HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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
09-12-2012, 04:03 PM
  #76
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,265
vCash: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
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.)
Did the bargaining committees read this thread?

I think so...


keep em coming...


I like the fact one of the sides finally proposed a ramp down to their %...
I think that will be the most likely solution..

I proposed an unlikely 10 yr proposal... http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...209&highlight= ... but same ramp down concept where the players' contracts would be minimally effected.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2012, 05:55 PM
  #77
No Fehr
Registered User
 
No Fehr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 115
vCash: 500
My ideas are linked: So if NHLPA/NHL want proposal A then they need to take proposal B.
1: One player contract on each team does not count against the cap. Team must be spending to/over the cap to use this option.
1b: One player contract can be cut per year. The player will be put through a 100% salary waiver and if another team picks that player up for his entire salary then that player will be paid by the new team and will have a cap hit on that team but will also have a cap hit on the team that waived said player. If player clears waivers, then he does not get paid and the team that cut him incurs no penalty or cap hit for cutting him.

2: Salary cap will go down 2-4% until it is at a 49/51 split owners get 51%(cba term 7 years). No drastic roll backs or escrow payments but the owners get the lions share. HRR TBD

3: UFA Contract length will be no longer then 10 years for first time UFA(24-27 years old) and no more then 7 year contract for 28-30 years old, 31-34 4 year contract and 35-36 2 years 37+ 1 year. No signing bonus. Cap hit and salary must be the same and per year salary must be the same(no 10,8,6,4,1,1,1 deals). No arbitration. ELC will be 7 years from draft. ELC salary will be no more then $2.5mil. No RFA. College players rights will be held for one year after player leaves college(even if he is 50).
3b: UFA at 24-27 years of age. More performance based bonuses on all types of contracts. Minimum salary $800k. SPC contract limit is removed, team can sign 100 players if they want.

4a:Team that drafted player can offer a signing bonus to retain that player when UFA arrives, no other team can offer that.
4b: Drafting team UFA signing bonus will not count against the cap.

5:No salary cap floor but every team must carrier 25 roster players. Five players must make over 2.0mil.

6:Bottom ten teams all get equal chance at #1 pick. If you get #1 this year then next year the highest you can get is #6.

7: The poorest teams that have the best records get more revenue sharing. Don't reward teams that are not even trying.
I had more but I can think right now

No Fehr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:55 PM
  #78
Jakomyte
Registered User
 
Jakomyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,147
vCash: 500
Long post/proposal to follow. Right now we're at:

NHL:
Year 1 - 49%
Year 2 - 48%
Years 3-6 - 47%

Average: 47.5% over 6 years

NHLPA:
Year 1 - 54.3%
Year 2 - 52.7%
Year 3 - 52.2%
Year 4 - 52.3%
Year 5 - 52.4%

Average: 52.7% over 5 years

Is there a deal to be made? I think/hope so...

Take the middle ground between the two averages (47.5% and 52.7%) = 50.1% (surprise surprise, is this where both parties are willing to end up?).

So we need to accomplish two things: Get the average share for players to about 50.1%. We also want to give the players some amount of growth in revenue to make them happy, so lets go with 4%, the average of the first 3 years that they offered in their agreement.

For next season, assuming league revenues rise by the 7.1% average, they would be around $3.53 billion. Increasing player revenues by 4% gives them $1.98 billion, which is 56.0% of $3.53 billion.

If you are still with me, lets project this calculation over 6 years, assuming growth of NHL revenues at 7.1%, giving the players a 4% increase in salaries.

(Year; NHL revenues; Player Salaries ($); Players Salaries (%)
Year 1: $3.53B; $1.98B; 56.0%
Year 2: $3.79B; $2.06B; 54.4%
Year 3: $4.05B; $2.14B; 52.8%
Year 4: $4.34B; $2.22B; 51.2%
Year 5: $4.65B; $2.31B; 49.7%
Year 6: $4.98B; $2.40B; 48.2%

What is the average of these percentages? 52.1%, which is about 2% higher than the suggested average of 50.1%. This means we'll have to reduce each year by 2%. Since the average amount the players have lost to escrow over the six years of the current CBA is approximately 2.5% (according to McKenzie), this hit shouldn't be too bad:

Y1:54.0%
Y2:52.4%
Y3:50.8%
Y4:49.2%
Y5:47.7%
Y6:46.2%

Now the only problem is that endpoint of 46.2%, probably less than what the NHLPA would like. The respective endpoints of NHL (47%) and NHLPA (52.4%) average out to 49.7%, which is 3.5% higher than 46.2%, so lets take that from the first five years in a staggered amount:

Y1: 52.5% (-1.5%)
Y2: 51.4% (-1%)
Y3: 50.3% (-0.5%)
Y4: 48.7% (-0.5%)
Y5: 47.7% (+/- 0%)
Y6: 49.7% (+3.5%)


Summary:

At year 6, assuming the 7.1% compound growth of league revenues to $4.98B, the players share will be $2.48B, 30.5% higher over than it was this past year, nice increase in salary for the players. For the owners, they will get their 50.3% share of revenues by the end of year 6, which is where they seem to want to end up, and won't have an immediate increase in player costs.

Cap estimate next year would be $70.3M x (52.5%/57%) = $64.7M, which only 6 teams are currently over, so include some sort of buyout opportunity.

Both sides give up some $$$ from their current offers, but they will not collectively lose any revenues due to lost games played during the season.

Jakomyte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 04:28 PM
  #79
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Jakomyte, that works from a standpoint of compromise. It's well thought-out, and logically sound.

But it doesn't work from the standpoint of: This system of "percentage of league HRR to the players is a never-ending cycle of creating more poor teams."

The idea of cap/floor is that the teams spending to the cap and the teams only spending to the floor balance each other out and the end result is the 57% cut to the players.

The creativity needed is in a system which puts (47-57%) of HRR into the players hands, when the 30 teams are incapable of each forking over a fair share. Each team's share of the money that they owe the players is $64 million.
But for 20 teams, that's well over 57% of HRR. and to a couple, that's 35%.

We need a situation where the same number of teams are:
at the cap vs at the floor
close to the midpoint but over vs close to the midpoint but under
at the midpoint

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:22 AM
  #80
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,255
vCash: 500
Just throwing this idea out and I doubt it would be acceptable to the owners but it gives them what they've said they want.

Say the players accept an immediate drop to a cap at 50% of HRR but no roll back or no escrow. Teams can only become cap compliant by buyouts at 100% of the agreed to salaries paid over the life of the contracts, 25% of the contracts will go into a revenue sharing fund which will be matched by the owners to help support the weaker financial teams. This is in addition to a long term revenue sharing plan. Teams will have 2 weeks to trade players/buyout any players they wish before they need to become cap compliant.

Halibut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 01:54 PM
  #81
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
I wouldn't qualify it as creative but in simple terms my solution would look something like;

No roll back on salaries but teams can buy out 2 players currently under contract similar to the 2/3 over x years they have done in the past.

By year 3 the revenue would be required to be adjusted to a guaranteed 50/50 split between owners and players. This adjustment would be need to be achieved through expiring and new contracts.

The salary floor would be removed to help the struggling team with any salary short fall towards the players to be made up with an rationed share by all 30 teams based on the amount of salary each team spent. In other words the highest spending clubs would be on the hook for a bigger chunk than the lower spending clubs, but all clubs would be accountable for their own share so that no team gets a pass on the obligations but this in essence provides the revenue sharing that the players are looking for.

The rest of it like free agency and stuff is all fluff once the economics have been agreed to.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 03:13 PM
  #82
gsx capsfan
Registered User
 
gsx capsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: LaPlata, MD
Country: United States
Posts: 747
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to gsx capsfan Send a message via Yahoo to gsx capsfan
Very simple solution to fix the cap situation. I know this doesn't fix all the issues, but it can really help bring the numbers closer together over the next few years.

6year agreement, first three years the Cap is frozen.

Going off very basic numbers mind you.
Going off that the players are make 57% of the money.

If the monies they get the salary cap from increase at an average rate of 5%, in 3 years, the players will have a 51% share of the pot, and owners would have 49%.

The cap has increased 8.5% each year over the life of the current CBA. So, assuming a 5% in crease isn't a stretch.

Again, numbers are very rudimentary, but the general concept I really think could bring both sides together.

gsx capsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 03:40 PM
  #83
The Shrike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
I still think the best system for the league as a whole financially would be one with revenue sharing funded by a luxury tax, but considering the NHLPA themselves have stated this is a no go, here's the best system I can think of, given the constraints.

01. CBA length = 6 years
02. Percentage of average HRR paid out in each year = 50%
03. Hard Cap = 60% (at $3.3 billion = $66 million)
04. Hard Floor = 40% (at $3.3 billion = $44 million)
05. Escrow used as before
06. Maximum contract length = 5 years
07. Entry level contracts = 5 years
08. RFA status eliminated
09. Players become UFA's at end of ELC
10. Maximum player salary = 20% of Hard Cap (at $66 million = $13.2 million)
11. Minimum player salary = 1% of Hard Cap (at $66 million = $660,000)
12. Initial signing bonus = maximum one third of entire value of contract
13. Remainder of contract must be a uniform amount each year
14. Teams can buy out two players each, with no penalty, upon ratification

The Shrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 07:48 PM
  #84
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,183
vCash: 500
Rollback for some, miniature Canadian flags for others.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 08:20 PM
  #85
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,265
vCash: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
I still think the best system for the league as a whole financially would be one with revenue sharing funded by a luxury tax, but considering the NHLPA themselves have stated this is a no go, here's the best system I can think of, given the constraints.

01. CBA length = 6 years
02. Percentage of average HRR paid out in each year = 50%
03. Hard Cap = 60% (at $3.3 billion = $66 million)
04. Hard Floor = 40% (at $3.3 billion = $44 million)
05. Escrow used as before
06. Maximum contract length = 5 years
07. Entry level contracts = 5 years
08. RFA status eliminated
09. Players become UFA's at end of ELC
10. Maximum player salary = 20% of Hard Cap (at $66 million = $13.2 million)
11. Minimum player salary = 1% of Hard Cap (at $66 million = $660,000)
12. Initial signing bonus = maximum one third of entire value of contract
13. Remainder of contract must be a uniform amount each year
14. Teams can buy out two players each, with no penalty, upon ratification
Too pro-owner (in terms of the share of the pie)- if you were trying to be realistic..
i.e. i don't think you would need #6 if you have #13. equal annual contract amounts kills the incentive to these super contracts.

I like the the cap limits attached as percentages rather than the fixed +/- $8mil, as well as the min wage being 1%.

#7,8,9 are interesting tho.. Players would jump all over that if they could become UFA as early as 23. Realistically its only 2 yrs earlier than now... with more savings in yrs 4 and 5 in this proposal rather than how it is now....

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:58 PM
  #86
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,266
vCash: 500
I've been putting a lot of thought into this and I think I found a solution that addresses both sides. The players want their share, and the owners want the player salaries tied to revenues as part of a cap.

The big problem with the Cap as it is today is the wealthiest teams get the biggest advantage from the cap. Their 50% share is not actually being paid by the wealthiest teams, it's being partially paid by the poorest teams.

I will use the Forbes 2010 financials (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/31/...s-10_rank.html) as a basis for the analysis or model (note some changes as revenues have grown and Atlanta moved to Winnipeg). Based on that year the total revenue generated would have been $2.9B, and 50% of that would be $1.45B that would go to the players if they agreed on 50% in the expiring system or nearly $49M per team. The real problem is the disparity in revenue. Toronto tops the list at $187M in revenue, while the Islanders bottom out the list at $63M in revenue. The Islanders end up paying 77% ($49M share of $63M revenue) and Toronto ends up paying 26% ($49M share of $187M revenue). This is the problem in itself, and there is not sufficient enough revenue sharing to balance that.

My thought is that you find a baseline salary cap level where every NHL team can be profitable paying 50% of it's revenue to the players. Then you take 50% of the revenue of each team individually minus the salaries and put that in escrow to divide equally among the players.

The lowest revenue teams like Phoenix and New York Islanders generate about $65M a year in revenue. If you take 50% of that for $32.5M that is the new salary cap mid point. Say a range of $22.5M-42.5M for the salary cap.


PHP Code:
TEAM         2010 REVENUE      50REVENUE     CAP        ESCROW
TOR         
$187.0          $93.5          $32.5          $61.0 
MTL         
$163.0          $81.5          $32.5          $49.0 
NYR         
$154.0          $77.0          $32.5          $44.5 
PHI         
$121.0          $60.5          $32.5          $28.0 
CHI         
$120.0          $60.0          $32.5          $27.5 
DET         
$119.0          $59.5          $32.5          $27.0 
VAN         
$119.0          $59.5          $32.5          $27.0 
BOS         
$110.0          $55.0          $32.5          $22.5 
NJD         
$104.0          $52.0          $32.5          $19.5 
LAK         
$98.0          $49.0          $32.5          $16.5 
CGY         
$98.0          $49.0          $32.5          $16.5 
OTT         
$96.0          $48.0          $32.5          $15.5 
DAL         
$95.0          $47.5          $32.5          $15.0 
MIN         
$92.0          $46.0          $32.5          $13.5 
PIT         
$91.0          $45.5          $32.5          $13.0 
SJS         
$88.0          $44.0          $32.5          $11.5 
EDM         
$87.0          $43.5          $32.5          $11.0 
ANA         
$85.0          $42.5          $32.5          $10.0 
COL         
$82.0          $41.0          $32.5          $8.5 
WAS         
$82.0          $41.0          $32.5          $8.5 
BUF         
$81.0          $40.5          $32.5          $8.0 
STL         
$79.0          $39.5          $32.5          $7.0 
FLA         
$76.0          $38.0          $32.5          $5.5 
CBJ         
$76.0          $38.0          $32.5          $5.5 
TBL         
$76.0          $38.0          $32.5          $5.5 
CAR         
$75.0          $37.5          $32.5          $5.0 
NAS         
$74.0          $37.0          $32.5          $4.5 
ATL         
$71.0          $35.5          $32.5          $3.0 
PHX         
$67.0          $33.5          $32.5          $1.0 
NYI         
$63.0          $31.5          $32.5 
This way 50% of the revenues from EACH team goes to the players, so they get their share. The owners get cost certainty but the most wealthy owners finally have to pay their share. It's only fair, and I would imagine the majority of the owner would prefer to pay based on THEIR revenues not the league average revenues divided equally. The players get their share, everyone is happy (but the richest teams who suddenly have to pay 50% of their revenue instead of 25-30%).

Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:07 PM
  #87
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,266
vCash: 500
Or a simple version of that is you take 50% of each teams revenue, reduced by the $32.5M cap, and put that in escrow to divide evenly among the players. Every team is individually paying 50% of their revenue to the players instead of averaging the league revenue.

Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 06:12 AM
  #88
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,265
vCash: 139
I've been chewing Guest's proposal and this seems just awesome... owners would never go for it.. namely the high revenue teams... but it would only take a single CBA cycle for it to become the norm...

Revenue sharing would be abolished, since the owners' escrow takes care of everything..

there would be no players' escrow..

Players my balk because of non-guaranteed salary amount beyond their very low base salaries... but they would be set either way since they would be gaining money each and every yr..

The league would establish an appropriate scale of compensation for all players based on how many gms they've played...

It's an extremely awesome plan on the surface... i await the more established/experienced posters to point out the cons to this system.... because i don't see anything.

i.e. does this kill owner incentive to make top notch revenue since there a real 50% cut of revenue no matter what?

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 10:12 AM
  #89
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,266
vCash: 500
I agree, I want to hear people slice and dice it. The idea was something I've been trying to develop and I know it's not perfect but I think it does more to address the issues of today. I think it's more of a long term solution than anything we've actually seen from either side and puts the league in the overall best health compared to past CBA's. Every market is viable when you base the cap on what can make them successful. Only the teams that can literally generate no revenue are problems but those are clearly problems no matter what the CBA.

For example, if you had to reduce the cap that much there would have to be a significant initial rollback of salary, but it would be a rollback only to balance the salary cap aspect. The players may have a hard time understanding that part and how they will actually get that money back as part of what I call the escrow process. It's basically a 35% rollback, but the players are not losing 35% of their income.

The more profitable owners rightfully should be more against it. Of course they would prefer the other owners in the league to pick up a higher percent of the player's share. It's an easy argument for the rest of the league to make however. The top 10 revenue generating teams (based on the Forbes 2010 numbers) would be the ones paying more under my proposal, but the bottom 20 would be very encouraging of the setup I would imagine.

What argument do the top revenue generating owners make against it? They shouldn't have to pay 50% of their revenues and the poorer teams should have to pay a higher percentage of 50%? It a very divisive deal for the owners so it has to be the PA's offer.


Last edited by Guest: 09-15-2012 at 10:20 AM.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 11:39 AM
  #90
The Shrike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
The arguement the large market teams would make against such a proposal is they made significantly higher initial investments to purchase their teams (more than 3 times in some cases), therefore they deserve to make significantly higher returns.

In lieu of that, they would want to be more competitive (luxury tax achieves this), so they could at least improve their chances of increasing their potential revenues to compensate for monies lost subsidizing small market teams.

Of course, small market owners have the numbers to push through whatever they want. The reason they don't is the large market owners might leave the NHL, and start their own league.

The Shrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 02:17 PM
  #91
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,266
vCash: 500
Fair enough, but it appears that the purchase price is somewhat related to the revenue that a team generates. The top revenue teams may have spent 3x as much to purchase their teams, but they are generating 3x the revenue still.

Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 02:36 PM
  #92
ps241
Hero of CantonKiller
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Or a simple version of that is you take 50% of each teams revenue, reduced by the $32.5M cap, and put that in escrow to divide evenly among the players. Every team is individually paying 50% of their revenue to the players instead of averaging the league revenue.
Your suggestion is actually quite creative Guest. lots of moving parts but on balance you might be onto something!

Sure it's less attractive for the big teams but one way or the other they will probably end up more heavily involved in the RS. I wonder how the Leafs proposed escrow plus cap would compare to their current contribution to rev sharing minus cap and or their potential future contribution under a new deal moving forward. either way they are still a money making mashine.

ps241 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 03:24 PM
  #93
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
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.
I've had somewhat of a similar thought before... but instead of the AHL, the NHL ownes Minor Hockey (in US and Canada)... From age 6 (and under) to 20...

I think it might be smart business...
- While the majority of NHL expenses goes towards player costs, this is not the case with the minors... Probably wouldn't even have to pay for the full cost of equipment - split with other bodies, and parents...
- Cities are probably willing to help finance (in whole or part) local stadiums in order to stimulate local economies... In a small town, the stadium is probably the entertainment hub...
- I think they must be successful... Minor hockey provides family entertainment at a reasonable price... It's a good family outing... The Vancouver Giants do pretty well in Vancouver, and there's still lots of other entertainment opportunities for families here (including a NHL franchise)... Just imagine in towns where there are not significant alternatives... I think minor hockey must be a money maker, and attaching the NHL to minor hockey would make more...

While a minor team would only be worth a small fraction of a NHL team, I think the NHL could generate spectacular returns - because of the minimal investment to buy (relatively speaking), and by using the knowledge and leverage of running professional hockey and applying it to minor hockey... Sure, the money involved doesn't come close to the NHL... in isolation... But when you multiply real nice return by a number of teams, it could soon add up to being a real nice money maker*.

*This is all just my imagination, making assumptions... I have no idea, in reality, how much revenue or profit an average minor hockey team generates... or how profitable it would be if the NHL owned minor hockey in North America from age 6 to 20...

- Control the supply chain of talent...
- Leverage the star-power of the NHLPA to stimulate interest in local communities (how the NHLPA earns it's share in this HRR)... Hockey Camps, Meet the Player days, Player advice to young players, "Career in Hockey" and "Hockey as a Hobby" camps - just stimulating interest in hockey at a really early level - "Partner with the Parents"... And not all minor hockey players become NHL players (understatement), but still, opportunities to stimulate and build the game from those kids (and their parents) who have shown interest in hockey (by putting their kids in minor hockey)...
- It's not professional hockey, so it's not competitive with the NHL at all - it's complimentary... With owning the AHL, it may open up conflict of interests... But, much more importantly, there's large player costs (not as significant as the NHL, but still, significant) - that cut significantly into profit... Player costs is the reason why there is no hockey (probably) and why there is a fight between owners and players... So, I think, raise HRR significantly without also raising (or touching) player costs significantly... That's how the NHL becomes profitable...

The goal, I think, is to raise revenues as much as possible, and keep player costs as untouched as possible... To leverage what the NHL and NHLPA have to generate more revenue, and grow the game to higher levels... Start, at the grass roots all the way up to just before the NHL (HRR without the related salary cost)... Then, the NHL also, obviously, ownes the NHL professional hockey route... Others own and control the AHL and ECHL (and other alternatives to adults playing professional hockey - Europe, etc.)... NHL still benefit from transfer agreements and rights... I think it's best to keep these other professional hockey leagues independent... For professional hockey, it's the NHL... All efforts at a professional level should be spent on making the NHL as best as it can be...

This idea just popped up in my head one day, and I don't have any knowledge of the inner-workings of minor hockey, so I don't know if it's even feasible or worthy of much discussion, other than maybe spending a few minutes to read... But I do think, from my armchair, that the NHL could generate some real nice returns from it... to add to HRR... and also grow the game...

If the NHL ownes the mini-stadiums in these towns (be it, in whole or in part) then the NHL could house various level minor teams in the same facility (leverage the investment), as well as control the entertainment that flows through these towns... Could hold NHL exhibition games, etc... Could also leverage NHL branding - Port Alberni Canucks, Orlando Panthers, etc... and sell minor hockey merchandise on a larger scale... As well, market young stars, and provide greater opportunity for young player exposure...

As well, the players, by and large, seem to love working with kids... They do lots for kids anyways during the offseason, etc... Doing hockey camps, etc. This way, the players through the NHLPA do it and get paid for it (share in HRR)...

Just a thought...

I in the Eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 03:55 PM
  #94
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,779
vCash: 1500
Here is a creative solution:

Move teams north already

NHL spinning wheels in Phoenix, Florida


http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/spo...169886886.html

Gump Hasek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 04:00 PM
  #95
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
The more profitable owners rightfully should be more against it. Of course they would prefer the other owners in the league to pick up a higher percent of the player's share. It's an easy argument for the rest of the league to make however. The top 10 revenue generating teams (based on the Forbes 2010 numbers) would be the ones paying more under my proposal, but the bottom 20 would be very encouraging of the setup I would imagine.

What argument do the top revenue generating owners make against it? They shouldn't have to pay 50% of their revenues and the poorer teams should have to pay a higher percentage of 50%? It a very divisive deal for the owners so it has to be the PA's offer.
On the surface, I like it, Guest... The top revenue teams are also teams that want to win the cup... Want real competitive teams... I think they could be persuaded to pay more player salaries, if they benefit from something that helps make them more competitive teams - like extra draft picks or favourable rules regarding free agency... Maybe, something that makes it easier for top revenue teams to sign a sought after UFA player, and more difficult for a team outside of the top... It's that way anyways, cap space willing... But, I think if you make it formal, the top revenue teams would pay more for this benefit - maybe, make it more cap space willing for top revenue paying teams (players would like that as well)... Of course, the bottom revenue teams wouldn't like it, but there has to be give and take, IMO... Distribute entry draft order based on percentages that not only include standings, but revenue paid? Whatever it is, those who pay more should get more, IMO...


Last edited by I in the Eye: 09-15-2012 at 04:08 PM.
I in the Eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 04:22 PM
  #96
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,266
vCash: 500
I agree with several of the points made, and I throw that out obviously as an incomplete proposal, but it was the basis of something to grow on.

There are definitely other moving parts that have to be considered in the deal to make it work for all parties. You have to find a way to give some benefit to the top revenue making teams, which might include shorter time to UFA, etc.

Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 10:13 PM
  #97
ps241
Hero of CantonKiller
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
I agree with several of the points made, and I throw that out obviously as an incomplete proposal, but it was the basis of something to grow on.

There are definitely other moving parts that have to be considered in the deal to make it work for all parties. You have to find a way to give some benefit to the top revenue making teams, which might include shorter time to UFA, etc.
I would be careful to not give too much competitive advantage to the rich teams. Easy these days to focus on what's wrong with the NHL because there is lots of talk about it but one thing they got right in the last CBA is a system that allows competitive balance and I really believe that is a core item worth saving and an initiative if they can stay the coarse on that will lead to continued and long term HRR growth. NFL and NHL might be the two leagues who are doing this the best in sports currently.

ps241 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 10:28 PM
  #98
ouendan1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
I'll throw my idea in, obviously not a complete idea, but it is what it is:

No salary rollbacks, keep the cap at whatever it was this past season and keep it fixed permanently, lower it slightly to allow teams struggling to have an easier time reaching the cap.

This way, assuming revenues grow, the players piece of the pie is lowered gradually from 57%. After so many years of revenue growth, it should be down to 50%. Once that happens, then excess $$$ from revenue is pooled into one large sum and distributed evenly to all 30 teams. Owners and GM's can then use the money they receive to give to the players as they see fit but all the money MUST be given to the players and every player must receive some % of the money.

Allow players to negotiate their contracts to allow them to receive a fixed percentage of that excess revenue money. for example:

Say the excess revenue for the year is $300 million (I just pulled that out of my ass, I doubt it would ever be that high), thus every team receives an extra $10 million to give to the players. Player A can negotiate his contract to receive 5% of that money, or an extra $500,000. This money would not count against the cap.

This could also allow GM's to use this as a sort of cap circumvention technique. They could sign players to say 5 years, $20 million dollar contracts for a cap hit of only 4 million, but give the player 15% of the excess revenue money. The player still gets guaranteed money, but also could make more depending on how much excess revenue there is.

anyways that's my idea, flame it as you see fit.

ouendan1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 12:34 AM
  #99
clumping platelets
Registered User
 
clumping platelets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Clumptowaga
Country: United States
Posts: 1,548
vCash: 500
I posted one weeks ago in another thread:

Allow players in their last year of the deal to extend the contract but allow for a change in cap number in that last year. This will help teams lower/raise a players cap number. However, I would limit it to players who have been with a team for at least 50% of that deal. No trading for a player in the last year and doing this kind of extension.

clumping platelets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 01:40 AM
  #100
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
How about throw cap upper / lower limits and revenue sharing numbers in a ball... and then have a lottery at the start of each season to see what both the cap and sharing would be for that year... That way, it is completely fair to both the owners, and the players... It's done completely by chance...

I in the Eye 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 07:07 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.