 40 millions, after which a team must pay the luxury tax):

New York Rangers Salary before luxury tax: 60 millions. After luxury tax: 80 millions
New Jersey Devils Salary before luxury tax: 45 millions. After luxury tax: 48.75 millions
The 23.75 million goes into a "pool" (with all other luxury taxes accumulated) which will be
divided between all teams with a salary between 30 and 40 millions.

The numbers could change but the idea stays the same...a team like the Rangers, Avalanche, Dallas, and
Toronto who spends a lot on salaries would have to pay more to obtain a player. Perhaps they will
think a little more before paying 22 million a year for a Jagr for example as opposed to 11 millions.

Oops make that 33 million for a jagr since its 200 cents per dollar. I probably should have re-read this
before sending it to tqs Oh well...


Ya Rngers are known for over spending but if you make harsh fine for them then other more conservative teams then you'll easilly see trend changing when all players going to teams with low luxury tax which is not fair for any team in the league whatever rules come out should be applied on all teams with same regularity otherwise you are setting very unbalanced league from get go!!

Habs4ever is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 11:31 AM
  #4
HabsoluteFate
Registered User
 
HabsoluteFate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,869
vCash: 500
Ok then have the luxury tax tier based just like our tax system (in canada anyways).
Anything between 40 and 50 million is taxed 50 cents on the dollar
Anything between 50 and 60 million is taxed 100 cents on the dollar
Anything between 60 and 70 million is taxed 200 cents on the dollar
and so on...

HabsoluteFate is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 01:48 PM
  #5
StanleyCH25
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 924
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsoluteFate
Ok then have the luxury tax tier based just like our tax system (in canada anyways).
Anything between 40 and 50 million is taxed 50 cents on the dollar
Anything between 50 and 60 million is taxed 100 cents on the dollar
Anything between 60 and 70 million is taxed 200 cents on the dollar
and so on...
The first idea wouldn't work for the stated reasons. This second idea could work and has been mentionned in a few proposals. It definately helps spread the income across the league and forces GMs to think twice about how far above a set payroll they really want to go but at least does not prevent them from doing so.

I've always wondered what is the better approach: A luxury tax or a salary cap.

With a luxury tax, you allow big spenders to decide just how big of a spender they want to become. With a salary cap, you force all teams to maintain salary within a certain range.

With a luxury tax, some teams can still choose to own all superstars and just pay out of their ears in luxury tax back to the teams who contribute all these stars. With a salary cap, each team will have roughly the same type of talent and will have to draft wisely to become a competitive team.

With a luxury tax, you don't "have" to lose that star player who now needs more money. You choose to let him go because you don't want to pay the luxury tax. With a salary cap, if your star player wants more money than you can fit under the cap, you lose him to another team that can fit him under.

So what's the better option? Still not sure.

StanleyCH25 is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 02:15 PM
  #6
AH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Woodbridge, ON
Country: Pakistan
Posts: 4,879
vCash: 500
IMO, the only way a luxury tax on payrolls greater than a given amount works (say $40 million) without still giving the league's high revenues an unfair advantage is as follows:

1) Any player that has come up through the team's farm system is considered 'homegrown' (say drafted, undrafted FA, minor league FA signing) has his salary counted as 75% of actual salary. For example, Komi was drafted and developed by the Habs, hence his approximate $1 million salary would only count as 750K against the payroll.

2) Any player brought in from the outside, like Sundstrom for example, his salary would count as 1.25 against the team's payroll. So in Sunny's case his $1.2 million salary would actually count as $1.5 million against the payroll. These player's status as 'homegrown' would change once they spend 5 years with a club that did not draft them.

3) Only 'Homegrown' players contracts are allowed to push the team's payroll beyond the $40 million point. For example, if we are at $38 million and Ribeiro wants $3 million, then we would be allowed to go over. However, if we are at $38 million and want to sign a UFA for $3million, then we are not allowed.

1) 2) 3) will bring the league's focus back to player development. It penalizes teams like the Rangers, Flyers, Leafs, etc .. (all the big markets) who have lived off free agency and one sided salary dumps, which has caused this mess to begin with. This is similar to an NBA CBA clause which allows for teams to keep their own players by allowing a higher pay scale for these players.

4) No team can be over the luxury tax amount for more than two consecutive years. If we have been over the cap for two years in a row, then the third year, you have to absolutely by under the tax amount. This will ensure that the big markets will not continue on their merry way as before. These teams have so much money that they could afford $100 million payrolls.

Even with 4) the focus will be on player development. Coming back under the luxury tax amount will require that you replace departed players with cheaper players. And if you want to stay competitive, be sure to have ready players from the farm.

I don't know if this would be a fool proof solution, but it will seriously put a drag on salaries. It will probably have a serious impact on player movement as well.


Last edited by AH: 12-06-2004 at 02:32 PM.
AH is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 02:32 PM
  #7
Traitor8
Registered User
 
Traitor8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Iraq
Posts: 4,914
vCash: 500
50 cents tax from 40-45
75 cents tax from 45-50
1.00$ tax from 50-55
1.50$ tax from 55-60
2.00 tax from 60-65
3.00 Tax from 65+

Traitor8 is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 02:42 PM
  #8
StanAjax
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nantes
Country: France
Posts: 1,586
vCash: 500
I'm all for a luxury tax system as Habsolute Fate describes it. It's Brian Burke's idea however.....

'Cos I've got an unanswered issue with the salary cap system : how about bonus clauses???
Does everyone remember what happened with rookie's cap in the past CBA???
What will prevent teams to offer millions in bonuses to players, and end the year with a 90 million payroll while being "under the cap"???
If they have to pay back, then, it's a luxury tax system. If no bonuses are allowed, then, you'll never reach an agreement with players......

Rich owners know this issue, and that's why they prefer a salary cap rather than a luxury tax which would force them to help the small market teams, something they don't want at all....

PS : That's how the "cap" works in the NFL. Some teams are way above the cap when the season ends...

StanAjax is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 03:09 PM
  #9
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,661
vCash: 500
This still doesn't function as a drag on salaries though since the lower market teams will have more money to spend and salaries can still rise under this structure.

tinyzombies is online now  
Old
12-06-2004, 03:27 PM
  #10
StanAjax
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nantes
Country: France
Posts: 1,586
vCash: 500
Rise in salaries is not a problem, as long as the money spent is in the wallets of the spenders...

However, big spenders have started to spend less during the last 2 years and this tendency won't disappear with a luxury tax system. Why? Because the drop of interest in the NHL and, consequently, the drop in TV contracts, won't help NHL owners spend more.

For everyone (or almost everyone) to start earning more money, they'll have to fix the biggest problem. Not the CBA, but the on-ice product, which is nowhere near what it was in the 80's and early 90's....


PS : I agree with the version of the luxury tax that is the same for everyone and increases more if you spend more. Not the "the Rangers pay more" version.


Last edited by StanAjax: 12-06-2004 at 03:54 PM.
StanAjax is offline  
Closed Thread

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 12:21 AM.

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.