NucksIn50 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 I love the enthusiasm from posters… but I’m so glad we have NHL coaches that make decisions on line combos lol. Our bottom 6 is almost set: Garland Blueger Joshua Hogz Aman Lafferty (PDG) Our top 6 until the trade deadline will be: Suter Miller Boeser Lindy Petey Mik *we may add a Toffoli type player and 1 more depth dman* We are in 1st place (tied with Boston) and we just added another top right handed centre to our group. We as fans need to stop over thinking this and just relax and watch our team play over the next 33 games. To give perspective on what’s going to happen if we only win 16 out of 33 games remaining we will finish with 103 pts and probably is good for 2nd in division. I personally think we win 22 out of final 33 for 115 pts and we claim 1st in conference. Love this team and thanks for posting CDC. Go Canucks! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 9 minutes ago, NucksIn50 said: I love the enthusiasm from posters… but I’m so glad we have NHL coaches that make decisions on line combos lol. Our bottom 6 is almost set: Garland Blueger Joshua Hogz Aman Lafferty (PDG) Our top 6 until the trade deadline will be: Suter Miller Boeser Lindy Petey Mik *we may add a Toffoli type player and 1 more depth dman* We are in 1st place (tied with Boston) and we just added another top right handed centre to our group. We as fans need to stop over thinking this and just relax and watch our team play over the next 33 games. To give perspective on what’s going to happen if we only win 16 out of 33 games remaining we will finish with 103 pts and probably is good for 2nd in division. I personally think we win 22 out of final 33 for 115 pts and we claim 1st in conference. Love this team and thanks for posting CDC. Go Canucks! Yeah a better version of Suter would be good final piece. Doesn't need to be a full blown top 6 winger. A middle 6 guy (15 to 20 goals, 40 point winger) with size and compete level would make that Miller/Boeser line a real pain in the ass to play against. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 19 minutes ago, HKSR said: Yeah a better version of Suter would be good final piece. Doesn't need to be a full blown top 6 winger. A middle 6 guy (15 to 20 goals, 40 point winger) with size and compete level would make that Miller/Boeser line a real pain in the ass to play against. With the inclusion of Lindholm, this is really what we are looking for now, players that can make our top pairs jobs easier. Retrieving pucks in the corner, playing more physical and getting in on the forecheck etc. Love the way Suter plays, but a bigger body would be more ideal in the long run. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngoway Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 41 minutes ago, NucksIn50 said: I love the enthusiasm from posters… but I’m so glad we have NHL coaches that make decisions on line combos lol. Our bottom 6 is almost set: Garland Blueger Joshua Hogz Aman Lafferty (PDG) Our top 6 until the trade deadline will be: Suter Miller Boeser Lindy Petey Mik *we may add a Toffoli type player and 1 more depth dman* We are in 1st place (tied with Boston) and we just added another top right handed centre to our group. We as fans need to stop over thinking this and just relax and watch our team play over the next 33 games. To give perspective on what’s going to happen if we only win 16 out of 33 games remaining we will finish with 103 pts and probably is good for 2nd in division. I personally think we win 22 out of final 33 for 115 pts and we claim 1st in conference. Love this team and thanks for posting CDC. Go Canucks! Would probably make more sense to Lindholm to line up as a C/RW. Mikheyev is a left and would likely be more effective there. I could see the coaches injecting Hoglander onto Miller and Boeser's line from time to time too as that had some success. Also then that allows them to move Suter down to the 4th line as he would solidify that line much more at C than Aman has. I would think the add would ideally be another solid D that could play the 3/4 spot, and then a depth forward. Our forward depth is much stronger than our defensive depth. Plus defensive depth is really tested in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malibu Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 1 hour ago, TopChed said: I'm wary of paying Pete superstar money if he needs an elite center to play with him. Exactly the issue. Right now he's eating up a suitable amount of cap space, any increase will weaken the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 (edited) On 2/1/2024 at 12:59 PM, HKSR said: Yeah if Petey wants over $12M, then trade him. He could never live up to that contract. It's clear he can't drive a line on his own and requires another top 6 forward to play with, so that makes him an elite top 6 forward, not a superstar (Mackinnon, Matthews, McDavid level). Who'd you rather lose? QHs or EP. Losing EP, unless we get to game 7 of the final and he's a Conn Smythe front runner, won't be feel as bad as losing Bure. So not sure why we should be so worried about this. Bure made a line on his own. With spare parts or without spare parts. The issue is, that GMs are super bullish on cap making some giant leaps. That puts EP into the 11-12 territory. Is he worth it? Hope he convinces us all. Edited February 5 by IBatch 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 12 minutes ago, IBatch said: Who'd you rather lose? QHs or EP. Losing EP, unless we get to game 7 of the final and he's a Conn Smythe front runner, won't be feel as bad as losing Bure. So not sure why we should be so worried about this. Bure made a line on his own. With spare parts or without spare parts. The issue is, that GMs are super bullish on cap making some giant leaps. That puts EP into the 11-12 territory. Is he worth it? Hope he convinces us all. I'd give Quinn a blank cheque. WAY too unique of a talent in such a critical position. He's really borderline generational. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arsenalian Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 3 hours ago, TopChed said: I'm wary of paying Pete superstar money if he needs an elite center to play with him. Oh I totally agree with you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Interesting G&M article about the John Taveres lawsuit against Revenue Canada over $8 million tax assessment. Apparently the majority of Taveres contract was written as a signing bonus that Taveres says should be taxed at 15%. Revenue Canada wants 33%. This is important to the NHL as UFA's signing in Canada will not like the tax treatment. A real disincentive to sign onto teams in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 20 minutes ago, Boudrias said: Interesting G&M article about the John Taveres lawsuit against Revenue Canada over $8 million tax assessment. Apparently the majority of Taveres contract was written as a signing bonus that Taveres says should be taxed at 15%. Revenue Canada wants 33%. This is important to the NHL as UFA's signing in Canada will not like the tax treatment. A real disincentive to sign onto teams in Canada. It's funny actually. I asked myself not long ago where I would likely live in the offseason if I was an NHL'er. I'd probably move to the states and live in a tax-free state. That being said, obviously if you're making your money not in that tax free state you'd still have to pay those taxes, so maybe that wouldn't work as intended anyway. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awalk Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 25 minutes ago, The Lock said: It's funny actually. I asked myself not long ago where I would likely live in the offseason if I was an NHL'er. I'd probably move to the states and live in a tax-free state. That being said, obviously if you're making your money not in that tax free state you'd still have to pay those taxes, so maybe that wouldn't work as intended anyway. lol It's pretty interesting how the tax works for players, I believe they get taxed based on where they are playing on any given night (called the 'jock tax'). No salary in the off-season, so no benefit of living in an income tax free state for the players (maybe their spouses, if working, though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 5 minutes ago, awalk said: It's pretty interesting how the tax works for players, I believe they get taxed based on where they are playing on any given night (called the 'jock tax'). No salary in the off-season, so no benefit of living in an income tax free state for the players (maybe their spouses, if working, though) I guess it could also depend on things outside of the NHL such as ad endorsements. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 hour ago, Boudrias said: Interesting G&M article about the John Taveres lawsuit against Revenue Canada over $8 million tax assessment. Apparently the majority of Taveres contract was written as a signing bonus that Taveres says should be taxed at 15%. Revenue Canada wants 33%. This is important to the NHL as UFA's signing in Canada will not like the tax treatment. A real disincentive to sign onto teams in Canada. Saw that, implications for Canadian teams could be hefty https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/john-tavares-cra-tax-fight-8-million 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 It's a shame we don't play the Leafs again this season, a "pay your taxes" chant would be great Hopefully another team runs with it 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awalk Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 22 minutes ago, The Lock said: I guess it could also depend on things outside of the NHL such as ad endorsements. Ah yeah didn't think of that, that is a great point. If they are doing a lot of that in the off season, it would make sense to live in a tax haven state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJVD Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 4 hours ago, Boudrias said: Interesting G&M article about the John Taveres lawsuit against Revenue Canada over $8 million tax assessment. Apparently the majority of Taveres contract was written as a signing bonus that Taveres says should be taxed at 15%. Revenue Canada wants 33%. This is important to the NHL as UFA's signing in Canada will not like the tax treatment. A real disincentive to sign onto teams in Canada. Honestly not sure what CRA is doing here. The tax treaty gives a flat 15% for athletes, actors, etc who are US residents on signing bonuses. From what I understand, Tavares maintained his permanant dwelling in New York and was living at the US address for well more than 50% of the year. I don't see how the country of residence test wouldn't find Tavares a US resident for the first year of the deal. (First tax year, that is. Not the entirety of his 1st season). I suppose if his wife and kids (I don't actually know if he has kids) moved to Toronto with him that first offseason (2018) he could be deemed a Canadian resident, but if that's the case his accountant really failed him. They could have moved to Toronto in January 2019 and he would in the clear. (Source, I'm an accountant) Edited February 7 by MattJVD 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awalk Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 2 minutes ago, MattJVD said: Honestly not sure what CRA is doing here. The tax treaty gives a flat 15% for athletes, actors, etc who are US residents on signing bonuses. From what I understand, Tavares maintained his permanant dwelling in New York and was living at the US address for well more than 50% of the year. I don't see how the country of residence test wouldn't find Tavares a US resident, at least for the first year of the deal. I suppose if his wife and kids (I don't actually know if he has kids) moved to Toronto with him that first offseason (2018) he could be deemed a Canadian resident, but if that's the case his accountant really failed him. They could have moved to Toronto in January 2019 and he would in the clear. (Source, I'm an accountant) I believe if he or his family used any services like healthcare they would be deemed a resident. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJVD Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 6 minutes ago, awalk said: I believe if he or his family used any services like healthcare they would be deemed a resident. That is considered a "secondary residential tie" which can be used to determine residency if the "primary residential ties" are inconclusive. But it can not overturn "primary residential ties" if they are definitive. The primary ties being: A) Where the taxpayer maintains a home B) where the taxpayer's spouce lives C) Where the taxpayer's dependants live I guess CRA could be arguing the primary ties are inconclusive? I would be interested to read the court filings Edit: It's totally possible that the Tavares family decided to move to Toronto that summer, so kids wouldn't have to move in the middle of the school year. In that case CRA would be right. But his agent and accountant should have advised on the tax implications of that decision. Edited February 7 by MattJVD 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awalk Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 2 minutes ago, MattJVD said: That is considered a "secondary residential tie" which can be used to determine residency if the "primary residential ties" are inconclusive. But it can not overturn "primary residential ties" if they are definitive. The primary ties being: A) Where the taxpayer maintains a home B) where the taxpayer's spouce lives C) Where the taxpayer's dependants live I guess CRA could be arguing the primary ties are inconclusive? I would be interested to read the court filings Ah interesting yeah, I suppose he could be considered a resident of US but a factual resident of Canada Might be arguing that it's impossible to live in the US 50% of the year while playing 41 home games in Toronto 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJVD Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Just now, awalk said: Ah interesting yeah, I suppose he could be considered a resident of US but a factual resident of Canada Might be arguing that it's impossible to live in the US 50% of the year while playing 41 home games in Toronto Yeah, that bit is interesting. From what I understand though, Tavares is only claiming to be a US resident for 2018 (where he would have played January-April as an Islander). I think that's why he wanted the maximum signing bonus in the firat year of the deal. For tax years 2019 onwards, I agree it would be very difficult to agrue US residence when playing 41 home games in Toronto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awalk Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 30 minutes ago, MattJVD said: Yeah, that bit is interesting. From what I understand though, Tavares is only claiming to be a US resident for 2018 (where he would have played January-April as an Islander). I think that's why he wanted the maximum signing bonus in the firat year of the deal. For tax years 2019 onwards, I agree it would be very difficult to agrue US residence when playing 41 home games in Toronto Gottttt it I am Canadian but have lived in both countries and had to deal with some tax headaches, so I find all of this stuff very interesting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrammaInTheTub Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 hour ago, MattJVD said: (Source, I'm an accountant) I have a hypothetical tax problem for you to solve that is definitely not mine! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 hour ago, MattJVD said: Yeah, that bit is interesting. From what I understand though, Tavares is only claiming to be a US resident for 2018 (where he would have played January-April as an Islander). I think that's why he wanted the maximum signing bonus in the firat year of the deal. For tax years 2019 onwards, I agree it would be very difficult to agrue US residence when playing 41 home games in Toronto Even though it's 41 home games in Toronto, there is an argument that an NHL season runs from Sept to maybe May (April for the Leafs lol). That's only about 8 to 9 months of a year. The other 3 or 4 months he would be in the USA. So conceivably, there's an argument that he spends more than 50% in the states assuming that's where his principal residence is, along with his family. A detail oriented accountant would actually have a breakdown of all 365 days of the year and where he was each and every day. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJVD Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 31 minutes ago, GrammaInTheTub said: I have a hypothetical tax problem for you to solve that is definitely not mine! Send me a PM and I'll see what I can do. I can give you information, but if you need help actually preparing a complex return I recommend hiring an accountant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJVD Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 minute ago, HKSR said: Even though it's 41 home games in Toronto, there is an argument that an NHL season runs from Sept to maybe May (April for the Leafs lol). That's only about 8 to 9 months of a year. The other 3 or 4 months he would be in the USA. So conceivably, there's an argument that he spends more than 50% in the states assuming that's where his principal residence is, along with his family. A detail oriented accountant would actually have a breakdown of all 365 days of the year and where he was each and every day. It depends. If his wife and kids do in fact live in NY year-round it would make it an interesting case. But if the kids are registered in school in the GTA, that can be used to define his dependents' place of residence. And the dependents' place of residence is a primary residential tie as was posted above. All hypothetical here; I have no idea what John and his families' living situation actually is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts