Posted on 02/10/2005 6:01:55 AM PST by Hat-Trick
"I would expect the league to be even worse off in the future under a hard salary cap. The problem they face is that their talent pool will diminish considerably if many star players from Europe decide that the difference in salary levels between North America and Europe isn't enough to get them over here."
That's an interesting, but disturbing, analysis. It leads to the distinct possibility that we'll revert to the thuggery of the 1970's Philadelphia Flyers. I see no up side to a hard cap myself.
add me, but I can't get excited about the possibility of a 20 game season.
You might be surprised. Peter Forsberg is a good case in point; he's been one of the top players in the NHL over the last ten years, and he has probably played his last game in the NHL. Most NHLers who are playing in Europe have escape clauses in their contracts that allow them to return to the NHL when the lockout ends, but Forsberg signed a deal with his old team in Sweden (MoDo, I think) that committed him for the duration of the season regardless of what happens with the NHL labor situation. Atlas has shrugged, in his case.
The next big-name player to go this route will probably be Detroit defenseman Niklas Lidstrom, perennial Norris Trophy finalist and three-time winner of the award for the league's top defenseman. He had indicated a few years ago that he wanted to return to Sweden so he could raise his kids there, but the Red Wings offered him so much money they he couldn't turn them down. Now that you have the owners standing firm on a hard salary cap and the players agreeing to an immediate 25%+ across-the-board pay cut, I'd say he's as good as gone.
These are two of the best players the NHL has seen in recent decades -- among Europeans and North Americans alike.
There's a recent story out of California that hasn't received a lot of attention, but it could have a devastating impact on this lockout from the owners' perspective. Disney is looking to sell off the Anaheim Mighty Ducks as part of a corporate restructuring plan, and there is a huge concern that the sale price they are willing to accept will be so damn low that it will depress franchise values across the entire NHL. As a result, the NHL is prepared to step in and buy the team from Disney at an inflated price -- just to prop up the value of the franchise so the NHL can maintain its long-standing delusions about the value of these teams.
I wouldn't be too concerned about that aspect of the game. What brought the "Broad Street Bullies" era to an end was not just the introduction of more European players in the NHL, but the unmistakable success of the freewheeling Edmonton Oilers and the rise of the NCAA as a legitimate source of hockey talent.
Even though very few of the players on that team had illustrious NHL careers, the success of the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team probably had a far-reaching impact on the way the NHL game was played.
I been playing this game since I was four and watched it even before that. I remember the six teams that played.
As far as I am concerned, any franchise that cannot make it should be canned and the players released. The teams that can afford it, should have a franchise and they should pay the player as much as they want. The player doesn't want it? Bummer, go play in Europe.
This all great news for professional lacrosse, "Hockey with better weather". And players who are real gentlemen.
Go Stealth!
http://www.SJStealth.com
Wrong, your tax rates are a huge reason why players don't want to stay in Canada.
>>Tony Amonte (my next husband
Does Mr RK know?
LOL! Yes he does. I pretend not to notice his crushes on Gretchen Wilson and Kiran Chetry and he tolerates my love for Tony.
Baloney. If it had anything to do with tax rates, then a team like the New York Rangers would never be able to sign a high-priced free agent. When you combine the taxes on the Federal, state, and local levels, professional athletes in New York City pay higher taxes than they would almost anywhere else in North America aside from the province of Quebec.
It's all about REVENUE -- in terms of both the player and the team. Big-market teams like the Rangers can pay more because they generate far more television, advertising, and ticket revenue than small-market teams like the Oilers -- despite the fact that there are more serious hockey fans among the 900,000 people who live in Edmonton than there are among the 25 million people who live in the New York metropolitan area.
A player can also generate more revenue personally in a big market than he can in a small market. Mark Messier can get more money from having his face on a billboard in Manhattan for a week than he can doing non-stop promotions in Edmonton for 24 hours a day -- ever day -- for an entire year.
I disagree with you. Canadian socialism = high tax rates, weak currency, economic problems for teams. Not only because players who play in Canada pay Canadian taxes but because Canadian players who DON'T play in Canada DON'T pay Canadian taxes.
There is very little T.V. money in hockey anyway and it is shared equally. I understand New York is bigger than Calgary but there are about 200X as many hockey fans per square inch too.
http://www.neutralzonehockey.com/analysis.htm
I'll touch on the potentially "wrong" information first . . .
Players themselves don't want to play in Canada due to the high tax rate. Yet Canada, unlike the United States, does not tax its citizens who play in the U.S. One solution would be for the Canadian provincial governments to start. Or start taxing U.S. based players who play in Canada. That money could then be used to stabilize the Canadian franchises. It seems hard to understand why the average Canadian citizen is taxed so highly, while players are not.
I believe this is incorrect both ways. When I was a U.S. citizen working in Canada, I had to file tax returns on both sides of the border. I paid my actual taxes to the jurisdiction in which I earned the income, while I was credited in the "other" jurisdiction for those taxes I paid. For example, suppose I earned $75,000 in Canadian dollars.
1. If my combined federal and provincial tax rate in Canada was 35%, then I paid $26,250 in taxes in Canada (let's ignore all deductions and exemptions for the purpose of this example).
2. I then had to file a tax return in the U.S. on this amount. If the average exchange rate for the year in question is $1.50 Canadian per U.S. dollar, then I file a U.S. income tax return for $50,000 of income.
3. If my tax rate in the U.S. is 25%, then I fill out $12,500 as the amount of Federal tax liability in the U.S.
4. The $26,250 I paid in Canada is converted to U.S. dollars ($17,500) and reported as "Taxes Paid to Other Jurisdictions." Since this amount exceeds my $12,500 tax liability in the U.S., I don't owe the U.S. anything.
It's important to note that if this were the other way around (i.e., the U.S. rate was higher than the Canadian rate), I would still end up paying $17,500 in taxes -- with my tax payment to the U.S. government being the difference between my U.S. tax liability and the amount I paid to Canada. This is not necessarily the case in all other countries, but the U.S. and Canada have a special "tax treaty" under which the Internal Revenue Service and Revenue Canada are permitted to share information about taxpayers who file on both sides of the border.
My understanding is that Canada's tax law is basically the same . . . Canadian citizens are taxed on their "world income," and they are credited in Canada for the taxes they've paid in other jurisdictions.
As far as the points that were made in that article are concerned, the one key item they never mentioned was the "equalization payment" system that the NHL has with Canadian teams. The U.S. teams each paid into a central fund that the NHL would then distribute to Canadian teams that qualified for the money -- basically to make up for changes in the exchange rate that put Canadian teams at a disadvantage. I don't know all of the terms of this arrangement, but I do know that a Canadian team had to maintain a certain number of season ticket holders (12,000 or so) in order to qualify.
To get a sense of just how outdated (if not outright incorrect) that article is, consider this: there have been rumors swirling for months about a potential shake-up in the NHL -- involving the Pittsburgh Penguins moving to Winnipeg. If Canada were such a miserable place to do business, you'd think they'd move to a place like Cleveland, Milwaukee or Seattle instead.
I would also point out that this is absolutely wrong. You are right about this when it comes to the NHL's national television contracts in Canada and the U.S., but for some teams the local television contracts are far more lucrative. The New York Rangers, for example, are owned by Cablevision -- and their games are broadcast locally on the MSG cable network. Other NHL teams do not see a penny of this revenue.
You make good points. I've heard for years (not just in hockey but basketball and baseball) that the Canadian teams have a huge disadvantage based on tax rates and exchange. So I just have that impression but never worked both places and don't really know.
If you think all THAT is confusing, just imagine how ridiculous it gets when you factor in municipal income taxes. The city of Philadelphia, for example, has a policy of assessing income taxes on visiting ballplayers in addition to the hometown athletes. So if you play for the Mets and they play 9 games in Philadelphia each season, you must file an income tax return in Philadelphia and pay municipal income taxes on 9/162nds of your salary.
And that's only the start . . . because you can't get taxed twice on the municipal level, you would then file an amended return in New York City in which you got credit for the income tax you paid in Philadelphia!
What a nightmare. You can really see why these high-powered accountants get paid a lot of money!
I'm a puckhead. Please ad me to the ping list. Thanks
Let' go Blues!!
I don't appear to be alone in almost hoping these arrogant, petulant hockey players and owners just continues to shoot themselves in the foot and cancel their sport all together.
Krusty Krappy overpriced domuts would be a better example.
Well, I've had a lot of dates tell me to drop dead.
Hmm, apparently this thread has dropped dead, too. Damn, killed another one!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.