HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

NHL Proposal to NHLPA...first shot.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-14-2012, 04:11 AM
  #76
Leaf Rocket
Leaf Fan Till I Die
 
Leaf Rocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: India
Posts: 71,549
vCash: 500
from the habs board.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurentHabs View Post

__________________
Leaf Rocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 04:48 AM
  #77
goonx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgf29 View Post
Leafs may have made the playoffs if last season started with a lockout!
Nathan MacKinnon.... 3 balls for the leafs.

goonx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 04:53 AM
  #78
Jerkini
Registered User
 
Jerkini's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goonx View Post
Nathan MacKinnon.... 3 balls for the leafs.
Even with three balls, the chance is incredibly slim

Jerkini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 09:42 AM
  #79
dirk41
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,338
vCash: 500
I don't normally take sides in labor disputes, but the owners are taking the piss here.

-20% drop in the players' share (it's 11 percentage points but 20%)
-ELC of five years when the average NHL career is about FIVE YEARS!

dirk41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 09:47 AM
  #80
dirk41
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -DeMo- View Post
probably because wheather there's a 5 year or 3 year ELC Mackinnon will probably easily make over 60 million in his career assuming he lives up to the hype, how much more money do you need?
MLSE makes nearly $100 million a year. How much do they need?

Not everyone is Mackinnon--the average NHL career is 200-odd games long.

dirk41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 10:04 AM
  #81
francis246
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quik View Post
Considering where Bettman and the BOG are coming in, I think they'll probably end up settling around:

--Player revenues 50-52%
--Contract Length 7-8 years
--Unrestricted Free Agency 8-9 seasons/28-29 yrs old
--ELC 4 years, higher base, no bonuses (NHLPA won't care much about ELC's, since existing ones won't be changed, new ones aren't part of PA yet)

--Minimal Salary variation (10-25% from AAV)

I think another sticking point will be the cap, considering that in 7 years we've gone from an upper limit of $39 million to a lower limit of around $54 million...even with inflation that's more than a $8 million difference between the original ceiling and the current floor. I think that limiting changing the floor back to 55% instead of the $16 million from the ceiling would be the easiest solution to the huge rise in the floor, but I can see the league going after tighter control on cap changes.

Also think they should get rid of the trapezoid, and look at making goalie equipment smaller, but those are more personal hopes. My biggest wish would be getting rid of the loser point and keeping the system where ROWs are worth more than SOWs; or make SOWs worth just one point. That way, every game has a winner, good teams separate from crappy teams, and you get more motivation to win before the game goes to shootout, which means no more laying back and letting skill guys go for it on breakaways.
Not a chance the two things I bolded are going to happen. Why would the players agree on a 4 year ELC? They want to get to UFA earlier. It will either remain at 3 or go down to 2. They are probably also going to get rid of RFA as well or cut it down to 23/24 years old as opposed to 26 years old. I see the NHL agreeing to UFA starting at 24 years old. But the NHL will not budge on that 5 year maximum contract which I like.

francis246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 10:30 AM
  #82
zeke
#freewilly
 
zeke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 30,228
vCash: 500
People shouldn't worry about a lockout.

the last time, it actually made financial sense for the owners as a group to lose an entire season to get a cap...which is why they all saw their franchise values go up immediately after getting it, despite missing an entire season.

this time, though, there's just not enough at stake here for it to make any sense for them to miss a bug chunk of game revenue. thee league is doing too well, and the franchise values are in too good shape for it to be worth the risk of a lockout for the owners.

last time it made dollars and cents sense for the ownerd to lock them out...this time it just doesn't. not even close.

zeke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 10:31 AM
  #83
Michael Gary Scott
Toronto Maple Tron's
 
Michael Gary Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,037
vCash: 500
Not sure if its related, but young players should be able to apply for exceptional player status like in the ohl. if they're too good for the ohl but not good enough for the NHL, there should be something to let them apply and play in the ahl

Michael Gary Scott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 10:31 AM
  #84
James Duthie
Kadri is 3 Hunna
 
James Duthie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,636
vCash: 500
I like the max 5 year contracts and having the ability to have the same amount every year, this seems like something Burke would like, But I just hate the fact you gotta wait 10 years to be a UFA LOL the players would never agree on that.

James Duthie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 10:35 AM
  #85
zeke
#freewilly
 
zeke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 30,228
vCash: 500
The UFA age was 31 before the lockout.

zeke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 10:40 AM
  #86
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by number72 View Post
For RFAs it could suppress player salaries.

On the aggregate across the players likely not. That said, I'm not aware how players get the agreed upon %of HRR if a team does not spend to cap. Unless %HRR is tied to the cap floor and not the ceiling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squiffy View Post
Escrow, everyones salary gets adjusted up or down on % once audited HRR is in. I think, in simplistic version.
Also HRR (Gross Revenue), is estimated on the Mid point, with the Cap ceiling at +$8 mil and the cap floor -$8 mil from the center..

The concept being that some teams spend to the cap ceiling and some spend to the cap floor and the average spending overall coming in somewhere in the middle which would be close the other estimated HRR for that season.

When the final figures are in is adjusted to official numbers through the Escrow system which Squiffy mentioned, where a % portion is deducted from all players salaries on a regular basis through payroll deductions. The escrow % adjusted quarterly to best reflect gross revenue figures and then a refund given to players at end of season from the protions deducted throughout.

__________________
Signature: There is no greater demonstration of Fan patience then to suggest to "Play the Kids " and be willing to accept the consequences of those actions..
Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:14 AM
  #87
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Also HRR (Gross Revenue), is estimated on the Mid point, with the Cap ceiling at +$8 mil and the cap floor -$8 mil from the center..

The concept being that some teams spend to the cap ceiling and some spend to the cap floor and the average spending overall coming in somewhere in the middle which would be close the other estimated HRR for that season.

When the final figures are in is adjusted to official numbers through the Escrow system which Squiffy mentioned, where a % portion is deducted from all players salaries on a regular basis through payroll deductions. The escrow % adjusted quarterly to best reflect gross revenue figures and then a refund given to players at end of season from the protions deducted throughout.
To add to that (maybe you said this but I'm still groggy) but player salaries are not based on what the individual team spent but what the entire league revenue vs salaries is. For all intents and purposes, the salary cap is a tool used by the team in season and is an estimate of what revenue will be at the end of the season, but the actual salary and actual payouts are based on actual numbers at the end of the season.

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:23 AM
  #88
number72
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Also HRR (Gross Revenue), is estimated on the Mid point, with the Cap ceiling at +$8 mil and the cap floor -$8 mil from the center..

The concept being that some teams spend to the cap ceiling and some spend to the cap floor and the average spending overall coming in somewhere in the middle which would be close the other estimated HRR for that season.

When the final figures are in is adjusted to official numbers through the Escrow system which Squiffy mentioned, where a % portion is deducted from all players salaries on a regular basis through payroll deductions. The escrow % adjusted quarterly to best reflect gross revenue figures and then a refund given to players at end of season from the protions deducted throughout.

Good stuff you and Squiffy.

Also the increase in ELC to 5 years is not a great idea unless the onwers also increase the number contracts from the 50. The reason is that the leafs for example would still have marginal talent like greenop and mikus in the system. And this 50 contract limit would prevent them from signing other talent.


Also does anyone know if a lock out weaken/hurt teams financially that still have non-player expenses (management staff, arena lease, etc) but receive no game revenues. This could be trouble for teams like Anaheim, Phoenix, Tampa etc

number72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:24 AM
  #89
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,862
vCash: 500
Should be lots of fun with the pro-business group, players are nothing more than guys you can sign off the street owners getting press again.

Regardless of percentage of revenue sources of revenue will be the biggest debate.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA3LN_8hjM8.

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:28 AM
  #90
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by number72 View Post
Good stuff you and Squiffy.

Also the increase in ELC to 5 years is not a great idea unless the onwers also increase the number contracts from the 50. The reason is that the leafs for example would still have marginal talent like greenop and mikus in the system. And this 50 contract limit would prevent them from signing other talent.


Also does anyone know if a lock out weaken/hurt teams financially that still have non-player expenses (management staff, arena lease, etc) but receive no game revenues. This could be trouble for teams like Anaheim, Phoenix, Tampa etc
I seem to remeber looking at Phoenix's finances on a Forbe's report a few years ago and their losses are exponentially higher in seasons they were playing compared to the lockout.

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:35 AM
  #91
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Here's an interesting read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozan...ess-of-hockey/

Quote:
Yet a handful of teams, most of which play in big markets, are making piles of money. The league’s most valuable team, the Toronto Maple Leafs, is now worth $521 million and generated $81.8 million in operating income last season. The New York Rangers, who are enjoying the benefits of playing in a refurbished Madison Square Garden, earned $41.4 million last year and are the NHL’s second-most valuable team, worth $507 million. And the Montreal Canadiens, placing third with a $445 million valuation, earned $47.7 million. Thus the top three teams posted an aggregate operating profit greater than the rest of the league combined.

Having all that cash gives teams an advantage when it comes to keeping talent, despite the salary cap, because teams can reduce their payroll for salary cap purposes by sending players to the minors or Europe, play games with the league’s long-term injury reserve system and front-load contracts to manipulate the yearly cap hit (team payrolls are based on the average annual values of the contracts).
Quote:
The average NHL team is worth 47% more than it was before the lockout that cancelled the 2004-05 season. Let’s hope a the NHL can get a more economically sound CBA without having another work stoppage. Business has improved too much the past seven years.

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:40 AM
  #92
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
You can click on each individual team for a snapshot of their finances.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:43 AM
  #93
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by number72 View Post
Good stuff you and Squiffy.

Also the increase in ELC to 5 years is not a great idea unless the onwers also increase the number contracts from the 50. The reason is that the leafs for example would still have marginal talent like greenop and mikus in the system. And this 50 contract limit would prevent them from signing other talent.
I love the 5 year ELC idea as it will prevent GMs from trading away high draft picks for instant help for players making top dollars.

ELC are always the best bang for your buck contracts for Owners with the CBA capping the spending limits on player salaries and these top young players producing at higher levels.

If you trade a top draft pick, that team gets a young player for 5 years at $900k (base as per current CBA) = < $5 mil total for 5 years of service as opposed to paying $5+ mil per X 5 years = > $25 mil in player costs.

The incentive to draft well and develop in order to grow your own talent will be increased tenfold or greater to take advantage of these ELC capped contracts. Trying to build your teams by trading young players for vets will become very counterproductive in such a system, as draft picks and prospects will become like gold and the most valuable resource to keep and invest your efforts in developing to take full advantage of the 5 year new limits.

Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:53 AM
  #94
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoke meat pete View Post
Here's an interesting read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozan...ess-of-hockey/

Yet a handful of teams, most of which play in big markets, are making piles of money. The league’s most valuable team, the Toronto Maple Leafs, is now worth $521 million and generated $81.8 million in operating income last season.
Toronto making the most money and being among the least successful teams on the ice as a franchise, is something Leaf Nation fans are hoping new ownership plans on fixing, once they get settled in.

There is only so much a new CBA can do to help correct this however by its rules and limits to try and create parity around the league.

Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:54 AM
  #95
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
I love the 5 year ELC idea as it will prevent GMs from trading away high draft picks for instant help for players making top dollars.

ELC are always the best bang for your buck contracts for Owners with the CBA capping the spending limits on player salaries and these top young players producing at higher levels.

If you trade a top draft pick, that team gets a young player for 5 years at $900k (base as per current CBA) = < $5 mil total for 5 years of service as opposed to paying $5+ mil per X 5 years = > $25 mil in player costs.

The incentive to draft well and develop in order to grow your own talent will be increased tenfold or greater to take advantage of these ELC capped contracts. Trying to build your teams by trading young players for vets will become very counterproductive in such a system, as draft picks and prospects will become like gold and the most valuable resource to keep and invest your efforts in developing to take full advantage of the 5 year new limits.
there's downside to it too. It will increase the Russian/European factor, and it will probably mean less players signed to ELC, and they might as well have 3 rounds of the draft. There's huge risk signing a prospect to a 5 year ELC.

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 11:57 AM
  #96
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Toronto making the most money and being among the least successful teams on the ice as a franchise, is something Leaf Nation fans are hoping new ownership plans on fixing, once they get settled in.

There is only so much a new CBA can do to help correct this however by its rules and limits to try and create parity around the league.
Seems a little off topic for this thread, No? It's just begging for Camancho types to come in and start spouting of #efficiency posts flaming both the Leafs and other posters.

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:08 PM
  #97
Jacob8hockey*
Maple Leaf Fan
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: London, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,689
vCash: 500
I would like to see a 6-7 year cap on UFA contracts given out. If you stay with your original team you can sign a contract up to the year you would turn 35. That means that we don't have to worry about players not honoring their contracts because they will still have hockey (most likely) left in them. Also it gives the player "a reward" for sticking with the team that drafted him or traded for him.

Once a player turns 35 they can only sign a max of a 2 year contract till the end of their career. Again, making sure they honor their contract.

UFA moved up 1 year.

I know nothing about the revenue sharing really so I will stay out of that.

Not to worried about changes in ELC as long as it is still in the area of 3-4 yrs and I am not sure they should get rid of player bonuses.

Also I wouldn't mind seeing contracts or the option to sign contracts as a % of the cap. Would obviously need work but lets say a player signs at 10% of cap at 50m. He makes 5m, and lets say the cap goes up to 60m during his contract then he will make 6m in that year. Ofcourse it would suck if the cap went down but I don't think it will drop a lot any time soon.

Jacob8hockey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:15 PM
  #98
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoke meat pete View Post
there's downside to it too. It will increase the Russian/European factor, and it will probably mean less players signed to ELC, and they might as well have 3 rounds of the draft. There's huge risk signing a prospect to a 5 year ELC.
Yup "free wallets" will not be free at all if you have to commit to 5 year contracts to help compensate for trading away your own draft picks/prospects.

They should call the 5 year ELC rule the Don Cherry clause in the new CBA as it will promote NA kids, as only the best of the best European players will come over to play in the best league in the World, if they feel they can make more money at home.. CHL kids and US born kids do not dream of playing in the KHL when drafted, so more employment opportunities for home grown NA kids will be created by this rule change.

Its an equal $$ opportunity $$ World and hockey players will have a right to choose where they want to apply their trade, and which remuneration and lifestyle best fits their own desires. Free enterprise existed long before and supersedes any NHL CBA rules and guidelines restrictions for employment potential earnings.

Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:17 PM
  #99
number72
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
I love the 5 year ELC idea as it will prevent GMs from trading away high draft picks for instant help for players making top dollars.

ELC are always the best bang for your buck contracts for Owners with the CBA capping the spending limits on player salaries and these top young players producing at higher levels.

If you trade a top draft pick, that team gets a young player for 5 years at $900k (base as per current CBA) = < $5 mil total for 5 years of service as opposed to paying $5+ mil per X 5 years = > $25 mil in player costs.

The incentive to draft well and develop in order to grow your own talent will be increased tenfold or greater to take advantage of these ELC capped contracts. Trying to build your teams by trading young players for vets will become very counterproductive in such a system, as draft picks and prospects will become like gold and the most valuable resource to keep and invest your efforts in developing to take full advantage of the 5 year new limits.
It will be curious what the PA decides on this. We know that over 60% of players play (good visual link) 5 seasons or fewer which works out to about 200 to 300 games. And so only above average players or the top 40% will get "paid" in UFA market.

It will be interesting to see if owners try to split the players into haves and have not. That is if, the NHLPA opts for more concentration of salary for the most talented player later in their career in exchange for lean years of service by the less talented and the younger players. The NHLPA could agree to that current member players be "grandfathered" in by current CBA. And undrafted players be subject to the new and more restrictive agreement around RFA. Afterall, these undrafted players are not part of the NHLPA

number72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 12:24 PM
  #100
calcal798
Registered User
 
calcal798's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squiffy View Post
It's not labour armageddon.. yet.
It'll be interesting to see what the NHLPA offers back. Depending on that, it could turn into an armageddon and one long off season.

Having been to young to know what was going on in the lockout, itll be interesting to see this process and learn about it.

calcal798 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:56 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.