[Report] Canucks re-sign Pettersson to 8 year contract @ $11.6M

[Provost]

6 minutes ago, HKSR said:

I know what an RCA is and what it does.  It's not as black and white as Walsh makes it sound.  This all depends on the lifestyle of said player.  If he wants to live the millionaire lifestyle, this tax reduction method wouldn't work at all.

You keep changing goalposts.  If the player wants to spend ALL their money that they earn every year then sure it won’t work as they aren’t going to defer income.

 

That is a genuinely nonsensical comment though as players have the most advanced tax and wealth strategy advisors available to them.  They play for 10-15 years and have to fund another 50 years of retirement from that income…. They put money away, this isn’t the ‘70’s when guys didn’t make much and spent their whole paycheques.  Petterson can have a multi million dollar lifestyle plus still take full advantage of this strategy putting millions away for deferred income. 
 

Go back and read the links I provided.

 

That is just one tax avoidance strategy.  The entire conversation using highest tax rates in each jurisdiction is silly and simplistic.  

Edited March 4 by Provost

[The Lock]

I didn't realise this forum was so into doing player's taxes for them....

[HKSR]

8 minutes ago, Provost said:

You keep changing goalposts.  If the player wants to spend ALL their money that they earn every year then sure it won’t work as they aren’t going to defer income.

 

That is a genuinely nonsensical comment though as players have the most advanced tax and wealth strategy advisors available to them.  They play for 10-15 years and have to fund another 50 years of retirement from that income…. They put money away, this isn’t the ‘70’s when guys didn’t make much and spent their whole paycheques.  Petterson can have a multi million dollar lifestyle plus still take full advantage of this strategy putting millions away for deferred income. 
 

Go back and read the links I provided.

 

That is just one tax avoidance strategy.  The entire conversation using highest tax rates in each jurisdiction is silly and simplistic.  

The goal post hasn't moved at all.  The goal and discussion has always been about a player to try and get their Canadian taxes down to a level competitive with US counterparts.  Yes, they can with the RCA method provided by Walsh, but only if they live a simple lifestyle and 'smooth' their income over many, many years... possibly even generations given the amount of money some of these guys make.  

 

The counter to this that you simply ignore is that whatever advantages the Canadian player has for tax reductions, so too does the American player.  So I say it again, it's a wash.  The Canadian NHL player still loses out significantly compared to the US NHL player.

[PistolPete13]

37 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Big difference in salaries between NHL superstars, like Petey, and AHL guys. The facts are in. Taxes aren’t an issue. It’s the desire to live in anonymity that draws some players south. And what’s the cost of good body armour down there. And a bullet proof car! And a big fence and gate to keep the MAGA crowds away!!!

Canada wins every time and in every way!!! 

I get that Alf. Same tax laws apply. The numbers and the savings are just bigger.

Do you remember when Mogilny played for the Canucks and lived in Point Robert’s? Tort’s lived there too I believe. 

Places like that are pretty mundane. No bullet proof cars or body armour needed.

Pistol Pete left a lot of empties in Point Robert’s back in the day, and lived to tell the tale. 

Edited March 4 by PistolPete13

[Provost]

4 minutes ago, HKSR said:

The goal post hasn't moved at all.  The goal and discussion has always been about a player to try and get their Canadian taxes down to a level competitive with US counterparts.  Yes, they can with the RCA method provided by Walsh, but only if they live a simple lifestyle and 'smooth' their income over many, many years... possibly even generations given the amount of money some of these guys make.  

 

The counter to this that you simply ignore is that whatever advantages the Canadian player has for tax reductions, so too does the American player.  So I say it again, it's a wash.  The Canadian NHL player still loses out significantly compared to the US NHL player.

That is even more remarkably silly a statement as your last one.  All jurisdictions don’t have the same tax avoidable strategies so it isn’t a “wash”.  

 

Even if that statement was true (and it isn’t), the tax avoidance strategy in a high tax area nets vastly more tax savings than in a low tax area… so the “wash” is that the tax rate becomes effectively equivalent, not that the gap between the two jurisdictions stays the same.  That is especially the case when the player retires or lives in a lower tax rate jurisdiction when they withdraw the money… they erase the tax disadvantage from playing in Canada or a higher tax jurisdiction state in the US.  If they play in a 50% tax jurisdiction and withdraw in a 25% tax juridisdiction they save half the taxes they would have paid.  If they play in a 25% tax jurisdiction and retire in the same 25% tax jurisdiction… they save 0 taxes using that strategy.  The wash is that they both now have the same tax rate.

 

That is very basic math, and any CPA should be able to follow that.

 

Players living a “simple” lifestyle?  Petey will be making $11.6 million a year.  He puts half into an RCA, and then uses other strategies for other tax avoidance (family members become employees rather than being gifted things… yes please), he still has millions to spend each year if he wishes.  
 

If your idea simplistic lifestyle is only spending $1-3 million a year while investing the rest for your 50 year retirement, then I think your metric might need a little tweaking.

[HKSR]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

That is even more remarkably silly a statement as your last one.  All jurisdictions don’t have the same tax avoidable strategies so it isn’t a “wash”.  

 

Even if that statement was true (and it isn’t), the tax avoidance strategy in a high tax area nets vastly more tax savings than in a low tax area… so the “wash” is that the tax rate becomes effectively equivalent, not that the gap between the two jurisdictions stays the same.  That is especially the case when the player retires or lives in a lower tax rate jurisdiction when they withdraw the money… they erase the tax disadvantage from playing in Canada or a higher tax jurisdiction state in the US.  If they play in a 50% tax jurisdiction and withdraw in a 25% tax juridisdiction they save half the taxes they would have paid.  If they play in a 25% tax jurisdiction and retire in the same 25% tax jurisdiction… they save 0 taxes using that strategy.  The wash is that they both now have the same tax rate.

 

That is very basic math, and any CPA should be able to follow that.

 

Players living a “simple” lifestyle?  Petey will be making $11.6 million a year.  He puts half into an RCA, and then uses other strategies for other tax avoidance (family members become employees rather than being gifted things… yes please), he still has millions to spend each year if he wishes.  
 

If your idea simplistic lifestyle is only spending $1-3 million a year while investing the rest for your 50 year retirement, then I think your metric might need a little tweaking.

What on Earth are you talking about?  You think RCAs are the only tax reduction strategy?  You REALLY think Canadian NHL players are the only people that have methods of reducing taxes?  You gotta be outta your mind if you think there are not better ways to reduce taxes than an RCA lmao.  

[Provost]

11 minutes ago, HKSR said:

What on Earth are you talking about?  You think RCAs are the only tax reduction strategy?  You REALLY think Canadian NHL players are the only people that have methods of reducing taxes?  You gotta be outta your mind if you think there are not better ways to reduce taxes than an RCA lmao.  

So your response to me literally posting that there are MANY tax avoidance strategies is to rant about me “thinking there is  only one tax avoidance strategy.”

 

Add poor reading comprehension to your poor math skills.  You are sinking fast in this thread and remedial schooling might be in order.

 

It is plain math that if you are paying less tax, tax savings strategies benefit you far less than if you pay more tax.  Period, indisputable.  That completely skewers your “it is all a wash argument”. Especially that many of the tax avoidance strategies for these guys revolve around deferring their taxes to be earnings in a lower rate jurisdiction.  If you are already in a lower rate jurisdiction those just aren’t available to you… 

 

 

 

 

[JIAHN]

I have been away for a week......my guess is 11.6 a year for 8 years! 

[Rip The Mesh]

33 minutes ago, PistolPete13 said:

I get that Alf. Same tax laws apply. The numbers and the savings are just bigger.

Do you remember when Mogilny played for the Canucks and lived in Point Robert’s? Tort’s lived there too I believe. 

Places like that are pretty mundane. No bullet proof cars or body armour needed.

Pistol Pete left a lot of empties in Point Robert’s back in the day, and lived to tell the tale. 

Great memory on Mogilny

[Hammertime]

6 minutes ago, JIAHN said:

I have been away for a week......my guess is 11.6 a year for 8 years! 

Welcome back bud. You'll need a glizzy to help digest this thread. 

[The Aquaman]

I told y’all EP40 will resign by the end of this week, and he’s only 25 and not in his prime yet! 

[Hammertime]

5 hours ago, RU SERIOUS said:

No one will touch either of those players without even more cap retention on our part (which we cannot afford).  They are both on "Albatross" contracts and don't forget that OLE's $5M dead cap chews up the (hopefull $3.5-4M Cap increase next year.  Add to that EP40's additional $4.5 Million - that effectively eats up the Myers windfall if we manage to find a low cost inexperienced guy to replace him - and it's pretty obvious that the canucks will have problems resigning all 11 players (half the team) that are expiring contracts who are all going to expect more.     Every single analyst from Friedman on down has said it is a 100% impossibility to reatin this teams semblance into next year- which might actually be good thing in  hindsight - if things go off the rails. But we'll have to wait and see..............

I litterally can't understand how anyone who is a fan of hockey can refer to Garland as an albatross. He's full value night in night out.  

[Shift-4]

[Shift-4]

[HKSR]

31 minutes ago, Provost said:

So your response to me literally posting that there are MANY tax avoidance strategies is to rant about me “thinking there is  only one tax avoidance strategy.”

 

Add poor reading comprehension to your poor math skills.  You are sinking fast in this thread and remedial schooling might be in order.

 

It is plain math that if you are paying less tax, tax savings strategies benefit you far less than if you pay more tax.  Period, indisputable.  That completely skewers your “it is all a wash argument”. Especially that many of the tax avoidance strategies for these guys revolve around deferring their taxes to be earnings in a lower rate jurisdiction.  If you are already in a lower rate jurisdiction those just aren’t available to you… 

 

 

 

 

Buddy, I literally said that American players have tax reduction strategies as well as Canadian players, so any advantages you're seemingly trying to say that Canadian players have is a wash.  The problem you have is you're assuming the US player's taxes remain the same while the Canadians get tax advantages.  The only way I could agree with you is if you feel there is a floor threshold where the tax rate can't be any lower.  However, if a US player and a Canadian player can both find ways to cut their taxes arbitrarily in half (50% reduced), then the guy that had a 54% tax rate to begin with will get down to 27%, whereas the guy with the 36% rate gets down to 18%.  That's still a 9% advantage for the US player.

[The Duke]

 

not sure if this was posted. I didn’t see this before I said something similar a few pages back. Not going long on Petey will (relatively) hurt the next few years, but certainly helps this one. 
 

I still stand by the idea that I’d rather have a guy’s contract run to 33 than end at 29 or whatever. Not when they easily command 8 year deals in their prime. Overall, this worked out extremely well.

[The Duke]

Gear also has another thread where he says they offered 17 mil between Petey and Hughes…. So if Hughes went for 7.85 they offered Petey 9.15 and that wasn’t enough.  
 

He also said they went longer on Hughes once Petey priced himself out of their range - Petey also coming off an injury at the time.  So the idea that they could/should have had Petey for sub-10 is likely fantasy.  Could still have him for less than 11.6?  Sure.  But the savings is minimal.. and if it cost you even a year of Hughes’ absolute STEAL of a deal… I’d say things worked out!

[Strawbone]

What thread am I in?!

 

[wai_lai416]

50 minutes ago, Strawbone said:

What thread am I in?!

 

tax season 2024

[Blitz-Pix]

4 hours ago, The Lock said:

I didn't realise this forum was so into doing player's taxes for them....

 

Vancouver Canucks Hockey & Estate Planning ... for everything you need on the ice and off. LOL 

[Provost]

3 hours ago, HKSR said:

Buddy, I literally said that American players have tax reduction strategies as well as Canadian players, so any advantages you're seemingly trying to say that Canadian players have is a wash.  The problem you have is you're assuming the US player's taxes remain the same while the Canadians get tax advantages.  The only way I could agree with you is if you feel there is a floor threshold where the tax rate can't be any lower.  However, if a US player and a Canadian player can both find ways to cut their taxes arbitrarily in half (50% reduced), then the guy that had a 54% tax rate to begin with will get down to 27%, whereas the guy with the 36% rate gets down to 18%.  That's still a 9% advantage for the US player.

That is where your assumption is just wrong.  It isn’t how tax avoidance strategies work in the real world.

 

Name any “take 50% off your taxes” strategy? 
 

Virtually every method is reducing taxes from higher rates to lower rates. That is by moving money from a high tax person, location, or year… to one that is lower.  That is literally why players defer taxable income to later years and can move to lower tax jurisdictions when they retire.

 

If someone retired from an 50% highest tax rate jurisdiction and moved to Florida ant an 25% highest tax rate (I anl just picking those numbers as an example) all that deferred income is taxed at that rate…. Same as someone who played and retired in Florida.  That is just one way your premise is simply false.  The person who played in Florida doesn’t get some extra tax reduction for that income than the person who retired there and deferred their taxable earnings until the retired. If there is an ability to cut their tax rate from the 25% max… that is available to both of them… not just one of them.

 

That is just one example.

 

My post was that the folks just using the biggest tax brackets in different jurisdictions and calculating the take home pay of the same contract in different places is just wrong.  None of them are paying that rate or anywhere close to it.  The delta between the two is reduced or eliminated entirely.

[Provost]

1 hour ago, The Duke said:

Gear also has another thread where he says they offered 17 mil between Petey and Hughes…. So if Hughes went for 7.85 they offered Petey 9.15 and that wasn’t enough.  
 

He also said they went longer on Hughes once Petey priced himself out of their range - Petey also coming off an injury at the time.  So the idea that they could/should have had Petey for sub-10 is likely fantasy.  Could still have him for less than 11.6?  Sure.  But the savings is minimal.. and if it cost you even a year of Hughes’ absolute STEAL of a deal… I’d say things worked out!

Hughes wouldn’t have been the same cap hit for a max term deal as it was for his bridge deal.  Buying UFA years costs AAV.  That assumption makes your math not work.

 

Say it would have been $8.5 for Hughes and $9-9.5 for Petterson (or the same total split differently).  The Canucks had no way to afford that $17.5-18 million due to cap mismanagement.

 

Compare that with what Petterson got and what Hughes will get on his new contract.  The cap will be higher and he will be a UFA so no club control at all.  Say a $13.5 million deal by then as not unreasonable on the open market

as a UFA.  That is a total of $25.1 million for the two of them in their prime years.

 

It minimal savings when you are talking the difference between $18 million for the same two guys vs $25 million plus.

 

[The Duke]

17 minutes ago, Provost said:

Hughes wouldn’t have been the same cap hit for a max term deal as it was for his bridge deal.  Buying UFA years costs AAV.  That assumption makes your math not work.

 

Say it would have been $8.5 for Hughes and $9-9.5 for Petterson (or the same total split differently).  The Canucks had no way to afford that $17.5-18 million due to cap mismanagement.

 

Compare that with what Petterson got and what Hughes will get on his new contract.  The cap will be higher and he will be a UFA so no club control at all.  Say a $13.5 million deal by then as not unreasonable on the open market

as a UFA.  That is a total of $25.1 million for the two of them in their prime years.

 

It minimal savings when you are talking the difference between $18 million for the same two guys vs $25 million plus.

 

I don’t think you understood me.  
 

Hughes *did* sign for 7.85 - and I know it wasn’t max term.  
 

The implication by Gear was that they had 17 mil available and offered it all to the two of them.  That shows Petey wasn’t amenable to going long at close to 9.15.
 

That’s from the AGM in charge of contracts at the time.  He said they pivoted to getting what they could get done with Hughes as Petey’s long term ask wouldn’t have worked.

[43isprime]

6 hours ago, The Lock said:

 

So basically you are just focusing entirely on the negative. In fact, you're just focusing on the recent negativity of maybe since the all-star break at most.

 

How about all of the times when the coach praised Pettersson? I'm assuming though you don't want to add that in even though there's far more of the coach saying good things about Pettersson than there is the same coach saying he's mediocre.

 

You have to look at the overall picture dude. If you look at an investment that's overall on the increase and all you look at are the small declines every now and then, you're not getting the overall picture of that investment. If you have to literally cherry pick phrases the coach said to make an argument you don't really have much of an argument.

 

He's not been good since before the All Star Break.

 

He had 19 points in his first 10 games. In the 53 games since, he has 56 points, for an 82-game pace of less than 87 points. And that's including the 4 game stretch in which he scored 12 points playing on Miller's wing.

 

Pencilling him in as a back to back 100pt center ignores that he's been on an 87 point pace for the latter 84% of this season.

 

In the 21 games since his 12 points in 4 games on Miller's wing, he has 19 points. 9 of those points came in 3 games versus Detroit (twice) and Columbus (once). So he has 10 points in the other 18 games.

 

I don't see how focusing on the latter 84% of this season, or 86% of the last 21 games is cherry-picking.

[43isprime]

14 hours ago, The Lock said:

 

MacKinnon might have had... I don't know... maybe 7 all-star games (okay 6 when he signed), a lady byng trophy, the calder trophy...

 

...oh and a stanley cup...

 

But... you know... what had MacKinnon accomplished by the time he signed that contract? Remember, this is the 1st year of that contract. lol

 

Anyway, clearly you didn't know MacKinnon's accomplishments so now you know!

 

Yes very good. But don't forget the three years in which he was either a Hart Trophy finalist or runner-up.

 

Now - what had Pettersson accomplished prior to signing his 8y x 11.6m deal?

 

Edited March 4 by 43isprime