View Single Post
Old
08-28-2004, 09:25 PM
  #114
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
Ya, but only if the goal is to have a healthy, successful business

My proposal is that all teams have the same base salary budget - whatever it is - i.e. $45,000,000... That is a fixed cost for every team - a 'cap'... Teams can spend less if they want...

When certain player performance milestones are met, the individual player makes a % of revenue generated. I.e. if Naslund hits 40 goals - he receives x% of the Canucks revenue generated for the season (where the NHL determines what the percentage is - through CBA negotiations with the NHLPA)... These performance milestones are variable costs - and they could make players mega-rich (if Cooke, for example, got 40 goals next season he would make several million more than his 'base salary' - i.e. he is compensated fairly for his achievement... while NOT altering his contract and base salary for the following year - assuming he's signed a two year contract)... The higher the performance and the more money a franchise makes, the more money the player makes, and because it is a variable cost, what is paid out is directly tied to how much is coming in - It's not 'out-of-owner-pocket'... and if Naslund does not reach 40 goals - he is not paid like a 40 goal player would (i.e. his 'compensation' accurately depicts his achievement - his salary depicts what he has done for the Canucks in the past, and has the potential to accomplish - and his variable cost depicts what he has actually done)...

When certain team performance milestones are met, all players make a % of revenue generated. i.e. If the Canucks make the playoffs, the players get y% of revenue... if the Canucks get a 100 point season, the players get z% of revenue... etc. The more success a team has, the more money a franchise makes, the more money the player makes, the more money the owners make... everyone is happy...

Teams that make large profits (generate a lot of revenue) will still be in higher demand (as far as which teams the players want to play for) - as the potential is there for the players to make more (because of the variable 'compensation' costs - and higher revenues)... yet, there is cost certainty amongst the league at the same time...

With a system like this, an added benefit is that players will want to stay with (or go to) successful teams (i.e. successful teams will generate more revenue as they go farther in the playoffs, etc. - thus the players get compensated more because of the variable 'compensation')...

For example, Ottawa will NOT have a large threat of having to dismantle their team (an argument that I've read a few times here)...

IMO, this is salary cost certainty - a lower fixed cost that is certain and the same for all teams - and certain player and team milestone variable costs (% of generated revenue for the season - where the %s are the same for all teams)...

Good players will not want to stay with poorly run (or break even) teams as x% of 0 = 0... Therefore, good teams that generate large amounts of revenue are rewarded...

I don't see how a system like this would be bad for the owners, OR the players... In exchange for a lower fixed salary cost - I would negotiate a higher variable cost...

If the team is making money, this implies that the team is being successful, which implies that the players are doing a good job - therefore large amounts of money made all around...

If the team is not making money, this implies that the team is not being successful, which implies that the players are not doing a good job - therefore there is not a large amount of money all around... No one is happy or making a lot...

A system like this, IMO, is absolutely fair for both the players and the owners...

Tom? Demented Reality? Anyone? Tell me how this proposal, which incorporates a salary cap is NOT good for the players - as well as the NHL... Please point out what I am missing...
doesn't sound like a bad idea at all, didn't understand you fully the first time, a bunch on my mind earlier, but now that it's spelled out it aint too bad at all,

garry1221 is offline