The differing state and provincial tax systems have been a bit of a hangup of mine in terms of the salary cap as well.

Going with "net income" as the cap is an intriguing idea...... but may also have its flaws. I mean the cap rules are complicated enough lol.

The while tax rate issue has been something grappled with in the past.... no easy solution unless it runs with an "average tax rate" across the leagues 32 teams - and even that gets resistance from the Board of Governers.

So ,are you going to deduct players endorsements from Canadian teams? Because Canadian teams use that to entice players too. So unless your going to include endorsements in the cap then this is a f***ING moronic idea and doesn't even the playing field it grotesquely favors Canadian teams.

The "tax" thing is drastically overblown and endorsement incentives are never thought of by Canadian teams fans when they cry about taxes. So,unless you figure a way to add cap for teams players that don't have those drastic pay potential this is just crying.

There is almost 14% difference between Toronto and Nashville in tax rate. so that's over $11M net income on the current cap. not overblown at all.

But The fact that the Canadian teams subsidize the NHL with revenue sharing should allow them some perks

The issue with endorsement is the team has no control over what the players sign. I think just opening up a luxury tax system would be best

But when you use those endorsements as part of the pitch to play there as Toronto tried to do with Stamkos (Bringing in the CEO of Canadian Tire to sell the player on money he can make playing for them negates the "tax difference".) So no American team does it's only the 7 Canadian teams that support the revenue sharing cough (bullsg**) cough

and the Avs can't afford Brodie anyway.

The American teams that also pay into the revenue sharing also benefit by endorsements. Your example really only plays into the small number of top end talent the bottom 6 guys don't get those kind of proposals

Also to add to that you don't think a team like Tampa Bay or Vegas can't offer a similar endorsements package and tax benefit to their star players?

If you honestly believe the team can't influence an endorsement contract for players I got ocean front property in Kansas to sell you.

No no way can TB or Dallas or Nashville can up with the endorsement incentives that Toronto or Montreal or (insert Canadian team here) can

What I mean is that the Team can not control a player singing a $10M a year endorsement that would affect their cap space not that they could not influence an endorsement for players

Avs accept if he's free and you retain some

You don't think Tampa or Vegas could not muster up an endorsement PLUS tax savings that would equal what the Canadian teams can?

I call BS on that when you bring in the CEO of one of the largest corporations in Canada to explain exactly how much money he can make in endorsements (just as Toronto did) when recruiting Stamkos if this isn't the team influencing the company you're either utterly naive, purposely lying or dumber than a box of rocks.

14% is overblown because players playing for Nashville pay state income tax in California for road games against LA,SJ,ANA. NY State income tax on games against the Islanders Rangers and Sabres etc etc.

Do you read before you reply? I never said they can't influence it. what I said is they can not control the player going out and getting other endorsements for $10M and it affecting their cap (if endorsements where considered part of the cap) when they have no control over other opportunities a player might have.

14% is not overblow its the difference between Nashville 42% tax rate (lowest in the NHL) and Toronto 56% tax rate (highest in the NHL) and this takes into account the "jock tax" that some states have. And yes if they have a good accountant with donations and other accounting loop holes etc can lower those rates but that's the difference

Nashville Tampa Bay, Florida VGK, Seattle, Dallas all have identical tax rates games played outside those cities r quires the state income tax charged for those games so they're paying State income tax on about 30 games. As I read it if you're Canadian and play for say Montreal but you live in Manitoba you'd pay Manitoba not Quebec provincial tax rate. I also read somewhere Toronto uses a US payroll company

Yes but there are slight differences based on the "jock tax" and based on primary residence (assuming most players live where they play) less than 1% for the teams you mentioned.

What payroll company a team uses does not make a difference to personal income tax.

based on a $13M salary below would be the breakdown

The 7 Canadian teams along with the 3 California teams make up 10 of the top 13 taxes.

Toronto 56.09%
Seattle 43.37%
Vegas 43.24%
Tampa 42.98%
Dallas 42.89%
Florida 42.68%
Nashville 42.44%

Link where your getting this because it seems wrong for 1. Fir 2 is this Canadian players European players or Americans all have slightly different tax issues? No way TB and Florida are any Different they play identical games in identical states with identical taxes the city of Tampa doesn't have an income tax I promise you this as someone who has lived in Tampa and lives near it now.
Yes it does actually whole big legalese behind it but, it does

Cap Friendly has a tax Calculator under the calculators

Then it's inaccurate because the lightning and Panthers play both their home games in the state of Florida and neither city has an income tax.so their schedule outside the state is the same. I guess it can vary slightly year to year miniscule amount due to you only play certain division rivals 3 instead of 4 times. So next year it'll be slightly different because each year those rotate.

either way it gives a guide to show the difference could be over $11M a year in net salary based on the current cap and increases as does the cap. I get that each city has its pros and cons but the NHL has stopped the Leaf's from doing things that I think every NHL team should be doing because other teams thought it was unfair. in the Summer of 2020 the forced them to stop allowing their prospects free access to training facilities and coaches/trainers. Below was the quote

One of the things in the new CBA that was targeted at Toronto: They said you can’t open your facilities over the summer for guys. Toronto was a team where a number of their prospects would come to Toronto in the summer and work out at the practice facility and really improve as players. Teams were like, “We don’t like that. We think that is an advantage for Toronto, and we don’t want that to happen.” They shut that down.

If more clubs, rather than whine to the league, were to make it a priority to make these kinds of resources available to their players and prospects in the offseason, the overall product on the ice would only improve over time. The Leafs‘ leadership in this regard should be encouraged, not ruled out of existence because some clubs don’t want to pay for staff and to keep the lights on in their facilities over the offseason.

The NHL needs to look at what grows the game. Look at all the other Leagues that have grown faster and left the NHL behind. They all have 1 thing in common. Their big teams are allowed to flex their $$$$$.

I personally with TBs ownership wouldn't mind a luxury tax, but you're talking about screwing most teams to favor Toronto because their management is to incompetent to produce a winner.
BTW if you really think the CEO of MSLE doesn't if they want to circumvent the cap go to a big company and say we'll give you this really really good promotion package I just need you to sign so and so to an endorsement contract of x $'s you're naive.

This is not a Toronto issue The NHL has become irrelevant if your not a pure hockey fan. There is no story lines to follow. no dynasties as success forces you to lose players, no blockbuster trades as no one has cap space. All of this affects viewership and jersey sales etc.

A Luxury cap helps the bottom teams as well as that money would go to them. It does not need to be like the NBA or MLB There should be a maximum over you can go with a $1 for $1 tax that goes to the bottom revenue teams. Maybe limit it to only players you drafted to allow teams to keep their own players but not affect Free agency. There are lots of ways to make it work.

The reason you add a player to your team should not be their contract value it should be the quality of the player