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.

Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-09-2012, 01:01 PM
  #126
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,674
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
I'll never understand why the League doesn't just charge the actual amount paid as the cap hit for the season. If they are serious about curbing circumvention...
Because teams would sign multiple players that all have a lower salary in the same year to circumvent the cap.

On the flip side, you could argue that there should be no variance from year to year and that a contract that has an avg of 7M a year should pay 7M each year.

Ragamuffin Gunner is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:02 PM
  #127
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
I haven't checked the math, but I read on twitter that player salaries have grown 33% in the last 8 years and NHL revenue has grown 50% over the same time frame.
Actually players salaries have grown just a bit over the percentage of revenues (as they started out at about 54% of revenue and ended up at 57% of revenue).

When salaries are tied to revenue like that, the numbers will be pretty much the same.

ottawah is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:03 PM
  #128
Mr V
Registered User
 
Mr V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Oka Noggin
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
I'll never understand why the League doesn't just charge the actual amount paid as the cap hit for the season. If they are serious about curbing circumvention...
If that were the case, wouldn't a team be able to "load up" for a 2 or 3 year run by having some players on low pay years at the same time? They could then stack their team on certain years for a cup run.

Mr V is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:03 PM
  #129
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
Because teams would sign multiple players that all have a lower salary in the same year to circumvent the cap.

On the flip side, you could argue that there should be no variance from year to year and that a contract that has an avg of 7M a year should pay 7M each year.
Maybe I don't understand but why would multiple players sign to simply have a lower salary? And what would prevent this from happening in the current system? Just some clarification please, I was trying to determine why this idea would be an issue

Steve is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:03 PM
  #130
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
Because teams would sign multiple players that all have a lower salary in the same year to circumvent the cap.

On the flip side, you could argue that there should be no variance from year to year and that a contract that has an avg of 7M a year should pay 7M each year.
Wouldn't that have unavoidable consequences in other years of the contract when they have to offset the lower pay with higher pay? The issue with back-diving contracts is that there are currently no future consequences.

Crease is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:04 PM
  #131
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AUAIOMRN View Post
That could be abused too. Imagine a team that currently has a lot of cap space, but with some up and coming guys that will need raises soon. They sign someone to a huge cap hit in the first year or two then a low cap hit for several more years, just in time for their up-and-comers to be getting their big contracts. That's just one idea, I'm sure there are others.
I'm not sure I'd call it circumvention. I'd for sure call it damn good general management though. Unless the guy you paid a boatload to decided he did not want to play for peanuts and retire, or demand a trade, or utterly slack off .......

ottawah is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:07 PM
  #132
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,674
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Maybe I don't understand but why would multiple players sign to simply have a lower salary? And what would prevent this from happening in the current system? Just some clarification please, I was trying to determine why this idea would be an issue
If a GM said, "if you take a lower salary in 2014 I can sign 3 other stars for a lower salary in 2014 and we'll have a great shot at the Cup" you might just do that. Or, "I'll give you a huge salary for the first two years if you agree to a much lower salary after that once I have to sign my stars on their ELCs".

You can't do this in the current system because the cap hit is an average of total salary/years, the year to year salary doesn't matter.

Ragamuffin Gunner is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:08 PM
  #133
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,674
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Wouldn't that have unavoidable consequences in other years of the contract when they have to offset the lower pay with higher pay? The issue with back-diving contracts is that there are currently no future consequences.
Yes, there could be future consequences for a GM where he would have to move contracts around. But if he can go the a SCF or win a Cup, who cares?

Ragamuffin Gunner is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:14 PM
  #134
Alesle
Registered User
 
Alesle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
I don't know a lot about the other sports, but does anyone know what the salary versus revenue split is for the other major sports the last 8 years? Or where to find the financials of the other sports (other than google )?
I'm not really sure if this is what you're looking for, but the players share of revenues in current CBAs are something like this.

NFL: Players receive minimum 47 %, final amount likely to average somewhere between 47 and 50 % for the duration of the CBA.
NBA: ~50 %.
MLB: Player salaries accounted for about 47% of revenues last season (though no limits stated in CBA).

Alesle is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:17 PM
  #135
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
If a GM said, "if you take a lower salary in 2014 I can sign 3 other stars for a lower salary in 2014 and we'll have a great shot at the Cup" you might just do that. Or, "I'll give you a huge salary for the first two years if you agree to a much lower salary after that once I have to sign my stars on their ELCs".

You can't do this in the current system because the cap hit is an average of total salary/years, the year to year salary doesn't matter.
Ok, I can see that I suppose. Not sure it would happen but I can appreciate that argument. Thanks for clarifying.

Steve is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:30 PM
  #136
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
I haven't checked the math, but I read on twitter that player salaries have grown 33% in the last 8 years and NHL revenue has grown 50% over the same time frame.

If you take that to be true, then players have seen their profits grow 33% and the league has seen their number one expense grow 33% and their revenue only grow 50%. This leaves the NHL with a potential profit growth of 17% if the cost of doing business hasn't grown at all. Does anyone think that the cost of doing business as fallen the last 8 years? Doesn anyone think that the cost of doing business has fallen 16% to make up the difference of the two sides?

With this information, shouldn't the NHLPA be the ones giving most of the concessions?



I don't know a lot about the other sports, but does anyone know what the salary versus revenue split is for the other major sports the last 8 years? Or where to find the financials of the other sports (other than google )?
Not sure Sydor, but I think you have this backwards. I think it goes like this:

Revenues are up 50%. Player costs up 33%. That means HRR is also up 33%, because salaries are tied to player costs. Therefore, the increase in revenues are all non-HRR. The piece we don't have is what non-player costs are doing. But, if non-HRR is up 50%, then non-player costs can be up 50% as well, and an owner has the same percentage profit he had before. More likely is that non-player costs have not risen that much, so the owner is better off now than before.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:33 PM
  #137
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
If a GM said, "if you take a lower salary in 2014 I can sign 3 other stars for a lower salary in 2014 and we'll have a great shot at the Cup" you might just do that. Or, "I'll give you a huge salary for the first two years if you agree to a much lower salary after that once I have to sign my stars on their ELCs".

You can't do this in the current system because the cap hit is an average of total salary/years, the year to year salary doesn't matter.
And, if the GM can actually get to sign by doing this, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? That is the challenge that all GM's should have in the cap era - how to manage cap space.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:36 PM
  #138
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,222
vCash: 50
About the variance in the NHLPA offer, if I understood correctly it was only in year 7-8 the salary could be 25% of the highest annual salary. Not that it matters much since it's usually the latter years that are used to push cap hit down.

I don't really know where NHLPA stands on cap hit disappearing if a player retires so it's possible that if a team were to try to get salary to exceed cap hit through this mechanism they'd be kicking a can in front of them and had to pay the price later.

Freudian is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:37 PM
  #139
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
It's equally facetious for Fehr to say that the Owners and Players agree on an item when the Players' proposal does not include the concession that the Owners are demanding in return for said item.
Tell that to Bob Goodenow.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:39 PM
  #140
Zih
Dater's Gonna Hate
 
Zih's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 2,303
vCash: 140
If both sides are serious about cap circumvention, all they need to do is apply the 35+ rule to every contract regardless of age, and make the rule retroactive. The incentive for teams to sign "retirement" contracts is that all those years at the end are so low salary that the player might as well retire rather than continue playing until age 42 or whatever. By retiring early, their cap hit comes off the table. So a contract that's, say, $10m, $10m, $10m, $1m, $1m, $1m has a total nominal cost of $33 million, but if the player retires after 3 years the team only feels a total cap hit of $16.5m for a contract that cost $30m in salary. If the cap hit can't be eliminated by player retirement, then the team will feel the full $33 million in cap hit over the length of the entire contract.

Zih is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:39 PM
  #141
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
I see what you're saying, but I don't think I would call that cap circumvention. I think the defining trait of cap circumvention is the use of non-playing years. But I guess if thats the defining trait, then the NHLPA's cap benefit recapture idea takes care of that.
I don't know that I'd call it blanket circumvention. But it would open the windows for new cap manipulation tricks that could violate the parity objectives of the cap range system.

mouser is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:46 PM
  #142
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
10m 10m 2.5m 2.5m 2.5m Is not circumvention? Hell that is just a 5 year deal.
A player wouldn't agree to that though. A 5 year contract is unlikely to take a player into "retirement age" and thus he would be looking at playing 3 productive years at a mere 2.5 million.

Fish on The Sand is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:56 PM
  #143
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Tell that to Bob Goodenow.
I don't quite know what you're getting at. Can you elaborate?

Crease is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:59 PM
  #144
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Not sure Sydor, but I think you have this backwards. I think it goes like this:

Revenues are up 50%. Player costs up 33%. That means HRR is also up 33%, because salaries are tied to player costs. Therefore, the increase in revenues are all non-HRR. The piece we don't have is what non-player costs are doing. But, if non-HRR is up 50%, then non-player costs can be up 50% as well, and an owner has the same percentage profit he had before. More likely is that non-player costs have not risen that much, so the owner is better off now than before.
The increase he's talking about is from before the cap until now. And Players started only making 54% of HRR and are now making 57% of it, so they've seen their salaries grow faster than than HRR.

PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 02:00 PM
  #145
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
I don't quite know what you're getting at. Can you elaborate?
He's talking about the 24% rollback that the NHLPA proposed to avoid a salary cap. The 24% rollback stayed in the NHL offers with the salary cap.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 02:03 PM
  #146
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
I don't quite know what you're getting at. Can you elaborate?
He's referring to the talking point that "But Gary took 24% rollback from a previous NHLPA offer and put it in the final CBA".

What's lost in that talking point is that a rollback was going to happen one way or another and that 24% rollback was probably teh better way to do it. PA supporters seem to like to pretend the rollback was some sort of bonus. It wasn't. The NHL would not have agreed to any CBA without a rollback, either through a direct one (such as the 24%) or through massive escrow payments.

PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 02:03 PM
  #147
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Ok, I can see that I suppose. Not sure it would happen but I can appreciate that argument. Thanks for clarifying.
Its not likely to happen. Players don't care about winning, they care about getting paid.

Fish on The Sand is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 02:05 PM
  #148
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
He's referring to the talking point that "But Gary took 24% rollback from a previous NHLPA offer and put it in the final CBA".

What's lost in that talking point is that a rollback was going to happen one way or another and that 24% rollback was probably teh better way to do it. PA supporters seem to like to pretend the rollback was some sort of bonus. It wasn't. The NHL would not have agreed to any CBA without a rollback, either through a direct one (such as the 24%) or through massive escrow payments.
Exactly. The NHLPA had to go from 74% to 54% in year 1. A rollback was the best way.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 02:05 PM
  #149
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
He's referring to the talking point that "But Gary took 24% rollback from a previous NHLPA offer and put it in the final CBA".
Got it. I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that BOTH sides are being disingenuous to the fans and media, which was the only point I chose to make.

Crease is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 02:06 PM
  #150
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
They can demand 10-12M all fay but no one is going to pay it.

Stars will make what their caps hits are not in actual salary (7-9M) because that's all teams can afford to pay them and field a competitive team.

Like I said earlier, there isn't enough cap space to go around for all these players to get 9m+ contacts.
I agree. The players that think they are superstars, but in reality are just very good players, are going to get less money.

Interesting quandry for some GMs will be is it better to have 3 or 4 very good players, or 1 superstar?

KINGS17 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:42 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.