Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkpatrick
I think the 5 year limit could be more of a sticking point than we might think. I believe that previously owners could only get contracts insured for a max of 7 years, but that that has been lowered now to 5 years.
Having to pay out those contracts without insurance could be a serious financial consideration, and could easily affect parity just like cap-circumventing deals.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman
I agree there is ZERO need for front-loading or huge variances in a contract.
I could see allowing a max. signing bonus which is formulated into the contract but these long-term heavy front-loaded contracts are unnecessary. The playing field should be as level as possible as it makes it a far more competitive and therefor better game.
|
Couple options:
Option 1: Give the 5 year limit to the owners.
Then
UFA status after the initial 3 year ELSC (or 2+1 ELSC) plus the length of the 2nd. contract?
So if the team signs the player for 4 years rather than 5 he's eligible after 7 years. If 3 years he's UFA after 6 years.
Some give and take there.
Option 2: Unlimited length of contracts, but guaranteed for only 5 years.
No cap relief with a 20% variance.
The insurance issue would not be there if no guarantees for contracts greater than 5.
It is not unreasonable to assume someone making 5 million one year could earn 4 million the next year.
------------------------
I think the lack of a tangible bonus structure system hurts both parties here.
Someone hits milestones / career highs going into their next contract. Setting up reasonable, attainable and measureable bonus targets protects both parties.
Allow up to 20% of contract to be bonus based on team, league and target categories.