View Single Post
Old
11-13-2004, 10:11 AM
  #4
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QQQ
giving players a percentage of ownership. For example Pronger makes 10 mil a year.
Offer him 4 or 5 mil and the balance as a percentage of the team he plays for. If the value of his team is $163 million (an average cost per team mentioned on another thread) then 5 mil could be used towards purchase of a share of the team.
This offer to the player would only be offered for some sort of cap in exchange as negotiated between the player and the team.
Like being paid in stock options? I've worked for a company that did that. It seemd to work well. If the NHL did this, pretty soon, the players could own all the shares. Or even sell them publicly. Maybe not a bad plan. Doubt the owners would agree though.

Another way to get cost certainty is to never give players raises. They start in the league at one salary and stay there for the rest of their career.

Bonuses would have to disappear to get cost certainty, how could you know what bonuses they would reach?

Injuries would have to be prevented to have cost certainty, how could you be certain of your costs if you had to keep replacing injured players. Maybe they could just not pay players if they get injured and give the salary to the replacement.

Another question could be, why should the owners of hockey be allowed to have cost certainty? If you google "Cost Certainty", what are all the other places that have cost certainty saying about it. There are none? Hmm.

thinkwild is online now