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
09-29-2012, 11:49 AM
  #176
FabledKnight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 242
vCash: 500
51/49 Spilt (O/P)

5yr ELC's

RFA Status is up after 7yrs in league averaging 68 games per year or 492 games or at age 27

Max Contract Length at 9yrs.

Max Player Salary cap increased to 12%

Contracts sign before age 35 still count against cap if Player Retires

Cap Dollars allowed to be traded

After 3yrs of Play at an average of 68 games per year. Players get an Automatic Trade Agreement Clause. Basically any move will need Player(s) approval.

Decrease Cap floor to 12mill from Cap Ceiling.

FabledKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 02:33 PM
  #177
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,357
vCash: 133
ok.. i ran the numbers on the 10 yr proposal... my numbers would not of worked for the owners...

So i threw the numbers onto a spreadsheet and played with the numbers and how they would look...

And this looked like the best scenario.

*It is important to know that it is my assumption that the 2 sides will agree on a 50-50 split for the next CBA...

So what seemed to look the best:

10 yr deal.
1st 5 yrs, 1.89 bil to the players in yr 1 increasing 3%/yr
- yrs 3,4 and 5 restriction: Player's share cannot exceed 55% or dip below 50%
Yrs 6-10: player % becomes linked and goes 51, 50, 49, 48, and finally 47 in yr 10.
(The next deal is assumed to be 50-50 for the duration of human existance)


Initial reaction may be: OMG! 47%! never!

Here's the spreadsheet results for totals over the 10 yr deal.

Zero revenue growth - 0% - (2nd) Worst case scenario
Total rev: $33 billion
PLayers' Share: 52.63%
Owners' share: 47.37%

3% / yr revenue growth - disappointing, but still growth
Total rev: $37.8 billion
Players' share: 52.15%
Owners' share: 47.85%
Cap in yr 10: $75.4 mil

5% revenue growth - safe conservative estimate
Total rev: $41.5 billion
PLayer's share: 51.59%
Owners' share: 48.41%
Cap in yr 10: $88.2 mil

7.1% revenue growth - what the player are referencing for assumed growth
Total rev: $45.8 billion
Players' share: 50.48%
Owners' share: 49.52%
Cap in yr 10: 103.9 mil

10% revenue growth - extremely optimistic
Total rev: $52.6 billion
PLayers' share: $49.99%
Owners share: 50.01%
Cap in yr 10: $130 mil
===========================

So assuming revenue growth likely being between 3 and 7.1%/yr you can see where the shares could end up...

Players total share would range between 50.5 - 51.5% over the deal without player actual money ever dipping less than they are presently making, or even having the cap dip (unless they lose games this yr, and once between yrs 5-6 in the 3% growth model) and with the cap rising, possibley significantly.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 02:45 PM
  #178
TravisUlrich
Eternal Optimist
 
TravisUlrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,765
vCash: 500
With the way discussions are going, my hunch is that the NHLPA is preparing to map out all the minor CBA issues and win as many of those as they can while losing the big economic issue. After all, once the lockout goes into mid-November, they will have lost more money than they can recoup... And let's face it, the players will eventually fold.

TravisUlrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 03:36 PM
  #179
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,611
vCash: 50
The NHL position is frankly unrealistic. The average career in the league is five years. So... the average guy NEVER gets to be a free agent?

The only solution is a new league. Let the entrenched owners see thier franchise values fall to nothing and then see how Mr.Bettman's machinations look.

JuniorNelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 05:04 PM
  #180
Milhouse40
Registered User
 
Milhouse40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,936
vCash: 500
One simple solution to this Lockout

Simple.....mayby not "THAT" simple, but a solution that might work!

We all know the issue.......basically, more money for both!!!!
Let's make more money!!!

Not everything has to happen exactly as i write them!
Only some of them would close the deal!

Step 1:

An expansion right away
2 Canadians teams.........that's where the money is!!
Quebec and Markham mayby Hamilton....don't care, 2 CAN teams

Means a lot more REVENUES
Also means more jobs available for the players
Means rebalancing the division/association (less travel = more money fot the owners)

Step 2:

Phoenix become Seattle

More revenues
Less revenue-sharing

Step 3:

More playoff = more money

11 teams per association in the playoff instead of 8 (only 5 teams out of the playoff....considering the expansion to 32 teams)
3 teams will make more revenues and more profits for the owners than in the previous years.

Let's make the season more meaningfull........

First round:
Only position 6 to 11 face each other (3 series/association) in a 3 out of 5 series
Position 1 to 5 don't play.....
Leaves us 3 teams

Secound round:

Now we have 8 teams as usual, the traditional playoff as we know start.

Now it will mean a lot more than just home ice advantage to finish in the top 5!!!

And i just had a between 18 and 30 playoff games
A lot of money there!!!!

Step 4:

Crazy idea.......All-star Game means nothing and revenues are lower every year for that match.

East vs West

Since the Stanley Cup finals is between a team of each association
The winner gets Home ice advantage for the Stanley cup Finals.

Now this game would mean something and will be watch by far more poeple!!
More revenues

Step 5:

Allows teams (not forced them) to add ONE sponsors on their games shirts (Small, at the bottom int he back)....more revenues


Step 6:

The NHL Winter Classic has been generating a lot of revenues since 2008.
Double it up!!!

The American NHL Winter Classic
The Canadian NHL winter Classic

There you go.....more revenues!!!!


I'm throwing some ideas, but still....more revenues for everyone!
What's not to like!!!!
Pretty sure with all those ideas, the NHL would make enough money for both sides!

Milhouse40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 06:55 PM
  #181
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,357
vCash: 133
playing with the spreadsheet a bit more...
a 6 yr deal just doesn't look like it can satisfy both sides... 10 seems long..

here's an 8 yr option...

- Increased revenue sharing - obviously required.

Yrs 1-4:
1.89 bil +3%/yr.
Owner protection: yrs 3-4 can't exceed 55%. Player protection: can't dip below 50%

Yrs 5-8:
Becomes linked at 52, 50, 49, 48.
Player protection: Once revenue hits $4.75 billion: 50% min share. At $6 bil: 52% share

So At

3%/yr growth over 8 yrs:
Players: 52.7%, $15.5 billion

5% growth over 8 yrs:
Players: 52.3%, $16.5 billion

7% growth over 8 yrs:
Players: 52.0%, 17.6 billion

10% growth over 8yrs:
Players: 51.6%, 19.4 billion

Players' share would hover between 51.5-52.5%
Virtually ZERO drop in player in player actual $$, unless the revenues really dry up (less than 4%).
Long term health for the league achieved with their real dollars really increasing.

in a 5% growth model..
Players shares go from 1.89 bil to 2.23 bil in yr 8.
Owners shares go from 1.41 bil to 2.41 bil in yr 8.
So in Yr 9.. both sides would be set going fwd at splitting $4.8+ billion 50-50.

Players would still be sitting with the overall majority $$ share with this model... so owners won't like that... But they would be seeing a pretty great improvement in $$ share to strengthen the league ... i.e. no excuses for money being a reason for team failing to invest on their on-ice product.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 07:51 PM
  #182
McLovin25
Eberle=Clutch
 
McLovin25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,223
vCash: 500
End the lockout quickly and efficently

Theyre are 3 simple ways in my mind to fix the lockout and end it now.

1. Stop with this stupid % of HRR BS for the cap number, Make the cap frozzen at 70m until the 70m is equal to 50% of HRR. At that point, the cap will become 50% of league revenue again.

This makes the owners happy, in the sense that they save money long term. The players are happy as their current contracts arent effected, and since the cap is the same, nobody is waived to create space.

2. Get the Coyotes the **** outta the desert and move them to canada.
2.1 You get a massive relocation fee. This helps cover the money lost from the lockout.
2.2 Quebec city has the funds to field a competitive team, and will spend more then phoenix did. This means the players will get paid more money.
2.3 You dont waste that money on keeping the team in the desert.

3. Increase player fines. Instead of 2500. make the maximum 25000. Yes thats right, there is an extra 0. The money collected would be entered into the revenue sharing system. The players, while not wanting to pay 10x as much, agree to this because the increase in fines hopefully makes players think longer about that dirty cheap shot they decide to throw.

McLovin25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 07:54 PM
  #183
nhlfan9191
Registered User
 
nhlfan9191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Saskatoon, Sk
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4thLinePlug View Post
Theyre are 3 simple ways in my mind to fix the lockout and end it now.

1. Stop with this stupid % of HRR BS for the cap number, Make the cap frozzen at 70m until the 70m is equal to 50% of HRR. At that point, the cap will become 50% of league revenue again.

This makes the owners happy, in the sense that they save money long term. The players are happy as their current contracts arent effected, and since the cap is the same, nobody is waived to create space.

2. Get the Coyotes the **** outta the desert and move them to canada.
2.1 You get a massive relocation fee. This helps cover the money lost from the lockout.
2.2 Quebec city has the funds to field a competitive team, and will spend more then phoenix did. This means the players will get paid more money.
2.3 You dont waste that money on keeping the team in the desert.

3. Increase player fines. Instead of 2500. make the maximum 25000. Yes thats right, there is an extra 0. The money collected would be entered into the revenue sharing system. The players, while not wanting to pay 10x as much, agree to this because the increase in fines hopefully makes players think longer about that dirty cheap shot they decide to throw.
If it was that easy. It would have been done already.

nhlfan9191 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 05:16 PM
  #184
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,491
vCash: 500
HNIC Radio had some interesting ideas today. Especially Heals .

Including: Pay 50% now, but any $$s "owed" based on signed contracts over that amount put in annuity to be paid when player reaches 65.

(I should have been taking notes -- some very creative ideas.)

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 08:05 PM
  #185
The Shrike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 464
vCash: 500
A rather large obstacle seems to be the leagues insistence on a rollback vs. the players insistence that the owners live up to deals they've already signed.

A compromise could be the players agreeing to a 50-50 split, a maximum length of 5 years for future contracts, and the six year contract length the owners want, in exchange for all current contracts being honoured as signed.

To solve the cap problem caused by those contracts, all current ones would have their cap hits reduced by 20%. That would bring the top payroll teams cap hits down from $68 million, to $55 million.

The money situation would still be problematic in the short term, but going forward, the rise of the owners share from 43% to 50% should put almost all of them back in the black.

The Shrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 12:08 AM
  #186
Cypher
#GenieArmy
 
Cypher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,542
vCash: 140
Have a steady salary cap for the duration of the CBA. Any excess revenue is to be given back to the teams, split 30 ways, for non-player related issues, such as arena upgrades, fan promotions, etc...


.. Or just bring back the WHA

Cypher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 10:13 AM
  #187
SCP Guy
Registered User
 
SCP Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Peg
Country: Portugal
Posts: 1,933
vCash: 50
Serious Revenue Sharing?

So what would a serious revenue sharing system look like in todays NHL? Would something like every team put in 25% of HRR into an NHL pot and everyone gets 1/30th of that work? I'm not even sure to what levels current revenue sharing is set at and what HRR is included in that figure?

I think we can all agree that a more substantial revenue sharing system would be good for the health of the league as way to many teams for one reason or another (that we don't have to get into in this thread) can't seem to break even. So what levels are we looking at to make a difference for the bottom 10 teams without sucking up all the profits of the top 10 team?


SCP Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 11:18 AM
  #188
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCP Guy View Post
So what would a serious revenue sharing system look like in todays NHL? Would something like every team put in 25% of HRR into an NHL pot and everyone gets 1/30th of that work? I'm not even sure to what levels current revenue sharing is set at and what HRR is included in that figure?

I think we can all agree that a more substantial revenue sharing system would be good for the health of the league as way to many teams for one reason or another (that we don't have to get into in this thread) can't seem to break even. So what levels are we looking at to make a difference for the bottom 10 teams without sucking up all the profits of the top 10 team?

Much more than that.

25% of HRR would give 25M to each team (25% of 3B/30). Bottom revenue teams are about 80M so it only adds 5M to their bottom line, thats only about 40% of what the NHL is asking for in player reductions.

And what does that cost Toronto for example? 25M.

If you doubled it to 50% revenue sharing, thats 10M for the bottom teams, almost there, but that then costs Toronto 50M dollars, well above a 50% tax on their profits.

There just gets to be a point where it does not work, and I personally feel its well before the players having to not give up anything.

ottawah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 11:41 AM
  #189
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
I think we're all missing the point that if a product cannot sell despite a much lower than market average pricing, it isn't going to work no matter what system you have.

Here are my creative suggestions:

1) 50/50 revenue split of NHL related HRR. This is about the standard for other leagues and it just makes sense. Both sides need each other for the league to work. Set it at 50/50, and never touch it again...ever.

2) UFA after 6 years. NHL wants 10, currently set at 7. Small concession to the players so that they accept...

3) RFA bridge contracts. Consider it a second ELC. In the 4th and 5th years, contract cap hits are capped at 7.5% of the salary cap upper limit. That allows this number to grow as revenues grow, while keeping post-ELC contracts manageable preventing inflation.

4) The top 5 revenue teams pay in 10% of their revenues into revenue sharing, to be distributed to the bottom 5 revenue teams should they qualify for revenue sharing. If the bottom 5 revenue teams do not qualify, then the remaining amount is distributed back to the teams that earned this revenue. In order to qualify for revenue sharing, bottom 5 teams MUST achieve a minimum of 90% of that teams arena capacity, with an average ticket price no less than 15% lower than the league average. Sorry, but if you can't sell your product like everyone else then why should everyone else have to support you?

5) CBA length: 10 years

6) Annual USA Winter Classic, Annual Canada Winter Classic. All-Star Game becomes a West vs. East matchup to determine home ice advantage in the SCF (as mentioned in another post above), and an NHL sponsored World Cup of Hockey every 4 years (mid-way between Olympics). Revenues from the WC of Hockey to be split between the IIHF and the NHL owners. Players are not compensated.

Thoughts?

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 11:54 AM
  #190
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,472
vCash: 500
I'd like to see a three year CBA where by either side can choose to extend it another three years, or they can mutually decide to extend it five more. Something that will just get them playing right now with fewer long term implications.

rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 11:57 AM
  #191
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,270
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
I'd like to see a three year CBA where by either side can choose to extend it another three years, or they can mutually decide to extend it five more. Something that will just get them playing right now with fewer long term implications.
We'd just be in another lockout 3 years from now

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2012, 07:50 AM
  #192
sparkychewbarky
Registered User
 
sparkychewbarky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
We'd just be in another lockout 3 years from now
Agreed.

I found this cartoon in a local rag...



Last edited by sparkychewbarky: 10-12-2012 at 07:57 AM.
sparkychewbarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2012, 12:06 PM
  #193
JMT21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 807
vCash: 500
1) ELC / RFA / UFA rules stay the same

2) Each team permitted to "dump" one guaranteed contract per season

3) Each team permitted to designate a "franchise" player where salary doesn't go against the cap.

4) 25 - 50% of all regional TV deals to be shared and put towards revenue sharing.

5) Dump 1 or 2 of the bottom feeders and relocate to profitable markets

6) Lower the cap floor by 10% once HRR percentages are hammered out.

7) 10 year CBA..... will benefit vast majority of current players thru the end of their careers

8) Revenue Split to start at 53/47 players.... once 50/50 is reached, it stays permanently.

9) Designate that all future CBA negotiations must start no less than 12 months from expiry date of current CBA.

JMT21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2012, 03:14 PM
  #194
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,734
vCash: 1200
Warning - long and rambly post ahead, proceed with caution. Doesn't cover all the issues, but it tries to touch on lots of them.


My unreasonable solution, which both sides should hate equally:

Global Economics

- (assuming a December 1 start of the season) the remainder of 2012/13 season will continue under the terms of the previously agreed to CBA, which is now set to expire July 1. This provides teams seven months to "get their house in order".

- “Hockey Related Revenue” is based on NHL's revised definition of HRR. For 2012/13 season, any adjustments (if necessary) shall occur via escrow payments.

- Effective July 1, 2013, implement a reduction of the player's share to 54% of newly defined HRR, which is the same share it was to start with in 2005. This represents a 9.4% reduction in salary for the players under contract through the 2013/14 season and beyond.

- Players' share of revenue remains at 54% provided revenue grows at 3.5% or more each year in the first five years of the agreement. If revenue growth falls below 3.5% for two or more consecutive years, player's share is reduced in a corresponding manner (ie: growth is only 2.5%, player's share drops 1%). In any case, players get no less than 50% of HRR.

- Also effective for the period of July 1-July 15, a one time amnesty buyout period to allow ownership to get under the revised salary cap for an unlimited number of players per team. All buyouts are to be for 100% of the remaining contract value.

- Future contract buyouts would not count against the salary cap, however value of these buyouts are at 100% of the contract value owed, and are taxed at $2.00 for every $1.00 bought out and tax funds go to revenue sharing. (buying out a player with a salary of $1 million costs $3 million - $1 million to the player and $2 million to R/S)

- CBA initial length is 10 years. If it is determined that an extension is agreeable to both sides, extensions will be in three year terms.

Player Contracts & Free Agency

- First level (ELC) contracts (from ages 18-21) are capped at current levels & bonus structure.

- Second level contracts (from ages 22-25) are capped at 5% of the team's overall salary cap (i.e.: $70 million salary cap, the most that a player can be signed to is $3.5 million). Players in this category are not waiver exempt when assigned to a junior league, but draft pick compensation would be required based on number of NHL games played (chart TBD).

- A player becomes a free agent at the age of 25, regardless of how many games are played (or not played) in the NHL. Teams holding a players' rights at age of 25 when they hit free agency have right of first refusal, and current RFA compensation levels remain similar.

- Players over the age of 25 that are signed to NHL contracts count against the salary cap, even if they are playing in other leagues.

- Individual players' contract will be capped at 15% of salary cap ($70 million cap, max salary is $10.5 million)

- The age limit for retirement contracts counting against the cap is increased to age 40.

Salary Cap & Revenue Sharing

- Yearly salary earned is what counts against the cap for a certain year, not the average amount (no front loading contracts is allowed anymore – in my opinion, this is what is causing the owners to "lose" money with record revenues as the actual salaries are not tied to the cap, just the average salaries).

- Up to $5 million in cap space may be traded by a team for a player or draft picks, to help a team reach the draft floor. The team that acquires this cap space must pay a 5:1 luxury tax, to be paid into revenue sharing. This cap space may not be carried over after the end of the season. Acquiring cap space means the team may not collect revenue sharing income.

- A team may also exceed the salary cap during the season, with a luxury tax of 10:1 and a maximum of $5 million, to be paid into revenue sharing. A team may only do this once per five year period. Exceeding the cap means the team may not collect revenue sharing income for that five year period.

- LTIR may be granted (without consideration for # of missed games) to teams who have players that are seriously injured after the trade deadline (expected to miss 4-6 weeks, as an example), and may not return during the regular season.

- NHL takes ownership of all broadcast rights, including regional broadcast rights. Only 25% of the money generated in the local market remains with that franchise, the remaining 75% of the money generated is distributed equally among the remaining franchises.

Ownership & Other Misc. Stuff

- The NHL is barred from having ownership of a team for longer than eighteen months. If a suitable local owner is not found during the first year of league ownership, the team must be offered to out of market interests, including those who may relocate the team at a relocation fee of $crazyamount, to be shared by owners only (as it would not be considered hockey related revenue). If no owner is found, the franchise is dissolved and a dispersal draft is held.

- World Cup idea as mentioned above (re-renaming it to the Canada Cup). Players participation costs would be covered as part of the revenues from the Canada Cup (ie: insurance, accommodation, per diems, etc.) along with bonuses for team performance (ie: winning = players get x amount of $. Second place is less $, etc.).

- NHL is not permitted to make unilateral decisions on items directly affecting players' (such as divisional realignment, number of and location of exhibition games, heritage classic venues, etc.) without first passing a motion through a joint committee comprised of NHL executives and NHLPA reps. This includes discussion on destination markets for new / relocated franchises.

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2012, 04:41 PM
  #195
Brian28
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,535
vCash: 500
I don't know if anyone else has had this idea, so here goes. 50/50 split of HRR is generally seen as fair for both sides and keep the definition of HRR the same. The 7% being reclaimed through the players is done through escrow over the course of 4 years. This helps to lessen the hit on current payers while also absorbing some of the hit over time.

That 7% goes stright to revenue sharing(RS) but only to teams who have losses and only enough to bring those teams to a break even point. To ensure the system remains fair I propose the NHLPA gets to see the amount any team requests from their share of RS. Then the NHLPA has the option to have the caliming team audited (with confidentiality agreement of course) at the NHLPA's expense. Should the audit uncover fraudulent claims the team is excluded from collecting any RS for 2 years. The important part though is the NHLPA would have control over where their money is spent to a large degree.

Also, if there is anything remaining from the players 7% of revenue sharing the following year the balance would be returned to the players.

IMO this kind of helps everybody including the players goal of maintaining 57%. As franchises become proftiable they are excluded from the players RS and that money is then retruned to the players the following year. If all franchises at least break even the players get their 57% be it with a little delay.

Brian28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2012, 04:55 PM
  #196
McRib
2nd Rate Fan
 
McRib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,421
vCash: 500
Lock them all in a room with no food or water until they reach an agreement.

Creative enough?

McRib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2012, 05:23 PM
  #197
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,734
vCash: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoobs View Post
Lock them all in a room with no food or water until they reach an agreement.

Creative enough?
Considering this sentiment predates 2004, I'm guessing no, not creative enough.

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2012, 05:34 PM
  #198
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,329
vCash: 500
What would my ideal new CBA look like?

Big Picture Stuff

- Keep the same definition of HRR.

- Split 50/50 between owners and players.

- If the 2012 season had started reasonably on time I would have preferred a one year bridge to get down to 50%. With what's looking to be at least a partial lost season two year bridge is okay. Year 1 it's a 55/45 Player/Owner split, Year 2 is 52/48 and Year 3+ is 50/50.

- CBA length similar to 2005 terms, including NHLPA options.


Salary Cap

- Use the same formula to establish the cap midpoint.

- Either set the cap ceiling to $6m over the midpoint (currently $8m) or 10% over the midpoint. The reason behind this is to reduce the likelihood that players will lose a portion of their salaries via escrow. In most years of the past CBA the players did so--the salary cap was set too high more often then not.

- If the NHLPA desires to lower the salary cap ceiling calculation even further so most years the owners will be paying extra to the players instead of vice versa that would be okay. It would best be done in the base formula though, as past history shows the optional yearly inflator was always used, even when it probably shouldn't have.

- What should salary cap floor be set to? What would be the maximum gap of spending that allows lower revenue teams some budgetary discretion while maintaining a reasonable envelope of payroll competitiveness across the league. Reading some various articles on MLB's situation back in the early 2000's when the top portion of teams were averaging a 2:1 ratio over the bottom portion the league set a goal of moving to a 1.6:1 ratio (62.5% of the ceiling). I think that's a reasonable figure that approximately matches the cap situation in 2006-2007, the first year the CBA's $16m range was used where the $28m floor was 63.6% of the $44m ceiling.

- Between my suggestion to reduce the ceiling calc and adjust the floor calc if a 50/50 HRR share were in place for 2012-2013 and the 5% escalator remains in place that would have yielded a cap of $60.6m and floor of $37.9m. Note: I'm proposing to phase in the 50/50 target over more than one year but wanted to highlight what the cap would have looked like with an immediate 50/50 split. With the proposed 55% in year 1 that would give a cap of $66.1m and floor of $41.3m for 2012-2013.


Closing Loopholes

- Maximum player contract length of 7 years. That should be enough to close most of the retirement deal shenanigans in a simple way.

- Teams can loan players on 1-way contracts to the minor leagues at no penalty if the player's salary is 50% or less of league average. Players on 1-way contracts greater than 50% of league average can still be loaned, but a portion of the contract will count against the team's cap. Suggestion would be dollar for dollar over 50% of league average salary, but willing to negotiate. This will allow teams to still take risks on signing potentially fringe roster players to 1-way contracts without penalty while reducing the incentive to bury large contracts for cap reasons.

- Remove the 35+ rule, but introduce a new system to address the concerns that caused the rule to be created as well as the retirement contracts. If a player aged 30+ retires for any reason while still having future seasons remaining on their contract then any teams the player played for will have a cap hit assigned to them equal to the difference between the player's salary and cap hit during the period they played with the team. This cap hit will be spread equally across either half the # of years the player played for the team (rounded up) or the years left remaining on the contract, whichever is smaller. This idea would work similarly to how the buyout process assigns a cap hit to a team that accounts for over or underpayment of salary compared to cap hit. For example, if Zach Parise (contract of 12/12/11/9/9/9/9/9/8/6/2/1/1) decides to retire after year 10 of his contract he would have been paid a total of $94m while only carrying a total cap hit of $75.4m. That $18.6m difference will be assessed against the team's cap at $6.2m/year in years 11-13. If a player is traded during their contract then all teams the player paid for are assessed according to the salary received vs. contract for the period that played for the team.


Free Agency and Contract Terms

- Keep the existing ELC structure.

- Continue proportional increases in the ELC maximum contract size similar to 2005 CBA. Increase league minimum from current $550k to $650k or $750k over life of CBA.

- UFA after 8 accrued seasons or at age 28. This is a bump of one year over the current 7 seasons or age 27.

- Open to further restricting or eliminating team-elected arbitration arbitration as a concession to players.


Escrow and Player Salaries

- No rollbacks to player contracts, unless the NHLPA would prefer to do so. The players are going to get their negotiated % of the pie regardless. A rollback only affects what portion of that pie goes to players currently under contract versus players on new future contracts.

- Escrow system otherwise the same.

- As noted earlier, willing to negotiate a solution where escrow clawback becomes very unlikely to be triggered, but that will require pushing the cap lower.


Revenue Sharing

- If the current revenue sharing calculation model continues to be used, raise the % of revenue sharing from it's current 4.5% (~$150m/year) to ~8% (~$260m/year). With increasing central revenue from the new TV deals it should be possible to achieve much of this increase without substantial hikes on the direct revenue sharing payments from the top clubs. Depending on the exact amounts that are available for funding this % increase could be phased in over more than one year.

- Increase the market size thresholds permitted to receive revenue sharing to include the same list of cities as it was initially in the 2005 CBA (Toronto, NY area, Los Angeles, Chicago)

- If a different system for sharing revenue is used then a completely different set of math and %'s would be required.


Misc Topics

- NHL will continue to allow its players to participate in the Olympics.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2012, 07:39 PM
  #199
zytz
lumberjack
 
zytz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,787
vCash: 500
Dunno if this has been floated yet, and I'll have to let the experts tell me if it's financially plausible:

Take a percentage off the top of revenue for sharing... so every team contributes 10% of revenue for example. The remaining 90% is split, and salaries are calculated as a percentage off this number, not 100%. Players get paid, owners get paid... owners who would be put at a net loss by contributing to rev sharing get their money back. Whatever remains in the pot gets distributed by some need-based calculation. Finally throw in 7-year contract limits, and make the cap hit for a player equivalent to the salary paid.

At first glance all sides hate it, which is how you know it's a good deal

zytz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2012, 01:34 AM
  #200
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,412
vCash: 500
Okay, this is long winded. The idea behind it is to actually present something that fixes the NHL long term, and allows the PA to not take a hit short term. That said, I do not think the NHL would accept it as there's no short term relief, and teams will hate the RS idea. In addition all projections are based on the idea that revenues will continue to rise - at least short term. However unless the PA will take a hit, there's no real way around this. But long term, this does solve the NHLs issues as the cap is now based off of the middle of the league, and it doesn't matter how much the top teams drive up revenues.

Okay, here's my idea. Well actually mostly KevFu's idea's, and combined them with the PA's idea that they do not get less than 1.87B. Owners will hate the RS portion, and the fact that there's no short term reductions. PA will like the fact that they do not take a short term hit (in any way shape or form - unless there's no growth then some other provision to go to a straight % kicks in). However the PA will hate the fact that they've lowered the HRR that they're getting a portion of (median*30 vs actual HRR). However this fixes everything long term. They could make provisions that should revenue not rise by x% the first 2 years, that the players revert to x split (and thus take a hit).

Use the median to determine the cap. Keep the split at 57% (although you could lower this to 55%), however if the % comes in at lower than 1.87B, then the players get 1.87B until the % rises. Sad reality is that this method doesn't raise the cap much less than keeping it fixed at 47% (4m difference in mid point after 9 years) - link to excel sheet. However I would bet that this is due to me keeping the median number growing at the same rate as league growth. If someone has a better idea how to calculate the median yearly and accounting for growth, then I'm all ears.

In addition to using the median for the cap, owners have to pool all of their local TV deals to put into RS. Put part of that (say 5%) goes into an industry growth fund for Bettman to hand out as he see's fit, and the rest goes out 30 ways. 5% of 550m (figure total TV deals are 500-600m) is ~27.5m. Not a lot, but with the lowered HRR to determine the cap it should be enough to aid the last 1-2 teams that might need assistance. If this isn't enough RS, then something else can be figured out.

In addition to this, ELC is changed to 4 years, and the only other changes is to how the +35 rule works... if a player retires, is sent to the minors, Europe, etc after they're 35 (regardless of when the contract was signed), the contract still counts towards the cap. If the player is hurt before 35 and retires due to that injury, then the cap hit is waived.

Basically removing loopholes for the GMs to sign long term deals before the player is 35 to lower the cap hit (Luongo, Richards, Kovy, Parise, Suter, etc). We all know the last couple years mean nothing... well now they do. That might not discourage those contracts, but it makes those last few years meaningful as they now still count when the player retires. Sadly you would have to grandfather in this clause. Neither side will like this. PA knows this will lower odds of GMs giving these deals, and GMs will hate the fact that if they do give these deals that there's absolutely no out clause in it (such as the player retiring in their mid/late 30s but 2-3 years before the contract is completed).

Actual Revenue is the current HRR with growth factored in. Median Revenue is the revenue between the 15th and 16th teams (revenue wise). Players split is what they get in cash. Growth is growth. Planned % is what the NHL would like the split to be at (as per the CBA). Median % is how the players share (cash wise) compares to the median number (median*30), %HRR is how the players share matches up to actual revenues. Cap floor and ceiling are +/- 8m.

 Actual RevenueMedian Revenue (97m x 30)Players SplitGrowthPlanned %Median %% HRRMid PointCap FloorCap Ceiling
2012/133,300,000,0002,880,000,0001,870,000,0001.070.570.6490.5762,333,33354,333,33370,333,333
2013/143,531,000,000 3,081,600,000 1,870,000,000 1.07 0.57 0.607 0.53 62,333,333 54,333,333 70,333,333
2014/15 3,778,170,000 3,297,312,000 1,879,467,840 1.07 0.57 0.570 0.50 62,648,928 54,648,928 70,648,928
2015/16 4,042,641,900 3,528,123,840 2,011,030,589 1.07 0.57 0.570 0.50 67,034,353 59,034,353 75,034,353
2016/17 4,325,626,833 3,775,092,509 2,151,802,730 1.07 0.57 0.570 0.50 71,726,758 63,726,758 79,726,758
2017/18 4,628,420,711 4,039,348,984 2,302,428,921 1.07 0.57 0.570 0.50 76,747,631 68,747,631 84,747,631
2018/19 4,952,410,161 4,322,103,413 2,463,598,946 1.07 0.57 0.570 0.50 82,119,965 74,119,965 90,119,965
2019/20 5,299,078,872 4,624,650,652 2,636,050,872 1.07 0.57 0.570 0.50 87,868,362 79,868,362 95,868,362
2020/21 5,670,014,393 4,948,376,198 2,820,574,433 1.07 0.57 0.570 0.50 94,019,148 86,019,148 102,019,148


Last edited by Riptide: 10-13-2012 at 01:39 AM.
Riptide 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 11:30 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.