Quote:
Originally Posted by ST20
Why would they? It doesn't circumvent the cap. It's a financial risk for the team providing it but it is also a benefit of being a big market team that can afford to do it. I see no issues with it. It's no different than being based out of Florida or Vegas and having a tax advantage.
|
This is exactly why it should be clamped down on.
I have two beefs:
1) Relative differences in taxes from location to location. I think the cap should be in after tax dollars.
2) The ability of wealthy teams backed by big balance sheet corporations to leverage time value of money to make their location more attractive than other franchises. The yearly payments should be +-10% of the AAV of the contract.
Level the playing field.