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
09-17-2012, 11:11 AM
  #126
Twilight Sparkle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
vCash: 500
Partial CBA with deferred economics.

I've heard that the contentious issues in these negotiations are the core economics. I also understand why the owners didn't (and shouldn't) accept to play under the old CBA.

Why don't they send the money they have trouble dividing (some 5 or 10% of revenues or whatever) in some shared bank account where both parties have to approve withdrawals?

That way they can keep making money while they argue. The longer they argue the more incentive there is to reach a deal because the bank account gets fatter.

To top it all off they also gain interest while the money is sitting there...

This is what the PA should have proposed, not: "let's just play under the old CBA lolololol :trollface: ". It's a middleground between the lockout/strike and keeping the old CBA.

Addressing the "holdout forever" strategy: After 6 years the money goes to a charity with the two parties getting nothing. The strategy is similar to the lockout/strike but less nuclear.

The deferred economics idea wouldn't have saved the 04-05 season but there is some value to it for this one, I think.

Twilight Sparkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 07:48 PM
  #127
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,845
vCash: 500
I always thought a creative solution would be to leave the current split of HRR as is at 57%, but also have the players pay 57% of HRE (Hockey Related Expenses). I mean it would be a cold day in hell before they agreed to it, but it would go a long way toward making them truly partners.

Even if we took arena costs out of the equation and left HRE as things that normal workers have to pay for it would still save the owners millions.

In the real world contracted employees do not get free equipment, transportation, accommodations, laundry, etc. It seems only in the world of professional sports are these perks offered. Obviously expecting the players to go from 0% to 57% is not reasonable, but you get the idea.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 08:29 PM
  #128
rwevans1001
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1
vCash: 500
Common Sense True Sharing and a Partnership

I want to start by setting out two things:

(1) I believe that a majority of the NHL teams are either at a breakeven point on net income or are suffering operating losses. This makes sense and must be one of the fundamental real reasons why the NHL owners are locking out the players.

(2) I support neither the NHL owners or the NHL players.
If you accept point (1) above (and forget all of the "words" on both sides) then it makes real common sense why the owners would lock out the players and why at the same time the players (who have no or limited access to such information) are upset with the owners.

Where and how does one move from here:

(1) In order to settle the current situation the owners should consider paying the players a one-time settlement bonus to allow them to not feel or believe that the players alone have to take the burnt of the "adjustments" by having to take an immediate salary roll-back and "return cash". Hence, a one-time bonus not a roll-back. The size of the bonus would be the 9% rollback discussed. A twist for sure, but one that I think the players will accept. While it will put a unpleasant strain on the owners - it does fairly deal with the reality that the owners (to a greater degree than the players) as the "operators of the league" must accept more responsible for getting back to this "imbalanced" financial situation and the operating results of their businesses. While the owners may have difficulty in this given that they have honored their financial commitments completely to the players to-date, it does give a fair reason to now permit the owners to "reset" the league.

(2) The players and the owners should compromise concurrently and agree to a 50% / 50% hockey related revenue (or HRR) share; hence a go-forward roll-back (from the current 43%/57%). New contracts are put in place to reflect this and the settlement in point (1). Coupled with this, the owners and players should agree that revenue sharing will be 50% / 50% but will also be tied to a jointly agreed breakeven or minimum profitability for the bottom 50% of the teams. Hence, if the bottom 50% of the teams are making either net profits or operating income losses then the split has to adjusted in that year up or down (based on independent audits of each team as performed by a jointly assigned independent auditor). It would then be reset to 50% / 50% for the next year with adjustments to follow. Given that profits are the measurements not revenues, the adjustment each year should not be that material. By using the bottom 50% of the teams (based on profitability) then the League can have certainty that it is financially solvent and this should create and maintain League parity, while still allowing the best operators to increase their operating profits. Conversely, if net incomes increase over the breakeven/minimum point for the bottom 50% of teams then the players should receive a predetermined (negotiated now) proforma portion of such increases. Unlike many businesses, this reflects the fact that the players (who are really entertainers) are the product and account for/drive much of the revenues. Hence a simple solution to a rather vague area, that makes the players and the owners true partners as it should make each move towards increasing profits (not just revenues) which is understandably much more important to the owners.

(3) Set contract term limits at no more than seven years (the mid-point between the two sides) and if you pay out big bonuses count them against the Cap. This will end contract manipulations.

(4) Free Agency in seven (7) years, not ten (10) years.

(5) Entry Level Contracts extended to four years.

Finally, get three owners and three players (a dove, hawk and moderate in each group) and let them finalize these terms. While Bettman and Fehr are very capable (and have moved the puck to this place) one needs to remove their personalities now and get real stakeholders involved to move past "positioning" and work towards a "simple deal".

I believe that this offers a simple, workable solution and I hope it finds its hands into the powers to be. I believe it would rekindle goodwill among the players and owners (which we all hope for) and also shows the fans that "men of goodwill" can accomplish anything.

Best
NHL Fan

rwevans1001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 09:00 PM
  #129
Leaf_Crazy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,616
vCash: 500
I dont know if this has been said or if this is a stupid idea.

But why don't they just tie HRR to Revenue growth? If the PA is so confident revenues will grow why don't they just tie them together so the owners are guaranteed a healthy solution, and the players get paid if the league continues to grow.

If the league stays at 3.3 billion, HRR is 50%, if it goes up HRR is higher....

Leaf_Crazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 10:04 PM
  #130
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,249
vCash: 500
So many of these ideas are just the same thing we've had since 2005 trying to reset it back to 2005. That doesn't solve anything, it just pushed out the inevitable another couple of years. I want to see serious changes for the better that improve the overall health of the league.

It's simple math that the problem is the richest teams are paying 25-30% of their revenue to the players while the poorest teams are paying 65-75% of their revenue to the players. There's no easy way to get the poorest teams to start generating the same revenue as the richest teams, so you have to start at the lowest common denominator.

Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 10:59 PM
  #131
Kloparren
Hth
 
Kloparren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
It's simple math that the problem is the richest teams are paying 25-30% of their revenue to the players while the poorest teams are paying 65-75% of their revenue to the players. There's no easy way to get the poorest teams to start generating the same revenue as the richest teams, so you have to start at the lowest common denominator.
Which is why you have to abandon this stupid idea of 30 team parity. NO other big business league has this and you know why? It's not because it's a bad idea...it's because it doesn't effin work. If it doesn't work in baseball or football where you have big markets in pretty much every American city then how is it gonna work in hockey where there are huge and tiny markets?

Let the rich teams be rich, let the poor be poor, set a salary cap so it isn't a pre-04 situation but make it more lenient/higher than it is and make the floor cheap. Let the **** teams be ****, if they can't profit and have to sell then let them great oppurtunity relocate. The NHL is however hell bent on parity.

Parity is still possible even if the cap is $80M. Do you think the Leafs or Flames can spend to $80 M and become contenders within the next couple yrs? This isn't basketball where you're relying on a small group of players to win, a hockey team has 18 skaters and the importance of drafting will keep parity going to an extent (an extent meaning you still have several teams competing for a cup but it's just not normal to expect that number to be 20 or 30). Point is, I hate "parity."

Kloparren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 11:09 PM
  #132
HavlatMach9
Registered User
 
HavlatMach9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,479
vCash: 500
I'm completely a layman here: Instead of revenue sharing, what about profit sharing? Would players lose much more money if it was profit sharing instead of revenue sharing? Or is profit less defined than revenues (if that makes sense).

HavlatMach9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 11:15 PM
  #133
aemoreira1981
Registered User
 
aemoreira1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,971
vCash: 500
Here is one I have---it involved a hybrid soft/hard cap in it, designed to hold the player's share to about 50-52 percent.

1. There would be a 10 percent rollback in salaries for all players.
2. The hard cap would be set at $63M US.
3. The salary floor would be set at 60 percent of the hard cap.
4. There would be a soft cap set at 87.5 percent (7/8) of the hard cap. Spending between the soft cap and the hard cap would be subject to a to-be-determined luxury tax which could then help out the smaller-market teams.
5. One-way multi-year contracts buried in the AHL would have half of the average value per year count against the NHL cap.

If every team spent to the soft cap but not above, that would be about a 50/50 split. It is clear that the salary floor has gotten out of control.

Now, non-cap related stuff:
1. UFA status could not come before age 26 with at least 7 years of service time, or age 29 (regardless of service time) unless not tendered a qualifying offer. (Jordan Staal was set to, before he signed a 10-year extension, become an unrestricted free agent at age 24.)
2. Each ELC would be for 4 years.
3. Service time calculations for purposes of free agency would change to reflect the amount of days spent on an NHL roster. A full NHL season is 192 days long, and a player could earn a maximum of 172 days of service time in a year. 172 days would count as a year (this is almost exactly how service time in Major League Baseball is calculated, except that their season is 182 days long and a 20-day window is built in). Season-opening injured reserve players would not get service time; players injured during the season would accrue service time while on the injured list. LTIR rules would remain the same.
4. Players whose contracts expire, but who do not have 3 years 0 days minimum of service time would have their contracts renewed with a 10 percent raise. Arbitration would only be available for players with 3 years 0 days or more of service time who are not eligible for UFA status.
5. The amount of players on an NHL roster at any one time would be reduced to 22 (essentially a 13th forward and a 7th defenseman), except for the Christmas demotion freeze, for emergency recalls for a 48-hour period, and after a team's AHL affiliate is eliminated from the playoffs.
6. Contracts after the ELC expires could be for no longer than 6 years.
7. Multi-year contracts running past the age of 37 would have the entire average value of the contract count against the cap after the age 36 season, even if they took effect before age 35. Over-35 rules would continue to apply; the only relief in either case would be the Long-Term Injured Reserve.

This could certainly be built on.

aemoreira1981 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 11:27 PM
  #134
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
Which is why you have to abandon this stupid idea of 30 team parity. NO other big business league has this and you know why? It's not because it's a bad idea...it's because it doesn't effin work. If it doesn't work in baseball or football where you have big markets in pretty much every American city then how is it gonna work in hockey where there are huge and tiny markets?

Let the rich teams be rich, let the poor be poor, set a salary cap so it isn't a pre-04 situation but make it more lenient/higher than it is and make the floor cheap. Let the **** teams be ****, if they can't profit and have to sell then let them great oppurtunity relocate. The NHL is however hell bent on parity.

Parity is still possible even if the cap is $80M. Do you think the Leafs or Flames can spend to $80 M and become contenders within the next couple yrs? This isn't basketball where you're relying on a small group of players to win, a hockey team has 18 skaters and the importance of drafting will keep parity going to an extent (an extent meaning you still have several teams competing for a cup but it's just not normal to expect that number to be 20 or 30). Point is, I hate "parity."

I guess you have never heard of the NFL. They have a hard cap and revenue sharing and they do very well.

Orrthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 11:31 PM
  #135
aemoreira1981
Registered User
 
aemoreira1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
I guess you have never heard of the NFL. They have a hard cap and revenue sharing and they do very well.
The NFL has a much more lucrative TV deal, and a bigger place in American culture. But more importantly, in the NFL, only a signing bonus is guaranteed. The NHL is the only league that has a hard cap AND guaranteed contracts.

aemoreira1981 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 11:53 PM
  #136
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aemoreira1981 View Post
The NFL has a much more lucrative TV deal, and a bigger place in American culture. But more importantly, in the NFL, only a signing bonus is guaranteed. The NHL is the only league that has a hard cap AND guaranteed contracts.
What does that have to do with your rant on parity? The NFL has it and does well with it.

The best hockey you will ever see is when 2 evenly match teams play each other. Parity is what has allowed the NHL to set record revenues. Personally I will never watch any game in any sport where one team has more than twice the payroll of the other.

Orrthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 11:56 PM
  #137
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,673
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post

Also we have the folks who think that making the cap ceiling more lenient will mean that we have no parity because they think that Columbus or Florida are actually gonna win the cup even if the cap is 60 M lol. They also mistake parity with every team being good enough to win a cup, no parity just means the gap isn't that big and that you have at least 5 contenders, more than most major sports leagues imo which we'd still have if teams were allowed to spend a bit above the cap with a tax.
Anaheim, Tampa, Carolina

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 12:43 AM
  #138
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
I think the game currently has a lot of problems that go beyond the current CBA issues. Its gotten boring. Improve the offense and increase the physical play (without injuries). You need to have entertaining games for the markets that are struggling to make the playoffs. Contraction would solve some of the financial woes. Bettman expanded too quickly and to the wrong markets in the vain hopes of landing a big US network deal.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 02:14 AM
  #139
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
I think the game currently has a lot of problems that go beyond the current CBA issues. Its gotten boring. Improve the offense and increase the physical play (without injuries). You need to have entertaining games for the markets that are struggling to make the playoffs. Contraction would solve some of the financial woes. Bettman expanded too quickly and to the wrong markets in the vain hopes of landing a big US network deal.
Which he got with NBC. The NHL is accelerating the national TV $ side faster than other pro sports lately and it may only be becaue they were so far behind.

I agree with your boring issue which gets into the traditions of the game and the same things that helped create the expansion problems. The whole friggin' league is too conservative and beholden to history. Funny that Carolina wins the cup with an American coach who didn't believe in a 2 scoring, 1 checking, 1 energy line system. Goalie equipment increases in size for safety yet heaven forbid the size of the nets changes. Over and over we see that purchased star players rarely result in cups yet fans flock to see them and it is even given as a reason for major markets to have them so as to win. I have news for most. The star players that do win usually do so with their original teams and effectively rest on their laurels when they are purchased. But the fans of those large markets continue to believe that you can "buy" a hockey team. More often than not, the winners have someone who is pulling some major motivational strings which is more easily done with younger stars before or shortly after they hit their big payday. Realistically, purchased star players have more effect on garnering fans than they have garnering wins.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 01:20 PM
  #140
Twilight Sparkle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HavlatMach9 View Post
I'm completely a layman here: Instead of revenue sharing, what about profit sharing? Would players lose much more money if it was profit sharing instead of revenue sharing? Or is profit less defined than revenues (if that makes sense).
I'm not trying to offend you by saying this but you have to be a fool to sign anything that gives you a share of the profits instead of a share of the revenues.

There's so many ways to pass something as an expenditure that lowers profit. Revenue is a LOT more black and white and they still have trouble with that as you probably have heard.

so yeah, profit is "less defined".

Twilight Sparkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 07:22 PM
  #141
ngunn33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 18
vCash: 500
CBA Solution

NHL Concessions:

1) Players eligible to become Free Agents after 6 Seasons in the League or at age 26

2) No Rollbacks of Current Salaries

3) Don't implement contract length limits

4) Allow Players to play in Olympics (Don't know if I'd call this a concession?)

NHLPA Concessions:

1) Accept a 50-50 split of H.R.R. (Structure it so that the players probably won't face cutbacks of current salaries as long as the NHL grows at it's expected rate. Essentially, as the leagues revenues grow cut back the percentage of H.R.R. the players receive in a way that honors the current $ value of the player's contracts.)

2) Accept a lengthy CBA agreement so as to achieve the 50-50 split of H.R.R. (7 years or longer so the fans don't have to worry about CBA negotiations so much.)

3) Stop demanding that greater revenue sharing between richer teams and poorer teams be a requirement of a New CBA.

4) Allow the closing of loopholes regarding Cap-Circumvention.

Either: When calculating the yearly Salary-Cap Hit for players, contract years when the player is 37 years of age or above will not be included in the calculation.

Or: If a player signs a long-term contract and decides to retire before the contract is up the years of the contract that the player doesn't play will result in a penalty to that player's NHL Club. For example, the calculation of the yearly Salary Cap Hit based on how many years the player fullfilled of the contract will count towards that team's Salary Cap between the time the NHL player retires and his contract expires.

5) Allow NHL to pursue reallignment and Schedule Changes.

6) Allow more Merit based pay along with base salary. Performance Pay.

7) Entry Level Contracts extended from 3 years to 4 years for recent draft picks.

ngunn33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 09:32 PM
  #142
Kloparren
Hth
 
Kloparren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Anaheim, Tampa, Carolina
There was no cap in place when Tampa won the cup, Anaheim did a great job drafting/developing players and I think they could've won even with a higher cap, Carolina is the only point I'll concede but that was the messed up anomaly yr and they did have Staal and a goalie who stood on his head after he took over.

The LA Kings were significantly below the salary cap this season but still won the cup. They did a great job of drafting, helped them trade for better assets and some shrewd GM moves plus they got lucky because Quick gave the best regular season performance by any goalie in quite a few yrs to even get them in the playoffs by which point they had their chemistry going.

I can guarantee you that if the cap is $75 M with a luxury tax allowing you to go up to say $85 M with a floor at 30 M....some of the teams spending $70 M+ would still eff up. The disparity between the best/worst teams MIGHT grow but this can be offset by increasing the FA yrs by one yr or two and a team doing a good job at developing its young guys.

Kloparren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 12:11 AM
  #143
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,865
vCash: 50
I'd like if contracts were based on % of cap. This way, if a player signs for 10% of 50 million he gets 5 mil, but if in the duration of his contract cap reaches 70 mil, the player gets 7 mil that year.

In return, I'd suggest rolling back the % revenues for players.

LyricalLyricist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 12:36 AM
  #144
Drury_Sakic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,312
vCash: 500
Easy, I have always thought the players should present this plan.

1) Keep Hockey Related Revenue as it is under the past CBA.

*Reason - What the players probably want in the end. Owners can also probably live with it.

2) Tier the players share down over 6 Years.

- 55% Year One
- 53.5% Year Two
- 52.5% Year Three
- 52% Year Four
- Set up independent authority to look at losses of the NHL. If more than 3 teams are losing more than 15 million a season, the players share ticks down 51% in Year Five and 50 in Year Six. If that situation does not exist, the share stays at 52% for the final 2 years.
- Mutual Option to Sign a 2 year extention if agreed to at the 52% level after Year Six.

* Slowly walks the players closer to the owners. Helps teams up at the cap to work down from it. Owners end up getting continued saftey net as the league moves forward. Players get assurance that the books have to be opened fully in year 5.

3) Salary Floor Drops by .2% for each of the first 5 years, bringing the floor down a small bit.

4) Allow teams to trade ONE player and pay half their pay. The team acquring the player would take on the full cap hit. A team may only take on or trade away one player at a time. If the player it traded again the full cap hit and salary bounces to the new team.

*Reason - Gives the expensive players out there a chance to keep playing and helps avoid AHL demotions. Also helps cash strapped teams add potentially impact players at a bargin price.

5) Teams can trade for extra cap space. Teams can trade for other teams cap space, 1st Round Pick gets you 2 million, 2nd gets you 1 million, 3rd 500k. Teams can only trade for cap space prior to the start of the season at the draft OR at the trade deadline. Picks can be from up to 3 drafts out. (maxing you out at an extra 3.5 million) Teams cannot trade for/away cap space in consecutive years.

* Reason - Allows teams that need to get a boost at the deadline to make a move. Also allows contending teams to possibly hold a roster together for one more season at the draft. Cost for the space is high enough to prevent teams doing it year after year after year. Players and some teams benefit here as it becomes easier for players to move to contenders. Helps teams rebuild. The limit to non-consecutive years helps prevent teams from consistantly living above the cap.The limiting dates potentially increases the entertainment value of the draft and deadline days.

6) Contract Term Limit to 8 years for players under 30 by July 1st. 6 years for players 30-34. 4 Years for players 35+.

* Reason - Prevents teams from loading deals to players in years that they probably will never play, i.e. age 40 + years....but still gives players the ability to sign lengthy deals that reward them and help teams manage cap hits.

7) UFA and Entry Level Deals remain the same.

8) Teams can buy out one player prior to the start of this season at the FULL salary, but ZERO cap hit. Buyout pay does not count towards players share. Player cannot play for the team they are bought out by for 1 season.

* Allows cap strapped teams a chance out of a bad deal....most cap strapped teams are not cash strapped....so pay the full deal if you want out of your own cap hell.

Sign it and lets play hockey.


Last edited by Drury_Sakic: 09-19-2012 at 12:48 AM.
Drury_Sakic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 01:03 AM
  #145
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drury_Sakic View Post
Easy, I have always thought the players should present this plan.

1) Keep Hockey Related Revenue as it is under the past CBA.

*Reason - What the players probably want in the end. Owners can also probably live with it.

2) Tier the players share down over 6 Years.

- 55% Year One
- 53.5% Year Two
- 52.5% Year Three
- 52% Year Four
- Set up independent authority to look at losses of the NHL. If more than 3 teams are losing more than 15 million a season, the players share ticks down 51% in Year Five and 50 in Year Six. If that situation does not exist, the share stays at 52% for the final 2 years.
- Mutual Option to Sign a 2 year extention if agreed to at the 52% level after Year Six.

* Slowly walks the players closer to the owners. Helps teams up at the cap to work down from it. Owners end up getting continued saftey net as the league moves forward. Players get assurance that the books have to be opened fully in year 5.

3) Salary Floor Drops by .2% for each of the first 5 years, bringing the floor down a small bit.

4) Allow teams to trade ONE player and pay half their pay. The team acquring the player would take on the full cap hit. A team may only take on or trade away one player at a time. If the player it traded again the full cap hit and salary bounces to the new team.

*Reason - Gives the expensive players out there a chance to keep playing and helps avoid AHL demotions. Also helps cash strapped teams add potentially impact players at a bargin price.

5) Teams can trade for extra cap space. Teams can trade for other teams cap space, 1st Round Pick gets you 2 million, 2nd gets you 1 million, 3rd 500k. Teams can only trade for cap space prior to the start of the season at the draft OR at the trade deadline. Picks can be from up to 3 drafts out. (maxing you out at an extra 3.5 million) Teams cannot trade for/away cap space in consecutive years.

* Reason - Allows teams that need to get a boost at the deadline to make a move. Also allows contending teams to possibly hold a roster together for one more season at the draft. Cost for the space is high enough to prevent teams doing it year after year after year. Players and some teams benefit here as it becomes easier for players to move to contenders. Helps teams rebuild. The limit to non-consecutive years helps prevent teams from consistantly living above the cap.The limiting dates potentially increases the entertainment value of the draft and deadline days.

6) Contract Term Limit to 8 years for players under 30 by July 1st. 6 years for players 30-34. 4 Years for players 35+.

* Reason - Prevents teams from loading deals to players in years that they probably will never play, i.e. age 40 + years....but still gives players the ability to sign lengthy deals that reward them and help teams manage cap hits.

7) UFA and Entry Level Deals remain the same.

8) Teams can buy out one player prior to the start of this season at the FULL salary, but ZERO cap hit. Buyout pay does not count towards players share. Player cannot play for the team they are bought out by for 1 season.

* Allows cap strapped teams a chance out of a bad deal....most cap strapped teams are not cash strapped....so pay the full deal if you want out of your own cap hell.

Sign it and lets play hockey.

Why would any player who has to negotiate a contract in the next 4 years vote for that? and why would the 18 or so owners losing money agree to it?

Orrthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 01:18 AM
  #146
Drury_Sakic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
Why would any player who has to negotiate a contract in the next 4 years vote for that? and why would the 18 or so owners losing money agree to it?
Why? Because it avoids the prospect of losing another season to a lockout while allowing both owners and players to claim victory.

A mid tier player is likely to fork over between 3-5 million over the season, plus their future share is only going to get smaller when revenue shrinks due to the lost season...even if it does eventually grow back. Mike Modano estimated he lost 7 million due to the lockout...which is something hardly any player is going to gain back over their career, even if they give back some of their share of revenue in the now.

It gives the owners 5 to 7 % share points down on the 57% over the term of the CBA. (which, if things are as bad as the NHL claims, there will be 3 teams losing 15 + in year 4 to trigger the drop to a 50-50 split) If the NHL cannot live with a 50-50 split at the worst, it should give the PA proof that a real revenue sharing plan needs to be formed in the following CBA. Depending on revenue, that cuts 5-7.7 million off the cap based on 3.3 billion in revenue. Again, it shares the burden between the players cutting losses via their checks and on the owners to run the team better in general.....for example by signing better leases for the arenas and saving money elsewhere. This closes the gap for almost every team in the league to balancing out, but does not eliminate poorly run teams from losing money. (at 3.3 billion, a 50% share equals out to a 55 million cap versus a 62.7 cap, a 7.7 drop, presuming revenue does not grow a penny from now till 6 years out, at 52 it would make the cap 57.2, still a 5 million drop in the cap)

Why? The floor drops slightly to help out financially strapped teams. If a team really cannot afford the floor, they can acquire a big contract from other teams to get there at half the salary.

Why? It limits players contracts lengths to something reasonable, but still allows players to get some decent term and is not as drastic as the NHL's proposal. A very small segment of players would be impacted by this.

Why? Players would probably not have to give a roll back, as the tiered approach would allow for contracts to balance out. Worst case they lose a small amount via escrow.

Why? The last few days before the 15th proved that players knew things would be worse under a new CBA...thus yeah, players signing over the next few seasons are going to get the shaft a bit...but at a share in the low 50's verses the mid 40's like the NHL is holding the line at.

It is the middle ground, slightly tilted towards the players.....which is why the players would propose it. It is not great for either side, but gets them close enough together to potentially get a deal.


Last edited by Drury_Sakic: 09-19-2012 at 01:32 AM.
Drury_Sakic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 01:28 AM
  #147
Old Man Barking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,213
vCash: 500
To me, it seems the NHL/Owners will not settle for 50-50, it MUST favor the NHL/Owners.

Old Man Barking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 01:42 AM
  #148
Drury_Sakic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirBoddington View Post
To me, it seems the NHL/Owners will not settle for 50-50, it MUST favor the NHL/Owners.
Considering in a 50-50% split, the owners give up nothing on the previous CBA and the players walk down from 57%...it would favor the NHL/Owners.....plus there is almost certain to be some sort of term limits on contracts and/or prevention of manipulating the cap hit as some deals have.

Though I tend to agree with you, sorta. The only way the players get a CBA with a share of 50% or more IMO is if they present a deal in short order that takes a big step closer to 50%....big enough that the teams making money under the prior CBA have a strong motivation to keep the train rolling.


Last edited by Drury_Sakic: 09-19-2012 at 02:08 AM.
Drury_Sakic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 01:48 AM
  #149
rdawg1234
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirBoddington View Post
To me, it seems the NHL/Owners will not settle for 50-50, it MUST favor the NHL/Owners.
Where have you gotten that from? After they offered 49%, they even said that percentage does not have to be final and does have wiggle room.

50-52% favoring the players is very possible but only if they negotiate it soon.

rdawg1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 05:13 PM
  #150
Slatsmsg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Airdrie
Posts: 554
vCash: 370
Listening to snippets of an interview with Mathieu Schneider from the NHLPA yesterday, he indicated that the NHL and NHLPA has essentially agreed that the definition of HRR is to remain as is from the previous CBA and that the question now is essentially how to split it up.

Previously, as we are all aware the players collectively bargained to get 57% of the HRR. I see this disparity in revenue (versus the NHL's 43%) as fair concession for the rollback (24%) and the acceptance of the salary cap (I call it acceptance regardless of what it was, they signed the CBA).

Splitting the Pie

It's widely assumed that it will be somewhere around a 50/50 split by the time it's all said and done. The owners (GB) claim the current economics don't work yet are somewhat disingenuous signing RFA's and extending others to long term deals, some of which have been questioned as to their dollar amount. For example, Kari Lehtonen getting Kiprussof dollars while not really showing the same sort of productivity (yes, he had a good year) and still having health questions. Kind of slaps their argument in the face but whatever. The players for their part, from what I can understand of their offers to the NHL, have been seeking a way to help with the revenue sharing/luxury tax sort of system rather than truly addressing the NHL's offer(s).

Take aways

There needs to be a way to help the smaller market teams remain viable

Contraction is in no ones best interest, the Players Union does not want to see their membership decrease, GB wants to make the traditional non hockey markets work or relocate them (a difficult proposition)

The HRR, according to what I heard on the radio interview with Schneider is agreed upon.

The players do not want to take a cut to prop up owners that are not running a strong/viable business or making wise decisions (for thier part I am sure the owners don't want that either).

Proposal

NHL & NHLPA split the revenues 49/49 with 2% of the revenues being held in escrow to serve as revenue sharing for the smaller market teams that do not reach the league average in terms of profit.

There needs to be a contingency to the revenue sharing however. The players don't want to fore go a cent to prop up a bad owner and the NHL cannot afford to through equalization payments at franchises that are poorly run. The players and the NHL need to sit down and draft a set of readily accepted practices of running a franchise to maximize their profitability. In this scope of practices could be marketing, ticket prices, entertainment etc...This may be more difficult than most of the CBA negotiations but I feel some sort of structure needs to be in place. If a franchise follows these practices in scope and is below the league average for profitability, they get topped up out of that 2%. If the franchise is being poorly ran and is outside the scope of the aforementioned practices in its day to day operations, they receive nothing. Anything left over outside of the equailization payments (from the 2% being held in escrow) goes directly to the players union.

How's this for a starting point??

Flame away.

Slatsmsg 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 09:08 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.