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
09-10-2012, 05:44 PM
  #51
AXN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,451
vCash: 500
NHL needs to offer a higher cap. 58 to start will not do it. Go back two years to 59.4, before the big two year increase, and increase it at a reasonable rate.

AXN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 07:23 PM
  #52
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,751
vCash: 500
Owners: 100% broadcast revenue sharing.
Players: 49-49% HRR split (post-revenue sharing) year one.
1% (one year only) - NHL buys all the entire AHL franchises and realigns that league into one that serves the "grow the game" purpose the best.
1% (one year only) - NHL builds Islanders a new arena.

Everyone's problem is solved.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 07:25 PM
  #53
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Owners: 100% broadcast revenue sharing.
Players: 49-49% HRR split (post-revenue sharing) year one.
1% (one year only) - NHL buys all the entire AHL franchises and realigns that league into one that serves the "grow the game" purpose the best.
1% (one year only) - NHL builds Islanders a new arena.

Everyone's problem is solved.
You're a genius.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 07:35 PM
  #54
speeds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St.Albert
Posts: 6,822
vCash: 500
Increase the UFA age to 29 or 30 (for all players) in exchange for completely dropping RFA compensation, so that a team can either match an offer sheet, or let the player go for zero compensation.

speeds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 08:16 PM
  #55
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,751
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
You're a genius.
I can't tell if that's sarcastic or not.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 09:01 PM
  #56
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
I can't tell if that's sarcastic or not.
Not sarcastic at all.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 09:38 PM
  #57
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,751
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Not sarcastic at all.
Cool! Thanks.

My new AHL plan would be to turn it into a franchise development league along with player development.

I'd shuffle some franchises around and it would look like:
Abbotsford* (CAL), Seattle (VAN), Portland (EDM), Utah (SJ), Ontario Calif (ANA)
Houston (NASH), San Antonio (PHX), Austin/Texas Stars (DAL), OKC (COL), Las Vegas (LA)
Milwaukee (MIN), Chicago* (CHI), Kansas City (STL), Peoria* (WIN), Grand Rapids* (DET)
Toronto* (TOR), Hamilton (MON), Rochester* (BUF), Cleveland/Lake Erie (CBJ), Hershey* (PIT)
Quebec (OTT), Hartford* (NYR), Bridgeport* (NYI), Providence* (BOS), St. John's (NJD)
Norfolk (PHI), Richmond (WASH), Charlotte* (CAR), Atlanta (TB), Jacksonville (FLA)

The NHL would become equal partners in the 30-team AHL, with 100% revenue sharing for that league. You'd have NHL-paid people running each AHL franchise.

Should an NHL team wish to relocate, you simply make the best choice from AHL teams (*-not eligible due to territory infringements/size) and swap the leagues of the franchises.

The Phoenix debacle would easily be solved. The NHL wouldn't need to find an owner for PHX. They could find an owner interested in an NHL team in any one of TWENTY cities, and promote the AHL franchise to the NHL and demote PHX to the AHL.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 09:41 PM
  #58
KaylaJ
Honey Bun
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 13,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Cool! Thanks.

My new AHL plan would be to turn it into a franchise development league along with player development.

I'd shuffle some franchises around and it would look like:
Abbotsford* (CAL), Seattle (VAN), Portland (EDM), Utah (SJ), Ontario Calif (ANA)
Houston (NASH), San Antonio (PHX), Austin/Texas Stars (DAL), OKC (COL), Las Vegas (LA)
Milwaukee (MIN), Chicago* (CHI), Kansas City (STL), Peoria* (WIN), Grand Rapids* (DET)
Toronto* (TOR), Hamilton (MON), Rochester* (BUF), Cleveland/Lake Erie (CBJ), Hershey* (PIT)
Quebec (OTT), Hartford* (NYR), Bridgeport* (NYI), Providence* (BOS), St. John's (NJD)
Norfolk (PHI), Richmond (WASH), Charlotte* (CAR), Atlanta (TB), Jacksonville (FLA)

The NHL would become equal partners in the 30-team AHL, with 100% revenue sharing for that league. You'd have NHL-paid people running each AHL franchise.

Should an NHL team wish to relocate, you simply make the best choice from AHL teams (*-not eligible due to territory infringements/size) and swap the leagues of the franchises.

The Phoenix debacle would easily be solved. The NHL wouldn't need to find an owner for PHX. They could find an owner interested in an NHL team in any one of TWENTY cities, and promote the AHL franchise to the NHL and demote PHX to the AHL.

SA & PHX just broke up last season. I'm not sure they're too willingly to get back together so soon.

KaylaJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 10:34 PM
  #59
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Cool! Thanks.

My new AHL plan would be to turn it into a franchise development league along with player development.

I'd shuffle some franchises around and it would look like:
Abbotsford* (CAL), Seattle (VAN), Portland (EDM), Utah (SJ), Ontario Calif (ANA)
Houston (NASH), San Antonio (PHX), Austin/Texas Stars (DAL), OKC (COL), Las Vegas (LA)
Milwaukee (MIN), Chicago* (CHI), Kansas City (STL), Peoria* (WIN), Grand Rapids* (DET)
Toronto* (TOR), Hamilton (MON), Rochester* (BUF), Cleveland/Lake Erie (CBJ), Hershey* (PIT)
Quebec (OTT), Hartford* (NYR), Bridgeport* (NYI), Providence* (BOS), St. John's (NJD)
Norfolk (PHI), Richmond (WASH), Charlotte* (CAR), Atlanta (TB), Jacksonville (FLA)
One of the issues now with AHL (lack of western migration) is that the travel distances are HUGE compared to (say) New England, where a hole bunch of AHL teams are located. (Many teams have to spend a full day flying each way to an opponent if they are not located in the New England/NY/PA, etc.)

Teams may require the AHL season cut (from the 76 or so games now) perhaps down to as few as 60 to maintain the same amount of "home" training time due to the travel times required by this setup.

(Proximity to NHL affiliate is not as important as to AHL opponents, in other words)

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 11:37 PM
  #60
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,751
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaJ View Post
SA & PHX just broke up last season. I'm not sure they're too willingly to get back together so soon.
I just paired people based on geography as best I could.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 11:40 PM
  #61
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,751
vCash: 500
20 of 30 teams are BELOW AVERAGE in revenue (all numbers from last Forbes report)

10. $105m Calgary
--- $103m LEAGUE AVERGE
11. $101m Los Angeles

57% of the average revenues is $1.761 billion to the players and 20 of 30 teams below average in revenue and struggling to keep pace.

50% of the average is $1.545 billion to the players (Last Forbes numbers) and 20 of 30 teams below average in revenue and struggling to keep pace.

What would solve this would be giving the players 57% of the MEDIAN revenue, not average (per team)
15. $96m Edmonton
--- $96m MEDIAN
16. $96m San Jose

57% of the MEDIAN (x30) is $1.642 billion going to the players and only 14 teams below that median.

Players give up $119 million (instead of $216 million going form 57% to 50% of the average). Owners up revenue sharing, and you'd have 28+ franchises capable of paying their full 57%.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 06:08 AM
  #62
ozzie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 871
vCash: 500
Home town drafted CBA Discount, Why not?

Okay I seem to remember in the 90's all the poor teams and teams in undesirable locations used to complain about being prospect training grounds for the rich and more popular teams. Did I imagine this?

They used to cry that they would draft players only to lose them come contract time because a) couldn't afford them due to salaries b) were a bad team, c) bad challenging location, or some other reasons.

We have teams like Edmonton, Chicago and Pittsburgh who were fortunate to draft very high for many years. Why should these teams lose those drafted players due to the salary cap? Unless they sign really stupid free agents.

Isn't the best thing for the fans and building team bonds with the fans to keep their home grown players? to keep the fan favorites?

I've seen some people around here so against the idea of having a significant discount for drafted players that remain loyal to their team who drafted them.

Wouldn't this be something the players could ask for while accepting a lower overall salary cap?

Things like:

Home team drafted discount, that gets progressively better for the team the longer the player stays with his drafted team?

Franchise player tag?

The 2 above things could go a long way to making the richer teams happier, giving them some wiggle room.

I really don't think its fair still for any team to draft, train and spend time developing a player only to lose them. Yes they can keep their players and ice an AHL team with them, but really? Or are teams happy now to have to dump salaries and lose their investments.

What do you guys think?

Something like this might help teams in less popular areas sign and keep their players if they are willing to pay a little more.

Seems like a win win to me for the players, for the rich and the poorer teams. It creates some artificial additional cap for teams to take advantage of, if they desire.

ozzie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 06:15 AM
  #63
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,728
vCash: 500
This comes up every once in a while, and meets a lot of opposition and silliness about "violating the spirit of the cap", and why-have-the-cap-if-you're-just-gonna-make-exceptions.

Personally, the spirit of the game is a hell of a lot more important to me than the spirit of the cap. I'm watching hockey for the hockey, not for the cap-juggling. And there are exceptions to every rule. There is no reason not to do something like this.

Buck Aki Berg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 06:52 AM
  #64
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Cap circumvention always benefits the rich teams and hurts the poor. It doesn't matter how a team gets their players, if they are allowed to add salary over and above the cap, the rich get richer as the poor get poorer.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 06:56 AM
  #65
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 67,673
vCash: 50
NHLPA probably wouldn't allow it as they'd see it as a restriction on players movements.

Shrimper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 08:16 AM
  #66
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,350
vCash: 500
Two names come to my mind.

Lindros and more recently MacKinnon. Some players have egos that no matter what tag you would create, there would always be someone to find a good enough reason (sold with professionnal arguments) to not go the same path as everyone else.

powerstuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 09:45 AM
  #67
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,398
vCash: 500
The owners want cost certainty. Having the ability for 1 player not to count towards the cap only screws with that. And when the players lose money in escrow due to owners paying out higher salaries (vs cap hit), this will only take more money from escrow.

I don't see the owners going after it as it isn't the cost certainty they're looking for. I don't see the players going for it as it hurts everyone's escrow.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 10:09 AM
  #68
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,249
vCash: 500
My suggestion prior to the current CBA was a Homegrown Exception to the Cap. Basically if the player played their whole career with the same team they would not count against the cap. That was back before the cap era where there was a lot of player movement with the best players making it to the richest teams. That's not nearly as big of a problem today because the Cap keeps that in check.

Again, the landscape was different then, you were seeing Pittsburgh build the team that contended for 2 Cup's, the Senators had just been to the Finals against the Ducks and looked like they would lose a lot of the talent they had drafted as a result of the cap. I agree with the principal that teams should not be punished for developing players and creating an exception to the cap like this definitely allows teams to build long term and keep the team together like what Chicago faced after winning the Cup.

The bigger issue to my concept is that it's not directly linked to revenues, so that's likely an issue for both the players and owners. Also you would not have the same floor, mid point and ceiling to the cap and you'd have to determine ways to set those. My previous suggestion was that you added up all of the contracts that would be cap eligible and divide by 30 to set the cap max.

It's an idea to start on, but there are answers needed for several aspects.

Guest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 10:26 AM
  #69
Sawyer
Wheeeee
 
Sawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,112
vCash: 500
I've always liked the prospect of the NHL taking on Franchise Tagging

Sawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 10:39 AM
  #70
Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 4,695
vCash: 500
There simply is no reason for it. All it does is artificially increase the cap.

Teams can stay together if that's what the players want. If they want to make more money instead of keeping their great team together that's the players fault, or the managements for not being able to persuade the players.

Beyond that, you can't just look at the cap all alone, you have to look at the system as a whole. Pittsburgh, Chicago and Washington didn't end up with strong teams because of their great eye for talent, they got there because they were handed high draftpicks. Sure, they also made some pretty good lower picks, but they mostly got there by having Crosby, Malkin, Staal and Fleury / Toews, Kane / Ovechkin, etc.

If teams actually had to develop their own youth, instead of being able to draft them at age 18 after being rewarded for losing, then such a change could make sense. But as long as it stays the way it is right now, you would just give even more help to those who performed poorly. With that being said, such a system really isn't needed, team-development is just fine, so why not let things stay like they are?

Sanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 10:40 AM
  #71
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,249
vCash: 500
Franchise tagging only helps so much. What do you do in Pittsburgh where they have two legit superstars in Malkin & Crosby that they drafted/developed? Not to mention all of the other players that are not franchise tag worthy. I don't care for that because I find it to be more of a bandaid approach.

Guest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 01:45 PM
  #72
Habs05
Registered User
 
Habs05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Brossard, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 228
vCash: 500
A net salary cap instead of gross compensation for a fair league.

The league should change their salary cap system. It should be based on net salary (instead of gross compensation) so every players of every teams would be able to receive the same amout of money.

Montreal, Toronto are contributing the most to the revenues sharing so we can have a..fair... league.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle4525341/

But it's not very fair when these cities aren't able to get the best players because of taxes issues. They spend all the way to reach the salary cap but still they won't get these players. Why? At the end the player will ended up getting more money in florida.

http://business.financialpost.com/20...ly-tax-havens/

A net salary floor/cap to get the player then the taxes would be added after by each team so a team X who offers 5 millions to a players would be the same than the team Y who offers 5 million as well.

Revenue sharing has been implemented to respond to market realities. A net salary cap should also respond to the reality of these markets.

Even with a net salary cap the Habs, leafs, etc would still pay more money (at the end) to get the players but at least they'll be able to compete if they want.


I'm not an expert just trying to get some infos/opinions about this issue.

Habs05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 01:47 PM
  #73
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,270
vCash: 500
Possibly, but you need to consider things beyond taxes like cost of living (housing, food, electric, etc.). I agree that certain markets are at a disadvantage in this regard.

An article a while back cited NYC and Mont as the having a 10% disadvantage on taxes versus the least taxed markets. TO was up there but not at the top.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 02:58 PM
  #74
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,751
vCash: 500
Anything you do at the top of the cap needs to be done to the floor as well.

If franchise guys drafted can be discounted on the cap, the need to have the same percentage adjusted from the floor if your team is all home-grown prospects in the early years (for example, the Islanders).

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 03:52 PM
  #75
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 574
The issues with the current system as I see it is the cap is based on overall league revenues but clearly every team has its own individual team revenue. So teams like the leafs spending to teh cap is still a small percentage of their revenues but teams like the Coyotes spedning to the floor is still more than 57% of their indivdiual revenues?

Solutions:
1) Create cap base don individual revenues. TEams like the Leafs would be spedning far more thn the Coyotes. Cons: creates disparity between rich and poor teams in terms of talent.

2) Complete revenue sharing. All HRR is put into a pool and split 30 ways. Every team would then operate with the same amount of revenue. Cons: Never gonna happen and fundamentally unfair. The Leafs sold for a billion $ cause of the profits they make.

3) Hybrid solution. Redefine what is included in HRR. Allow teams to keep a certain portion of their individual HRR. Allowing teams like the Leafs and Habs to reap a profit. The remaining portion of revenues is then all grouped to gether and split 30 ways with the salary cap based on that. Cons: Players would not like the lower definition of HRR as it means less money for them.

cheswick is online now   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 08:29 AM.

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.