HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Creative CBA solutions? Do you have one? Have you seen any?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2012, 10:27 AM
  #26
Tyrolean
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Austria
Posts: 6,065
vCash: 500
I'd like to see a separate Canadian and American pro league in the future.

Tyrolean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2012, 10:46 AM
  #27
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 6,064
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrolean View Post
I'd like to see a separate Canadian and American pro league in the future.
Why the heck would you want to see that?

rojac is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2012, 01:31 PM
  #28
IDuck
Registered User
 
IDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 4,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
Owners own, players play...
me likey...

IDuck is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2012, 07:28 PM
  #29
Jamin
Registered User
 
Jamin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorNelson View Post
This league has held a monopoly for too long. They are abusing it!

Bettman has one trick that he rolls out every few years, knowing the Player's Union is a joke. Why not insist the owners are starving? Why not claw back wages? Who is going to stop it? Is the guy losing out a year of his very brief working life going to tough it out on a strikeline? Hahahaha!

What's the average career of the average player? Five years? In the NFL it's three. Is a guy going to give up twenty percent of his lifetime earnings to save the Owners?

It's ****. Time to start a new league. Seriously!
Now if only there were rich enough business men with the facilities and infastructure to set up this league. They would also need enough money to be able to pay the players millions unless they become like CFL players and play for 50 grand.

Wait all of a sudden its starting to sound like the you need a bunch of rich old men to get this league off the ground and at that point what differentiates it from the NHL?


Last edited by mouser: 09-02-2012 at 08:02 PM. Reason: QEP
Jamin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2012, 07:57 PM
  #30
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrolean View Post
I'd like to see a separate Canadian and American pro league in the future.
So much fail in one post....

JAX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2012, 08:50 AM
  #31
Mantha Poodoo
The Wheeled Winger
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,734
vCash: 500
What can the owners give to the players?

So one thing that's been talked about frequently both on here and by a recently referenced article on the NHLPA site is that if the owners want to take from the players, the owners also need to be willing to give/make concessions. What I've seen discussed far less often is what exactly the owners can give to the players as incentive to decrease their share of revenues. It seems the PA's stance is not so much "we're not giving up anything" but rather "okay, if we give up something, what are we going to get and what are you going to do internally to help fix your issues?"

So far, Mr. Fehr seems to be selling increased revenue sharing among the owners as something that will benefit the PA to the PA, and something that will benefit the NHL to the NHL. I tend to agree with him on this point, but only because they are operating in a cap system. I personally find that a cap system and a strong revenue sharing system are mutually inclusive. This is where I believe Mr. Bettman has his largest battle, due to the owners; they want to have their cake and eat it too. The big money owners are going "Okay, you can have your cap, weaker teams, and some parity... wait, you want money, too? Hah, since we're all limited, see if you can spend with us and compete." Mr. Bettman's task is as much uniting and dealing with the collective cave of trolls known as the NHL Board of Governors as it is representing them.

So increased revenue sharing is certainly one thing that the owners can "give" to the players (it is something they're seeking), and arguably themselves as well. Instead, there are many other things the owners want to "take" as well (well discussed at this point). What are some other things that the owners can "give" to the players that do not severely impact their monetary goals?

Mantha Poodoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2012, 09:33 AM
  #32
SilverHaireDevil
Registered User
 
SilverHaireDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,395
vCash: 500
a two year lockout.

SilverHaireDevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2012, 09:36 AM
  #33
MikeK
Registered User
 
MikeK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,481
vCash: 14214
The owners don't have to give the players a thing and aren't going to. I can't believe how mentally challenged these players are. Instead of using common sense and getting a deal deal now, they're going to listen to a guy who has no interest in the game of hockey and a history lockouts under his belt. The players should use this time off to go back to school.

MikeK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2012, 09:56 AM
  #34
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,209
vCash: 500
They've already basically answered that question - a smaller cut of the pie in exchange for more revenue sharing.

(Yes, more revenue sharing helps the players as well since, in theory, the crappy teams are more likely to be able to afford signing UFA's with more money in the bank).

CGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2012, 09:57 AM
  #35
therealkoho
Gary says it's A-OK
 
therealkoho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: the Prior
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,657
vCash: 500
uhmm....bigger contracts with longer term

you know! for sacrificing their FA years..........

therealkoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2012, 10:10 AM
  #36
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,830
vCash: 500
The owners have a few things to give the players, and I believe they have signaled at least one in their last proposal.

The biggest thing is the idea of achieving the new % of HRR gradually, probably via something that will closely resemble a wage freeze for 3 or so years. I expect that the final agreement will do this, as this is a key player position (no rollbacks) and one that can be bought with a very finite amount of money over a short period of time with no repercussions at the end of the agreement.

The next thing is the HRR definition. In BOTH the NFL and NBA CBA's, the players share was cut but the revenue definition was expanded (though the NFL had some money cut out for capital improvements, which the NHL put in their proposals). I believe that the realignment spat was a proxy for expansion/relocation revenues to be included in HRR. Since expansion/relocation money is quite rare (though I believe will be received during the next CBA), I believe that the NHL may give some (perhaps less than 50%, but some) to the players, and/or move more towards the current HRR definition.

The next thing is the contract stuff. I believe it is in both parties interest (at least in a linked to HRR CBA which seems most probable) to limit contract length and the huge upfront payments and light tails. These contracts increase the escrow problem for the players, and cause insurance and other issues for the owners. Besides that, I believe that the NHL is happy with the current contract rules and would keep them, so I would expect to see them back off the "hard line" approach from their first offer. Expect to see the only change to be in either the max contract length OR how contracts count against the cap (the PA would be better off if the cap was based on actual money out the door each year as opposed to the average anual value used now).

Finally, I believe Fehr's other primary goal is to try to avoid this situation in the next negotiation, where the players are negotiating from a position of weakness. The NHLPA's proposals have included a last year which is very unfavourable to the owners in an attempt to encourage negotiations (and a new CBA) a year before the expiry of the current CBA. I am not sure how willing the owners will be on this front, but this is why I believe Fehr has stalled throughout the negotiation as he knows he can only get this at the deadline. I would expect to see the Owners being willing to give up a little on this front (so long as it is a LONG CBA) to get a deal done, and Fehr is going to push this point hard the entire time.

EDIT: Many people bring up revenue sharing, but this is a red herring (as was the UFA age in the owners proposal). Revenue sharing is almost irrelevant to the actual situation, though it plays well in the media and amongst fans. I guarantee that Fehr would let the NHL completely eliminate revenue sharing if the owners gave him the four points above.

Egil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2012, 10:42 AM
  #37
Noldo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 949
vCash: 500
I am quite sceptical that PA would see any restrictions to contracts, whether a maximum length or an additional restrictions to the yearly salaries, as a concession given to players, but an additional take by owners. After all, if my memory serves me right the PA fought in favor of Kovy's original contract after league had disallowed it.

Noldo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2012, 11:28 AM
  #38
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
the owners also need to be willing to give/make concessions.

So far, Mr. Fehr seems to be selling increased revenue sharing among the owners as something that will benefit the PA to the PA

So increased revenue sharing is certainly one thing that the owners can "give" to the players (it is something they're seeking)
RS isn't something the PA is selling to the PA. It's something the PA is telling the NHL that will solve their issues without the need to cut the split, and thus reduce player salaries. That's the only reason the PA is touting RS.

However as for things the NHL can give the players:
- less compensation for offer sheets (encourages OS to be made and thus gives RFA's more options)
- lower UFA age to 6 years (from 7)
Someone listed others, but it was a while back and I can't remember them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
The owners have a few things to give the players, and I believe they have signaled at least one in their last proposal.

The biggest thing is the idea of achieving the new % of HRR gradually, probably via something that will closely resemble a wage freeze for 3 or so years.

The next thing is the HRR definition. I believe that the NHL ... move more towards the current HRR definition.

The next thing is the contract stuff. I believe it is in both parties interest (at least in a linked to HRR CBA which seems most probable) to limit contract length and the huge upfront payments and light tails.

I would expect to see the Owners being willing to give up a little on this front (so long as it is a LONG CBA) to get a deal done, and Fehr is going to push this point hard the entire time.

EDIT: Many people bring up revenue sharing, but this is a red herring (as was the UFA age in the owners proposal). Revenue sharing is almost irrelevant to the actual situation, though it plays well in the media and amongst fans. I guarantee that Fehr would let the NHL completely eliminate revenue sharing if the owners gave him the four points above.
Fehr wouldn't give it up, simply because it means the NHL needs less of a split to be sustainable. Most teams need a 45% split (current HRR) to have a shot at breaking even or posting a profit. That puts the floor around 41m, and the ceiling around 57m (unless things change). However this means the players take a 12% cut. Even using escrow to do it (so it's not a rollback that effects the entire contract, but only on a shorter term basis), the PA won't want to agree to this. Nor should they.

However with a much better RS system (and less/no rules/restrictions on how it's handed out), most teams could live with a 50-52% split (51%=48/64m floor and ceiling), again using current HRR. That means the players only need to take a 5-7% cut instead of a 12%. And if that cut the players took was put directly into RS, that 5-7% is equal to ~200m. Have the owners add a bit (so it's not entirely funded by the players) and RS could be up to 300m. With a floor of 48m, and potentially 10-20m in RS cheques for the bottom teams, that should bring most teams into the black on a yearly basis. If a team like Phoenix still can't stay in the black, and the owner doesn't want to lose money, then they move it (which will likely happen within 5 years anyway).

The NHLs issue isn't the cap/floor, or that some teams are losing money. It's that Toronto and the other big teams are raking in 2-3 times what most of the other teams are generating. That means the cap is either somewhere really low that most teams can afford it, and the big teams pull massive profits, or the cap is higher so the big teams only have reasonable profits and the rest of the league struggles. A comprehensive RS plan is needed in our NHL. I'm not a huge fan of it, but unless they scrap the floor to allow teams to spend to their internal budget, it's needed.


Last edited by Riptide: 09-05-2012 at 12:52 PM.
Riptide is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2012, 01:04 PM
  #39
xnyker
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: maritimes
Posts: 64
vCash: 500
The NHL & NHLPA should agree on what exactly constitutes HRR. The players should then get 50 percent of that in salary and benefits, and this agreement should be written in stone never to be disputed again.
There should be a floor and a ceiling to a cap system that reflects the 50% of HRR. The owners should then decide on whether cost certainty to those small markets should be installed into a CBA with profit sharing from the richer teams. Let the NHL clubs take care of themselves, if they decide these small market teams are worth while supporting let them, or let them be moved or removed what ever makes sense to the collective. The players should look after themselves with paid systems for pensions or disability etc....
No drafted player should be allowed to enter into the NHL as a UFA, they havenít earned it, but neither a player should have to remain with a team who is unwilling or unable to play market value under the present system. The present system with time limits for UFA, RFA, salary arbitration, etc... may need a few changes but it seemed to me at present to be fair.
I donít know what they can do about contract lengths or front loaded contracts, the easy answer same yearly salary for each year of the contract. Any salaries deemed buried into the AHL or buyouts can maybe be considered taxable and put into cost sharing with the other NHL clubs, let the collective decide who is cheating.
The NHL should have their own contract amongst the owners. I believe that is what truly will resolve a lot of the present issues.

xnyker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2012, 01:33 PM
  #40
Flukeshot
Holmgren activate!
 
Flukeshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Milton, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,681
vCash: 214
Negotiating 101 is all about, "If you... then we will..." So I think this is a really relevant topic. Neither side has really entered into Give and Take discussions.

There are many non-core issues that can be traded to get closer to the % of HRR the NHL desires.

Contract Topics:
-Shorter ELC 1-2yrs, and/or remove the slide rule on a 3yr ELC, any games played counts as a year off the contract. Afterall, pre-season is for try-outs.
-Higher paying ELC, probably would have minimal affect as those guys aren't in the PA yet.
-Significant increase to the minimum non-ELC contract. Move up to $900,000 and this will get the bottom 20% of the PA to start thinking.
-Less restrictive RFA or two classes of RFA with less prohibitive offer sheet compensation. Ex. RFA fresh off ELC is high compensation, any other RFA less compensation.
-Higher % on qualifying offers, especially if they did type 1 and type 2 RFAs. Type 2 RFAs 125
-Re-introduce/Expand player performance bonuses (cap hits carry over to following yr)
-Re-introduce Player Option to extend contract (would have to $=Avg. Cap hit of contract)
-Guaranteed UFA by age 26 regardless of years or games service.
-Guaranteed UFA if a minimum amount of games hasn't been played by age 23 (already something like this but it can be made earlier)
-All UFA contracts come with 1yr league enforced NTC unless player waives at time of signing. (similar to RFA offersheet/match NTC)
-Buy outs paid at higher percentage of contract dollars, ex. 80%

Union incentivies:
-More NHL $ contributed to Players Pensions
-NHL $ given to players furthered education (guaranteed 3yrs base tuition for any player that signs an ELC to be used up until 50 y/o).
- X% Profit Sharing based on NHL teams net profits
-Expanded NHL rosters, ex. 25 man, another one that helps lure in the lower paid players.

Core Issues:
-Luxury tax set below the Hard Cap to help fund Rev. Sharing (ex. floor $40m, luxury tax threshold $55m, hard cap $65m.)
-No salary rollbacks, whatever % of HRR they agree on, it will be gradual and reached by year 3 of the CBA. (ex. 2013 = 57%, 2014 = 54%, 2015= 50%) Players may lose money to escrow but at least it won't be a direct reduction.
-Unlimited contract lengths, but no front loading or at least less gradual decline. Ex. final year cannot be less than 50% the value of year 1.


These aren't necessarily things I'd like to see added, but they are at least things the PA might be interested in. Anything that helps a player have more freedom during their NHL career, while not adding to % of HRR should be on the table.

Flukeshot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2012, 01:45 PM
  #41
gonzo11
Give the dog a bone
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 47,638
vCash: 500
To get them back to the table they need pressure and until real games start to get cancelled there is no pressure

gonzo11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2012, 10:57 AM
  #42
c4fn8d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 629
vCash: 500
The owners are following the strategy that once the players miss a few paychecks, they will cave. If I was Fehr, I would start negotiating with the KHL that players that sign with KHL teams MUST stay for the full year. This will put some pressure on the NHL Owners to offer some concessions and come back to the table.

Now how do we break this stalemate?

There are 3 sides to this discussion. The rich teams, the poor teams and the players. The poor teams want to at least break even each year and ice a competitive team. The rich teams don't want to continue to bear the burden of supporting the entire league. The players don't want to take a massive paycut to support the poor teams. The discussion should be between the rich teams and the players. The poor teams will get help either way this agreement is drawn up and should not care how it happens.

Here is what I would do:

1. There already are loopholes for salary cap circumvention. Buyouts, Long term injury, retirement and sending players down. All of these methods are ways to get cap relief. I would offer an additional one which looks like the NHLPA's proposal. You can go over the cap but will be penalized for it. The more you go over, the higher the percentage of the penalty.

2. Buyouts would also be opened up so that the it won't count against the cap any longer, instead, penalties would be applied that would be paid to the league.

3. The revenue split goes to 50/50. The cap drops. The money is not taken from future growth or escrow money. This would mean that the teams that are over the new cap must come down to the new cap or pay penalties.

4. There would be a salary rollback of 6 percent to all players to help with cap relief.

5. To the poor teams, you get revenue assistance from the league based on attendance. If you can't draw big crowds then you don't deserve your team in the first place.

Point's 1 and 2 would have to amount to about 4 percent of total revenues and point 4 would amount to roughly 3 percent of total revenues. This would give the league about 220 M or so to offer to the poor teams.

c4fn8d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 01:57 PM
  #43
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,022
vCash: 133
Creative CBA solutions? Do you have one? Have you seen any?

What ideas do you guys have that are outside the realm of what we've seen discussed thus far?

Doesn't have to be feasible or perfect... but maybe something different?

Share please...

I know we can be creative... it boggles my mind why the PA and the owners don't seem to be in their proposals...



Some of mine:

Modification of Cap/Floor:

What was the stat? something like 18 teams made less than their highest paid player? You have the top 8 big revenue teams, and then a couple decent ones, and then the 20 others.

Add some buffer room for the top end and the bottom end teams.


Example:

Cap is $70 mil.
Mid point is $62 mil.
Floor is $54 mil.

Set up a secondary cap floor... say a locked value of $5 mil less that only the bottom 5 or 10 teams can access.

On the flip side (since you need a concession), have a $5mil buffer on top of $70 mil that only the top 10 revenue teams can access with a Luxury tax of 4 to 1. Increase the tax for repeat offenders.

You increase the maximum potential salary range from $16 mil to $26 mil, but you are relieving slightly some pressure of floor teams that need it (also this range become less significant on based on percentage as the cap goes up)... and you reward the strong markets that can afford it at a significant cost that goes back into further helping lower revenue teams.

So instead of 70, 62, 54... you have:

Hard cap: $75 mil (top 10 teams only)
Soft cap: $70 mil (hard for the bottom 20)
Mid point $62 mil
Soft floor: $54 mil (hard for the top 25)
Hard floor: $49 mil (bottom 5 only)


Or definition #2... have the hard floor set at 60 or 70% of the soft cap #. Soft floor still $8 mil under the mid point.
===============

Loyalty Clause

The Loyalty Clause. All home drafted players have their salaries discounted against the cap: 5%. Players with the same club for more than 7 yrs discounted: 5%. Drafted players on same teams for 10yrs: 10%

Favors the players since they would be making more than the cap restrictions... but they could account for it at the end of the season in total player cost anyway.

================

Contracts as Cap percentages:

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...141&highlight=

Quote:
So players salaries would go up and down (basically up) yr to yr with the cap.

A few examples to show what i'm talking about:
Present cap: $70 mil.

Some cap hits this season and % of total cap:
Ovechkin, 9.5mil - 13.6%
Crosby, 8.7mil - 12.4%
Stamkos, 7.5mil - 10.7%
......... 7mil - 10% (Rinne, Spezza, Iginla, Doughty, Thornton, Chara)
Karlsson, 6.5mil - 9.3%
Quick, 5.8mil - 8.3%
......... 5.6mil - 8%
Schneider, 4mil - 5.7%
......... 3.5mil - 5.0%
......... 1.0mil - 1.4%
Make min wage 1% of the cap? (700K this yr)

Typical 23 man roster:
Average salary on a mid-cap team (62mil): 2.7% (1.89mil)

So looking at % (rough estimates):
Min wage guys: 1%
4th line guys: 1-2%
3rd line, bottom pair, backup goalies: 2-4%
2nd line, 2nd pair, promising young #1's: 3-7%
Top line, top pairing, est #1 goalies: 6 and up
the elite franchise players would be around the 10% level..






So not necessarily posted to tear me a new one... but to get some your outside the box thoughts in a thread....

DL44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:36 PM
  #44
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,022
vCash: 133
Modified Rollback plan..

Instead of implementing a rollback of all present contracts all the way thru to get them under whatever the new cap is... why not just a partial rollback...

ie..
say it's determined clubs need to drop 15% to fit under the cap in yr 1...
Instead of going 15% rollback on all contracts, period...
go 15% rollback in yr 1 and 10% in yr 2... zero % in yrs 3 and beyond.

Considering teams are minimally commited to salary 3 yrs from now, they could easily plan ahead and structure their caps around all existing contracts.
ex. Wild have 30.1 mil in cap spent on 7 players in 3 yrs... lots of room to fill appropriately.

(or whatever % percentage grade they come up with they think will work and allow for players to retain as much of their present contract value as possible while still lending flexibility for GM's to do their thing.)


Edit:
... and this was shot down last lockout when the owners tried to restructure the players' offer of a 24% rollback: a structure of a scale of higher rollback number for the higher contracts..

i.e. whatever formula adds up to 15% total rollback:
20% - for contracts 6 or 7 mil and above
15% - for contracts 5 mil and above
10% for contracts 3 mil and above
5% for contacts 2 mil and above
None for those under 2 mil....


Last edited by DL44: 09-10-2012 at 04:42 PM.
DL44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:40 PM
  #45
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,433
vCash: 500
I have a very creative solution.

Give me all the money and I'll decide who gets what.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 05:06 PM
  #46
Orrthebest
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 707
vCash: 500
My solution would be as follows: Keep all definitions the same, split HHR 50/50 but the 7% cut would go into the owners escrow which would also include the current RS payments. It would get paid out by the following: 1 top up revenue of all teams to the cap floor + the average cost of running a team based on last years numbers and indexed to inflation. 2 Top up the players escrow if there not getting the full amounts of their contacts. 3 Pay back the owners who paid into RS by the % they paid in up to the amount they paid. 4 divide equally between teams.

The biggest problem is to make it work the player would need to accept a 10% rollback and a buyout amnesty.

Orrthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 05:09 PM
  #47
PumpkinBomb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 675
vCash: 500
First and foremost the league and the pa need to use the median team revenue number rather than the average. (They use total, i believe, which by proxy means average.)

This will remove outliers from the equation, such as the Maple leafs and their revenue around the 200M mark.

If the numbers i found are correct the average team revenue is around 96M (in 2011-2012). The median is lower, at around 80M, and really represents the true average. (ie. 65% of teams are within a standard deviation from the median, but not the mean, and if my numbers are correct, it's actually even higher, around 72%).

This would mean that any further negotiating would cater to the majority of teams.

The real issue though is the definition of hockey related revenue. This can get incredibly complex, as certain teams don't get concession money, certain teams do, etc.

What I would propose is something a lot simpler. ie.) Base the revenue solely on ticket sales, merchandise and tv revenues. I think those 3 things would be an indicator of growth. (Ie - if the league is prosperous, the above 3 should grow proportionally to everything else.)

After those 2 things are handled, it's just applying a % split that both sides can agree on.

ie.) if under the current cba the average team makes 100M and the cap is 58M (or whatever is) and under my definition above, the median revenue (using the criteria i outlines is only 60M, then maybe the % of that is 100% to the PA or something to that effect.)

In my above example, if the league wanted to claw back even. they could say 90% instead of 100%. I think if they went to the players with that offer it would be received a little better, especially since it would directly incent the players to try their hardest to ensure growth.

As for the current signings, they could just manage this salary via escrow. (i think it's a reasonable option because it ties those players' salaries to league revenue growth, giving them incentive to perform on their contract. (In my opinion, all players should have some performance related portion of their salary but that could just be me)).

Tied to this, new signings under the cba could have a similar growth incentive. (ie. If you wanted to sign someone for a flat 3M /year, an automatic bonus would get thrown in, which would be the league targeted revenue growth each year. Ie.) if in yr 2 there is a target growth of 10% then the yr 2 salary would be increased to 3.3M) That catch would be, that that bonus portion is kept in escrow and not given if the revenue growth doesn't match the league target.

(the above part would be a tougher sell, but if worded properly, might find traction among the players. ie.) if the money is viewed as a bonus, rather than money they feel entitled to regardless.

PumpkinBomb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 05:15 PM
  #48
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,935
vCash: 500
Would the PA ever go for no guranteed contracts, if there was no cap offered??

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 05:25 PM
  #49
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,022
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
Would the PA ever go for no guranteed contracts, if there was no cap offered??
I don't think the owners or the fans would want any part of that.

Non-guaranteed contracts also have a flip side to them... Holdouts.

DL44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 05:36 PM
  #50
Orrthebest
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 707
vCash: 500
My solution would be as follows: Keep all definitions the same, split HRR 50/50 but the 7% cut would go into the owners escrow which would also include the current RS payments. It would get paid out by the following: 1 top up revenue of all teams to the cap floor + the average cost of running a team based on last years numbers and indexed to inflation. 2 Top up the players escrow if there not getting the full amounts of their contacts. 3 Pay back the owners who paid into RS by the % they paid in up to the amount they paid. 4 divide equally between teams.

The biggest problem is to make it work the player would need to accept a 10% rollback and a buyout amnesty.

Orrthebest 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 06:34 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.