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
11-02-2012, 12:06 AM
  #226
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,127
vCash: 500
I think the solution just dropped in my lap as i was delivering papers in the freezing rain last night.

first... owners should honor contracts that were agreed to in the past. So a solution needs to keep this in mind.

secondly players cant feel ripped off. So their complaint is that they signed deals in good faith and now those contracts might be 'made whole.'

so the solution... tell any player that feels ripped off that they can walk away as an UFA {no strings attatched} What this will do is take away their 'feelings of being abused. if they think the rules are changing after the fact... give them a redo. This will also reduce the total dollars the owners have committed. Maybe a reduction fo 57% to 50% isnt managable with the current dollars that are promised... but if alot of the russians walk away from their overpaid contracts then suddenly the transaction becomes much much easier. The make whole provision isnt necessary anymore.

on the off chance that not enough players opt for UFA... then the owners just have to reach into their own pocket to make up the difference until things balance out. I would say that owners above the cap are allowed to stay above the cap in order to finance the missing money owed to the players. It would be a voluntary thing. The teams would have to bring their cap down as their current contracts expire. But they wouldnt have to come down unnatrually... and whatever moeny is above the cap would go towards the 'make whole' thing.

the downside is a few russians would opt out of the NHL but its a very very very very very small price to pay. And in a year or two when they face reality, theyd be back with their tails between their legs anyhow.

my other suggestion might screw things up..

i dont mind 15 year contracts BUT i hate that they are guaranteed. I think the NHL should be allowed to limit guarantees to the first 5 years of a contract. Now you ask why would a player agree to a 15 year deal if only the first 5 years are guaranteed? I say no no trade clauses allowed for deals under 5 years. So basically if a player agress to longer contracts he should get a no trade protection... but not have the deal guaranteed. The first 5 years are always guaranteed but arent protected by a no trade without the extra years tacked on.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 11:13 AM
  #227
Perrah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz View Post
The owners should make an offer where they pay contracts in full (from PA's offer) then split the revenues 50-50 (from owners offer), and the difference is made up by the players paying for everything themselves (flights, meals, equipment, hotels, insurance, medical bills, ice time...).

Players get their contracts paid in full, like they want, and they get to play hockey, like they want. Plus they get to be like the every-day person by paying for everything. Since they are constantly trying to relate to us by saying "how would you like it if your boss tried to lower your salary", maybe they should actually have a deal that treats them more like us.

Either that, or concede to the owners deal with minor tweaks, and demand Bettman resign. That can be their win, since they apparently all hate the commish.
I dont know where you work that you would have to pay for all your work related travel, and pay the rent on your place of employment but I would suggest you find a new place of employment.

Perrah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 02:48 PM
  #228
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perrah View Post
I dont know where you work that you would have to pay for all your work related travel, and pay the rent on your place of employment but I would suggest you find a new place of employment.
Oh, I dont have to pay for any of that. But I'm also not involved in a labour dispute. And if I was in a dispute, I would gladly pay for all those expenses in exchange for playing a game to entertain people, while making vastly more than the majority of the human race. Fairs fair, right?

My whole proposal was in regards to the players saying "we just want to play hockey". Well, they all grew up paying for those things, so going back to it may humble them a bit and realize how they are going against their roots. Hockey players were supposed to be the reasonable ones in the sporting world.

Cawz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 02:52 PM
  #229
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,266
vCash: 500
I still ask the question, why do some teams pay 25% of their revenue to the players while other teams pay 75% of their revenue to players? That's the golden goose in my opinion. There is parity on the ice and now we need (more) parity in the finances of the teams off the ice.

I would compare it to taxes. Should every tax payer pay the same flat rate for their share whether they make $20,000 a year or $100,000 a year? If their tax liability was $5000 per year the person making $20K a year is paying 25% taxes while the person making $100K is only paying 5% on taxes. This obviously favors the rich, but you could debate whether a flat tax like that makes sense.

Is it more fair if people paid 25% of their income to taxes? The person making $20K pays $5K for taxes but the person making $100K pays $25K for taxes. I wouldn't say that favors the poorer, but it surely doesn't favor the rich.

The NHL cap as it has been since the last lockout is basically a flat tax. It doesn't matter how much or how little revenue the individual team produces, they pay an equal share even though they do not get equal benefits.

I honestly don't know the answer to this question, but how many countries operate on a flat tax versus a progressive tax? Simple enough to go to Wikipedia and there are actually a number of countries that follow the flat tax, the largest of them probably being Russia. None of the countries on the list seem to be among the emerging or most successful markets in the world however.

Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 03:04 PM
  #230
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,266
vCash: 500
By the way, the difference between the NHL Cap being a flat tax or a progressive tax is entirely the responsibility of the NHL and owners. The players are just asking for a cut of the pie, which has mostly been agreed upon by the two sides. The problem is the way the NHL is cutting up that pie among the owners.

The flat tax asks the players to fix the problem, the progressive tax asks the owners to fix the problem.

Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 03:18 PM
  #231
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,130
vCash: 139
Quote:
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger

@FriedgeHNIC. As long as the player gets what he is contracted to get...can't be negative. Owners cover 57-50% drop and escrow works same.

I know its the simple way of doing the math... but the owners shouldn't go for this.

They should only cover % difference of what the players' share was the yr they signed their contract.

All contracts signed this summer.. yes.. Owners cover the 57% to 50% drop (12.2%). the rest escrow as per usual.

BUT players who have contract that were signed when their shares were 54, 55, 55.5, or 56% etc should only have THAT difference covered.

People forget that the players only hit 57% in the final yr of the CBA!

i.e. Rocky and Vinny signed while the CBA stated 54% share... they should only get 7.4% of their contracts covered by the owners with the rest susceptible to escrow... not 12.2%.


That's the right way and fair of doing it.
Also the most complicated... but that's what accountants are for.

DL44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 03:24 PM
  #232
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,130
vCash: 139
^^ Or at least they should run the numbers so they have an actual dollar amount of what exactly the difference is of a blanket coverage of a 57-50 drop VS individual breakdown...
and show that as a concession to help things along.



calculation would be EASY.
column #
1: list of players presently under contract
2: contract effective date
3: players share at time of effective date
4: contract value
5: formula: (Column3 - 50)/Column3 * Column4 = Owner Coverage


Last edited by DL44: 11-08-2012 at 03:35 PM.
DL44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 12:54 AM
  #233
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
People forget that the players only hit 57% in the final yr of the CBA!
Nope - as I corrected you two days ago, the Players Share has been at 57% of HRR since '09-10.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
I really hate when people suggest that the players made 57% o HRR over the course of the last CBA...

The reality is they only made that in the final yr of the CBA.
The NHL has been at 57% since '09-'10 when HRR hit $2.7B.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:05 AM
  #234
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,130
vCash: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Nope - as I corrected you two days ago, the Players Share has been at 57% of HRR since '09-10.
Oh! obviously news to me. Thanks...

I thought there were at like 56.6% the yr prior to last yr based on their revenue formula..


Could you please list the yr-to-yr climb of the players % in each yr in the cap era?
(assuming you know)

yr 1 - 54.0%


I remember the players seemingly hitting an escalator every season except the one plateau yr..

Thanks in advance...

EDIT:
Cap history:
05-06: 39.0
06-07: 44.0
07-08: 50.3
08-09: 56.7
09-10: 56.8
10-11: 59.4
11-12: 64.3
12-13: 70.3

Revenue history:
05-06: 2.267
06-07: 2.436
07-08: 2.747
08-09: 2.819
09-10: 2.929
10-11: 3.090
11-12: 3.280
12-13:


Last edited by DL44: 11-09-2012 at 01:42 AM.
DL44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 02:16 AM
  #235
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,701
vCash: 553
CBA Thoughts; give players an out clause

Just wanted to start a discussion on something that has been bugging me.

First, the most obvious point to make is that under a cap system earnings of the PA members are guaranteed. It is my belief that the lower UFA age is a good thing for the NHL and aligns salary value to play value better than when guys were hitting UFA at 31. In lowering the UFA age the Owners lost likely 2 or 3 contracts. The signing tendencies have also changed with more multiple year deals to players than prior to the 04 lockout. What the owners want is more space between the UFA years and ELC. The NHL sees this as a allocation issue while the players likely understand that perspective but also see them conceding more freedom and power.

The owners started off with a proposal where ELC went to 5 years, Changes in RFA arbitration and UFA moved back to 30. To me this was not a buffet where the NHL wanted all of the above, they wanted 1 of the 3. From the outside looking in, I dont feel either party would be served well under any of those options. As i said previously; the lower UFA age makes far more sense than 30 (your prime years should see you getting the prime money and options). Also 5 year contracts are a huge issue because they stall the back diving contract habits.

I want to start a discussion based on the idea that the NHL's last proposal of a 2 year ELC followed by a slight change in RFA arbitration, and 28/8 year UFA can be the solution and that in return the players should be given "out clauses" in their contracts. I hate players requesting trades, like many fans, but i would have no problem with a player giving "notice".

Lets say a player wants out of their current contract (could be due to a new coach, tactics, playing time, wife etc). Based on their age they would be able to file for contract dissolvement by the trade deadline. Effectively they are given the rights most of us have to walk away from an employer after giving notice. If done the players contract evaporates on July 1st and based on their age the player is given specific rights.
IMO players exercising their option should be given the rights they would have if their contract ended that summer.
Compensation is an issue. Should the prior team be compensated for a UFA signing? an rfa?
When should that right be started? 25? how often should you be allowed to elect out? once every 2 years, 3 years?
obviously there are ways GMs will find to try to corrupt this.... what can be corrupted and what can be done to stop weaknesses?


To me one of the worst parts of being a fan are players asking for trades out etc. I think if you request a trade you should have your contract evaporated. I also agree that players would sacrifice rights by taking the NHL proposal contract combo (2 year elc, rfa arb changes, 28 UFA). I think extending them an out clause would be the best thing.

Because of this move, any player requesting a trade in public or leaking to the press should be heavily fined. It looks bad on the league and the players. If it is going to be done keep it quiet or face severe fines. SEVERE. IMHO trade demands are a huge black mark on both players and the leagues, and with the out clauses it shouldnt be necessary ever.

A side benefit of "out clauses" given to players, that i can see, is GMs being more fearful of giving long term contracts. By giving the NHLPA outclauses you might actually be giving a concession that works for both parties like the UFA age does. It might allow you to get your 5 year contract issue and no hiding of contracts request. With more rights given to the players... GMS would be weary. Do you think Shawn Horcoff or Scott Gomez would exercise their "out clause" lol. nope. The crappy contracts wont ever be exercised. So really a GM can get killed by this if he is Garth Snow puppet. I dont mind this fact. The smart businesses will realize the players have an out but the team doesnt. This is like other businesses... the business often has to wait for extreme circumstance to lay off an employee but an employee gives notice and walks.

MY PROPOSAL
contract max of 7 years.
2 year ELC if signed in summer or 3 years if signed midseason (like when a team signs a junior prospect after their junior season and puts them in the AHL for the remainder of that year).
RFA kept the same
team and player arbitration the same
UFA to 28/8
no hiding contracts. any player signed to over 2M in the NHL counts against the cap whether on the NHL team or in a lower level, regardless of 1 way or 2 way. Only exception is the ELCs.
player out clauses become available upon the ending of the 3rd year of a contract and every year after that on that contract. Out clause must be filed as exercised by the trade deadline prior to the summer. During the summer following the filing the players contract is evaporated and moves immediately to his associated free agency rank.
RFA who exercises outclause- can sign with any team, offer can NOT be matched, compensation higher than current CBA.
UFA who exercises outclause- can sign with any team freely. No compensation.
50/50 rev share.


Last edited by oilinblood: 11-09-2012 at 02:36 AM.
oilinblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 02:26 AM
  #236
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 31,207
vCash: 500
First thing I can think of with letting contracts 'evaporate' is that the cap hit number is affected.

The number is derived by the total value of the contract divided by the total term. Unless the contract pays the same amount in each year, you can easily have a situation where there is benefit or disadvantage to a team based on what they've paid vs what's the cap hit number.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 02:48 AM
  #237
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,701
vCash: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
First thing I can think of with letting contracts 'evaporate' is that the cap hit number is affected.

The number is derived by the total value of the contract divided by the total term. Unless the contract pays the same amount in each year, you can easily have a situation where there is benefit or disadvantage to a team based on what they've paid vs what's the cap hit number.
so i guess the nhl would also lump this "freedom/concession" in with the yearly value of a contract being stable or a standard 5-10% annual increase. combined with the 7 year contract max i think it is workable.
thank you for your reply.

oilinblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 02:52 AM
  #238
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
I still ask the question, why do some teams pay 25% of their revenue to the players while other teams pay 75% of their revenue to players? That's the golden goose in my opinion. There is parity on the ice and now we need (more) parity in the finances of the teams off the ice.

I would compare it to taxes. Should every tax payer pay the same flat rate for their share whether they make $20,000 a year or $100,000 a year?
I wouldn't say that favors the poorer, but it surely doesn't favor the rich.
The NHL cap as it has been since the last lockout is basically a flat tax. It doesn't matter how much or how little revenue the individual team produces, they pay an equal share even though they do not get equal benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
By the way, the difference between the NHL Cap being a flat tax or a progressive tax is entirely the responsibility of the NHL and owners. The players are just asking for a cut of the pie, which has mostly been agreed upon by the two sides. The problem is the way the NHL is cutting up that pie among the owners.

The flat tax asks the players to fix the problem, the progressive tax asks the owners to fix the problem.
The problem here is that the NHLPA and NHL are negotiating on the percentage of TOTAL league revenues.
The players want assurances they'll GET that share (hence the floor. Without it, the players could get anywhere from 40-53% of HRR).

The percentage barely matters. The conundrum is "How do 30 different teams pay players an amount that equals __% of HRR every year?" The owners revenues are so diverse that the AVERAGE is slotted between teams #10 and #11 in revenue.

That's why there's infighting. The NHL owners aren't going to agree to 57% again, because 12 teams can't afford 57%. Those 12 owners are covering the difference with personal checks and operating at a loss.

That's why the players are saying "You need more revenue sharing." They think where the 57% comes from is the owner's problem.
The owners can't get the votes for the CBA unless it works for enough teams. More revenue sharing might make four owners at the bottom switch from NO to YES, but if it makes 3 owners at the top switch from YES to NO, that's not gonna pass.

To me, the solution is:
#1 - Base the midpoint off MEDIAN revenues, not Average.
-- That lowers the midpoint and helps a couple teams make the payroll range.
#2 - Adjust the difference between midpoint and cap/floor from $8 million above/below to about 18% of the midpoint.
-- That let's the rich spend about what they were spending before (maintains money to the players)
-- Lowers the floor a little bit more so even fewer teams are struggling.
#3 - Tweak the revenue sharing system to this:
-- Teams spending less than 57% of HRR on payroll pay into the system (what brings them to 57% of HRR with a max of 4.5% of local revenues)
-- Teams spending over 57% of HRR on payroll, do not pay into the system.
-- Teams that have to spend over 57% of HRR on payroll to hit the floor get the amount they are short. Any excess is divided 50-50 between players and the teams (evenly among the 30 teams).

Because you have to name a percentage for the players: 61% of ADJUSTED HRR (Median Revenue times 30 teams).
-- That's $19.9 million LESS than 57% of HRR (based on 2011 numbers).

However, all signed contracts paid in full. To account for the fact that just-signed contracts put teams over the cap, those players CAP HITS will be adjusted so teams appear to be in compliance (AKA, teams are spending over the cap via this amnesty, but only on THOSE GUYS signed under the pretense of the larger cap). When you factor in those players getting above what's counted, the players are probably getting over 57% of HRR.

Here's an example using 2011 Forbes Numbers:
What we had: $104 average, $59.2 midpoint, $67.2 cap, $51.2 floor.
By spending 57% of HRR: 7 teams comfy to the cap, 11 in the payroll range, 12 who couldn't hit the floor.
-- 12 teams a combined $63.7 mil from the floor, 20 teams a combined $188.7 from the midpoint (based on all teams spending 57% of HRR) -- after revenue sharing

What this proposal would do: $96 mil median, $54.7 midpoint, $64.6 cap, $44.9 floor
By spending 57% of HRR: 7 teams comfy to the cap, 20 teams in the payroll range, 3 who couldn't hit the floor.
-- 3 teams a combined $7.4 mil from the floor, 13 teams a combined $95 from the midpoint.

You'd have to redistribute revenue sharing (Forbes numbers include RS as "revenue" for teams getting it). But you get the idea.

Who is NOT better off in that CBA?

It APPEARS I'm adding more money to the system. But the actuality is, money is being added to the system by the poor owners out of pocket. The money in this case comes from owners spending out of pocket in the middle because they can't help themselves. Their team would be competitive for a play-off spot, or revitalized by not losing money every year and think they could spend more. We'd probably have the same number of teams LOSING MONEY, but because they CHOSE to, not because they HAD TO.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 04:18 AM
  #239
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,085
vCash: 500
Why would the NHL even both listening to this?

If you give players an outclause in their contract, what's to stop them from doing it anytime they feel they deserve a raise. This is similar to holding out in the NFL.

Look at claude giroux's contract. He signed for 3 years at 3.75m per year. He then went on to score 76 points right after signing the contract and 93 points in the first year of the contract. What if he wants more money and just exercises the outclause in his contract? His salary would end up being more than 3x what is it currently.

If you give players this right, why shouldnt the owners get the right to cut players at any time with no repercussions? Look at Scott Gomez. Don't you think the Rangers and Capitals wanted to be able to exercise an outclause there? The NHLPA would more than likely never even engage the NHL in conversations about non-guaranteed contracts.

Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 03:51 PM
  #240
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,266
vCash: 500
KevFu, I agree that using the median HRR is probably a better CBA than the one that just expired. I'm not sure it completely sets the balance like it should, but that is a debatable topic.

I agree that the first issue is agreeing with the players on the amount the players earn relative to the total HRR. I think the second issue is how the owners agree to divide up that responsibility. The first issue is obviously the agreement between the NHLPA and NHL while the second issue is the agreement between the owners in the NHL. I think it's somewhat easier to come to an agreement with the players on the first issue. Much of the posturing that is preventing a deal from getting done is the second issue I believe. That's why you have divided segments among ownership.

You could do median HRR, you could do my proposal of basing the player's share on a prorated amount of HRR.

Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 02:08 AM
  #241
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,701
vCash: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Why would the NHL even both listening to this?

If you give players an outclause in their contract, what's to stop them from doing it anytime they feel they deserve a raise. This is similar to holding out in the NFL.

Look at claude giroux's contract. He signed for 3 years at 3.75m per year. He then went on to score 76 points right after signing the contract and 93 points in the first year of the contract. What if he wants more money and just exercises the outclause in his contract? His salary would end up being more than 3x what is it currently.

If you give players this right, why shouldnt the owners get the right to cut players at any time with no repercussions? Look at Scott Gomez. Don't you think the Rangers and Capitals wanted to be able to exercise an outclause there? The NHLPA would more than likely never even engage the NHL in conversations about non-guaranteed contracts.
my point of view is this; i prefer Giroux getting his big bucks if he is worth it. I have no problems with that at all. I also have no problems with GMs being scared to sign players to contracts over 3 years. For once they might actually think of consequences. I think with the concession the owners would get their term max (maybe negotiated to 6 or 7 years), equal salary every year of the deal or very close (as FUBU pointed out its the only way to have an outclause), and they win their gap measures ( 2 year ELC, 28/8 UFA, and Team arbitration rights mathing those of the players in RFA.) Frankly a GM that cant figure out that the player has the option to get out of the contract after 3 years... is a moron if he then signs the guy to a 7 year deal and his name isnt crosby. The GM would have to understand that 50% of the guys in the NHL ranks will file if they arent getting paid enough... but if they are getting paid too much and it was the GMs fault the player wont speak a word. So maybe GMs should only give big contracts to people with a strong record? Interesting thought isnt it.

Again i am in favor of a guy like Giroux playing lights out hockey and taking the option if he has it and wants to. I WANT players of his calibre making what they should. The issue to me is the role players and fillers who dont deserve money and havent proven anything.
NTC and such can still exist but it certainly is nice that the player has to exercise his option to get out of a place which would then evaporate his contract and clauses. Food for thought one would think. A million dollar, 500k, fine might assist in keeping players mouths shut, and their agents when unhappy. NHL gave out a big fine for one execs interview...players should be held accountable for the damage they cause in creating circuses in the league with their trade request sideshows.

oilinblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 08:37 PM
  #242
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
http://www.truehockey.com/articles/Our-Own-CBA-Proposal
Stickland/True Hockey has their own CBA proposal

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 11:37 PM
  #243
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
my point of view is this; i prefer Giroux getting his big bucks if he is worth it. I have no problems with that at all. I also have no problems with GMs being scared to sign players to contracts over 3 years. For once they might actually think of consequences. I think with the concession the owners would get their term max (maybe negotiated to 6 or 7 years), equal salary every year of the deal or very close (as FUBU pointed out its the only way to have an outclause), and they win their gap measures ( 2 year ELC, 28/8 UFA, and Team arbitration rights mathing those of the players in RFA.) Frankly a GM that cant figure out that the player has the option to get out of the contract after 3 years... is a moron if he then signs the guy to a 7 year deal and his name isnt crosby. The GM would have to understand that 50% of the guys in the NHL ranks will file if they arent getting paid enough... but if they are getting paid too much and it was the GMs fault the player wont speak a word. So maybe GMs should only give big contracts to people with a strong record? Interesting thought isnt it.

Again i am in favor of a guy like Giroux playing lights out hockey and taking the option if he has it and wants to. I WANT players of his calibre making what they should. The issue to me is the role players and fillers who dont deserve money and havent proven anything.
NTC and such can still exist but it certainly is nice that the player has to exercise his option to get out of a place which would then evaporate his contract and clauses. Food for thought one would think. A million dollar, 500k, fine might assist in keeping players mouths shut, and their agents when unhappy. NHL gave out a big fine for one execs interview...players should be held accountable for the damage they cause in creating circuses in the league with their trade request sideshows.
I don't think you realize how quickly the salaries of players would start to rise.

Look at MAtt Carle and Dennis Wideman.

Carle was reported to have agreed to a deal worth 4.75m per for a few years. Then Wideman comes along and gets 5.25m per for 5 years. We all know that contract was bad. Carle's agent didn't have his client sign the deal and they walked and signed for big money with tampa.

Now imagine if each player had the chance to do that. There'd be a ton demanding 5.25m+ per year. It's a ridiculous notion.

Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 02:46 AM
  #244
JerryD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4
vCash: 500
I think cap hit should be the higher of salary that year and average. It stops the circumvention and penalizes the teams that tried to play games with it with these brutal contracts.

JerryD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 05:30 AM
  #245
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
I wonder if you took the owners current deal as the accepted deal.

All players that were not happy with the arangements of the deal, they have the option of nulling their contracts and are free to play anywhere they want without any interference from the International hockey assoc.

I just wonder how many players would walk...........

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 02:36 PM
  #246
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,904
vCash: 500
Have a hybrid hard cap/soft cap solution

basically allow teams to pay to a certain amount(say 50M) but every dollar they pay over 50M gets tax $1 and that money gets divided among all the teams who don't go over that cap. Make the soft cap be as much as 10M dollars

boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 08:50 PM
  #247
echlfreak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 957
vCash: 500
CBA Compromise

Economic Issues

-Step down 50/50 split to honor existing contracts
-$250M in Revenue Sharing Pool to help struggling franchises...Bettmans discretion
-Teams allowed to trade up to $5M in cap space via draft picks or players

Owners compromise here! Owners partner to make league stronger and honor their word with contracts!


Contracting Issues

-2 yr ELS
-Arb Rights for Players 2 years after ELS instead of NHL proposed 3 years...currently 1 year
-UFA at age 27 or 7 seasons pro instead of 28 age/8 seasons
-5 year contracts max with except of 1 franchise contract which can exceed 5 years but no more than 10 years
-15% variance in contract dollars to allow teams flexibility in payroll

Players compromise here! Players give up concessions in contractual rights to help lower escalating contract costs!


Win Win????


Last edited by Crease: 11-11-2012 at 08:57 PM. Reason: Merged to similar thread
echlfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 09:01 PM
  #248
ottawa
go habs go
 
ottawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,010
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by echlfreak View Post
Economic Issues

-Step down 50/50 split to honor existing contracts
-$250M in Revenue Sharing Pool to help struggling franchises...Bettmans discretion
-Teams allowed to trade up to $5M in cap space via draft picks or players

Owners compromise here! Owners partner to make league stronger and honor their word with contracts!


Contracting Issues

-2 yr ELS
-Arb Rights for Players 2 years after ELS instead of NHL proposed 3 years...currently 1 year
-UFA at age 27 or 7 seasons pro instead of 28 age/8 seasons
-5 year contracts max with except of 1 franchise contract which can exceed 5 years but no more than 10 years
-15% variance in contract dollars to allow teams flexibility in payroll

Players compromise here! Players give up concessions in contractual rights to help lower escalating contract costs!


Win Win????
I completely disagree with trading cap, I just don't think its fair considering teams like FLA who usually spend to the cap floor will just keep benefitting from it or teams who accidentally spend over the cap like CHI did a couple years ago will just avoid the punishment by trading for cap...teams should just follow the cap system otherwise might as well get rid of it so my team can build a cup winner within a year.

And what would happen if I sign a player like Subban to 6 years then the next day a guy like Kovalchuk demands a trade to MTL (wishful thinking)...we wouldn't be able to take on his contract? It could also go the other way around, teams could just dump a 5+ year contracts to take on new ones for better/younger players.

Sorry for the rant lol, I don't think your proposals are bad I just wanted to share my opinion...I agree with the #1 proposal on your list.

ottawa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 08:21 AM
  #249
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,799
vCash: 500
Bettman don't like to be pragmatic and to make comprimises. I kind of like that about him from a technical point of view. A bunch of exemptions left and right, and what not, is just messy and hard to overview what you actually achive with them.

But it does kind of seem like a typical comprimize could solve the deadlock on contractual issues. The parties are within spitting distance on core economics, but my best guess is that a few owners deem the contractual issues to be very important for them (IE the teams that believes that they need to go the EDM route and rebuild through drafting. For these teams its a big diffrence if they can keep their RFA's a bit longer and cheeper. They always face the risk of rebuilding for 5 years, then facing some adversity when they are expected to take that final step, and if they start loosing players at that time things could become really messy for them...)

For example:

-give a team a chance to protect 2-3 players and have them hit UFA at 28/8 if they are paid like atleast twice the league avg (or whatever suitable level) or whatever. Call it the RNH-rule or whatever.

-let a RFA go to arbitration as under the old CBA, unless the said player is paid twice the league avg. Or whatever... Call it the RNH-rule II.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:35 AM
  #250
Koss
Registered User
 
Koss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,595
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Koss
I haven't read through all ten pages, so I don't know if this has been suggested. But does anyone think the players would agree to contract that are made of a guaranteed $ portion and a 2nd portion that is based on a percentage of HRR?

Koss 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 10:06 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.