HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > HFNHL Talk
HFNHL Talk HFNHL is a full-simulation fantasy league that uses the FHL simulator to determine the outcome of games over a full 82-game season.

Revenue / Endorsement Idea

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-22-2013, 09:48 PM
  #1
kasper11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 6,668
vCash: 500
Revenue / Endorsement Idea

So, for those of you not on WhatsApp, the annual finance debate has been ongoing. The general thrust of it has been that teams that don't have money can't make money. Teams hovering with a payroll around $45M are losing money. It was pointed out to me that these teams are not signing up for endorsements because they have limited funds (usually somewhere around $5-6M) and don't feel comfortable risking what little they have; even the Mountain Dew endorsement can be lost if a couple of prospects get injured or make the NHL. These teams don't have the funds to add players and try to make the playoffs. The general consensus has been that if your payroll is over $40M, you pretty much need to be a playoff team to make money.

So, my thought is to add one additional endorsement that the GMs can guarantee they reach.

Local Newspaper Endorsement
Criteria: Team must publish at least 5 articles over the course of the season of a certain length. At least 2 of the articles must be about the league as a whole and not team specific. Articles must be at least 2 weeks apart.
Cost Fee: $1,000,000
Revenue: $3,000,000
Bonus: $2,000,000 (If team publishes 10 articles, 4 of which are not team specific)

Note: Certain admin team members will be deemed to have satisfied the requirements regardless of articles published in recognition of the work they put into the league.


My thought...any GM can know they have a revenue stream for the season if they are willing to put in the work. An extra $2-4M net would mean that most of the teams in the $45M payroll area would make a small profit instead of losing money. But they payout isn't so big that teams would be able to have a huge payroll and suck. Plus, it creates an incentive for more activity within the league. And those admin members putting in the work (specifically Matt who spends way too much time on this league) get some recognition for it.

Thoughts? Lets not turn this into another thread about finances, but rather one about specific ideas. Either why this idea will or won't work or talk about another possible solution.

kasper11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 11:09 PM
  #2
Ohio Jones
Moderator
The other Dexter
 
Ohio Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,599
vCash: 500
I like it - I like rewarding actual participation. I'm not sure more endorsements is the answer to our underlying issues, but if the intention is to continue with endorsements as a major component of the overall revenue picture, then I could get behind this kind of option.

Ohio Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 11:20 PM
  #3
SPG
Registered User
 
SPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Utica, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,896
vCash: 500
I think it's a great idea. Maybe even waive the buy in fee. I know it would get me writing more articles.

SPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 11:30 PM
  #4
Toronto_AGM_Adil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 329
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Toronto_AGM_Adil
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPG View Post
I think it's a great idea. Maybe even waive the buy in fee. I know it would get me writing more articles.
I like it... i haven't written a good article in ages

Toronto_AGM_Adil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 01:30 AM
  #5
PasiK
Registered User
 
PasiK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Paimio, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 697
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to PasiK
good idea,

how about also adding endorsement which gives revenue based on activity?

Sending in lines etc... of course sometimes you dont need to do that if teams stays healthy, but still this has measured in earlier seasons.

...

or not .. actually this is already quite fun to fight against finances


Last edited by PasiK: 03-23-2013 at 02:39 AM.
PasiK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 03:45 AM
  #6
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 19,921
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
Not a bad idea in the bandaid over a bullet wound kind of way, but the real culprit here exists in our adherence to the NHL in every way except method of revenue generation. Let me explain.

The NHL salary cap sits at $63.4 million. The contracts that are negotiated at the NHL level operate under that constraint. However, as it was pointed out here, teams that operate at $40 million or better need to make the playoffs simply to break even. Meanwhile, the cost to retain our players is based off a model that allows for $23.4 million more in room to negotiate. To exacerbate the matter, I have never had a player in this league accept LESS than his real life counterpart makes in the NHL. In many cases, without choosing to match his real contract, he will ask for MORE than his NHL money.

How sustainable is this model?

I contend that one of a few things should happen. We should either scale our finances, AND revenue, based on the NHL.... or we should give up the pretense that we adhere doctrine at all. For example, creating our own financial infrastructure. I contend that it would simply be easier to institute a "revenue sharing" type system here in the HFNHL. Or easier yet, to simply divide the real life profits of the NHL into 30 shares and distribute them to all teams. Every team starts the season by being issued the same amount of money.

Finances are reset on a one time basis, with the exception of GM changes, and we do away with performance based "endorsements", as attendance will be more than sufficient to represent the teams that are being well managed and even the "poor teams" will have a choice to either keep their salary around the minimum and bank their assets or charge towards the playoffs where the money will be more lucrative than it is now. I say create a bonus for making the playoffs that generates enough interest to make a real change in the bottom line of the teams included. Not only will this encourage teams on the bubble to make roster moves to pick up more players, spending more salary, it will make it where staying at the league minimum salary and sucking for 5 years straight (looking at me) will not provide you with ANY competitive advantage over teams that go for the playoffs on a yearly basis.

Another caveat that should be instituted in accordance with these changes.... minor league salaries must be modified. If a player clears waivers to the farm team, usually indicative of a bad contract, the team will either have a choice of paying their lump sum salary as a "release" and "fire" the player in the form of a buyout period, or they will be forced to keep said player on their active roster. No player with a veteran status making more than $1 million or waiver eligible allowed in the farm system. UDFA signings that exceed this limit can be bought out on a one time basis, but the buyout will result in loss of said player's rights. For example, Victor Fasth on my team making $3.5 million in the minors. Either I choose to accept his $3.5 million to my active roster, or I release his rights to free agency. Thus, closing another loophole regarding UDFA bidding becoming a game of chicken. The money becomes more real in that sense. Financial decisions to sign a player have long term implications that more closely adhere to the NHL model. No more stashing players in the AHL at a tenth of their salary if they clear waivers or are non-waiver eligible. Buyouts are limited in the same way the NHL limits them.

Eradicate cash for asset trades entirely. They only serve to make weak teams even weaker by trading a tangible asset for operating income in a broken system.

UDFA signings, under the age of 25, are sent to the prospect list instead of being placed on the active roster. UDFA signings during the season are disallowed and all UDFA players that draw league interest are distributed not by "bids", but by vocalized interest in a player in the form of a list of inclusion in the lottery process. This way, a prospect that has an unusable rating does not require a $100,000 investment to sit with his 48 overall in your "farm system", when other prospects that are signed to real NHL contracts are allowed to occupy your prospect list. It doesn't correlate. The part about disallowing midseason UDFA signings is in reference to the game of chicken that exists, that not all GMs are even aware of, where players score 10 points in their first 8 games in the AHL and promptly signed to a contract because somebody happened to notice it first. This isn't as much of a salary related issue as one that will facilitate each team having a fair chance to net coveted UDFA players without having to give them a contract based upon 10 professional games and whoever decides to pull the trigger first. Players can be retroactively moved from the farm system back to the prospect list on a one time basis unless this process would be too difficult to execute. There exists no reason to "create" a player that will never play in the sim. Our farm teams do not function and as a result, should not be required to be stocked.

Just a few ideas tossed out there.

Vagrant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 08:03 AM
  #7
Hossa
Registered User
 
Hossa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Abroad
Posts: 9,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant View Post
Eradicate cash for asset trades entirely. They only serve to make weak teams even weaker by trading a tangible asset for operating income in a broken system.
.
This is already the case. A trade has to involve assets going both ways and can't simply be for cash. Moreover, we limit the cash in trades to 1M. I don't see why this particular recommendation is necessary. Teams in financial difficulty will sometimes insist on cash in their trades, but it's not often that's anything more than a throw-in. This used to be more common until we cracked down.

Generally speaking, we all understand the problem. The NHL salary cap (and by extension salaries) are tied to NHL revenue. Our salary cap and salaries are tied to the NHL salary cap and salaries, and by extension to NHL revenue, but none of these are connected to HFNHL revenue. There is an inevitable problem when the HFNHL revenue functions in a completely separate world from everything else - even our player ratings are clearly tied to the NHL.

I'm supportive of the idea above from Rich, but the bottom line is we have been unable to find/agree on a solution which fundamentally changes this problem. The problem is the limited ways that HFNHL revenue is generated - low payroll teams or deep playoff runs - and our discussion should focus on that. Unless we are looking to absolutely blow up our entire salary, contract and free agency system, we're off the point, and the solutions we've attempted to solve the HFNHL revenue issue have, so far, not been radical enough to justify blowing up the entire financial system of the league yet, IMO.


Last edited by Hossa: 03-23-2013 at 08:20 AM.
Hossa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 10:22 AM
  #8
Dryden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto
Country: St Lucia
Posts: 1,746
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dryden Send a message via Skype™ to Dryden
Raise the slider....raise the slider...clap clap ..clap clasp...raise the slider...raise the slider...clap clap...clap clap.

And if you're going to give money to people doing things they should do anyway then shouldn't SimDonkey and the other admin guys get cash for doing their thankless jobs?

Dryden is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 10:50 AM
  #9
HFNHL PIT GM
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,637
vCash: 500
agree with Dryden ... and no one will want to read the stuff i am capable of writing anyhow ;-)

id also like to say that Vagrant (not sure which GM that is, sorry) has some excellent points. i have said many times the problem is that the NHL floor is around 49m and we use NHL salaries so we should be able to spend at least 49m, miss the playoffs and not lose money.

the NHL revenue share system is designed to make sure teams can afford to spend to the mid point, we cant even spend to the floor.


Last edited by HFNHL PIT GM: 03-23-2013 at 10:55 AM.
HFNHL PIT GM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 10:55 AM
  #10
Canuck09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dryden View Post
Raise the slider....raise the slider...clap clap ..clap clasp...raise the slider...raise the slider...clap clap...clap clap.

And if you're going to give money to people doing things they should do anyway then shouldn't SimDonkey and the other admin guys get cash for doing their thankless jobs?
I'd like to see what the resulting income is after a small increase to the slider. Assuming it wasn't something that made everyone $60M+ a year I'm on board. Finances should be a bit of a challenge, just not the life sucking grind it becomes for the lower tier teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant View Post
Not a bad idea in the bandaid over a bullet wound kind of way, but the real culprit here exists in our adherence to the NHL in every way except method of revenue generation. Let me explain.

The NHL salary cap sits at $63.4 million. The contracts that are negotiated at the NHL level operate under that constraint. However, as it was pointed out here, teams that operate at $40 million or better need to make the playoffs simply to break even. Meanwhile, the cost to retain our players is based off a model that allows for $23.4 million more in room to negotiate. To exacerbate the matter, I have never had a player in this league accept LESS than his real life counterpart makes in the NHL. In many cases, without choosing to match his real contract, he will ask for MORE than his NHL money.

How sustainable is this model?

I contend that one of a few things should happen. We should either scale our finances, AND revenue, based on the NHL.... or we should give up the pretense that we adhere doctrine at all. For example, creating our own financial infrastructure. I contend that it would simply be easier to institute a "revenue sharing" type system here in the HFNHL. Or easier yet, to simply divide the real life profits of the NHL into 30 shares and distribute them to all teams. Every team starts the season by being issued the same amount of money.

Finances are reset on a one time basis, with the exception of GM changes, and we do away with performance based "endorsements", as attendance will be more than sufficient to represent the teams that are being well managed and even the "poor teams" will have a choice to either keep their salary around the minimum and bank their assets or charge towards the playoffs where the money will be more lucrative than it is now. I say create a bonus for making the playoffs that generates enough interest to make a real change in the bottom line of the teams included. Not only will this encourage teams on the bubble to make roster moves to pick up more players, spending more salary, it will make it where staying at the league minimum salary and sucking for 5 years straight (looking at me) will not provide you with ANY competitive advantage over teams that go for the playoffs on a yearly basis.

Another caveat that should be instituted in accordance with these changes.... minor league salaries must be modified. If a player clears waivers to the farm team, usually indicative of a bad contract, the team will either have a choice of paying their lump sum salary as a "release" and "fire" the player in the form of a buyout period, or they will be forced to keep said player on their active roster. No player with a veteran status making more than $1 million or waiver eligible allowed in the farm system. UDFA signings that exceed this limit can be bought out on a one time basis, but the buyout will result in loss of said player's rights. For example, Victor Fasth on my team making $3.5 million in the minors. Either I choose to accept his $3.5 million to my active roster, or I release his rights to free agency. Thus, closing another loophole regarding UDFA bidding becoming a game of chicken. The money becomes more real in that sense. Financial decisions to sign a player have long term implications that more closely adhere to the NHL model. No more stashing players in the AHL at a tenth of their salary if they clear waivers or are non-waiver eligible. Buyouts are limited in the same way the NHL limits them.

Eradicate cash for asset trades entirely. They only serve to make weak teams even weaker by trading a tangible asset for operating income in a broken system.

UDFA signings, under the age of 25, are sent to the prospect list instead of being placed on the active roster. UDFA signings during the season are disallowed and all UDFA players that draw league interest are distributed not by "bids", but by vocalized interest in a player in the form of a list of inclusion in the lottery process. This way, a prospect that has an unusable rating does not require a $100,000 investment to sit with his 48 overall in your "farm system", when other prospects that are signed to real NHL contracts are allowed to occupy your prospect list. It doesn't correlate. The part about disallowing midseason UDFA signings is in reference to the game of chicken that exists, that not all GMs are even aware of, where players score 10 points in their first 8 games in the AHL and promptly signed to a contract because somebody happened to notice it first. This isn't as much of a salary related issue as one that will facilitate each team having a fair chance to net coveted UDFA players without having to give them a contract based upon 10 professional games and whoever decides to pull the trigger first. Players can be retroactively moved from the farm system back to the prospect list on a one time basis unless this process would be too difficult to execute. There exists no reason to "create" a player that will never play in the sim. Our farm teams do not function and as a result, should not be required to be stocked.

Just a few ideas tossed out there.
I like some of these points/ideas.

The first one I really agree with. I don't know how it isn't viewed as a problem by more people. I get that there are ways to deal with it, but they're broken ways for a broken system.

A one time cash reset would be a tough one. I'm one of the poor teams and I'm not sure I even agree with that.

I agree on both UDFA fronts. Contracts above a certain point ($2M?) should not be able to be hidden in the minors. Or at the very least, they should be set as one-way deals so we're on the hook for the full amount. This is an easy setting within the Sim. UDFA's signed in the offseason should go to the prospect list and not our farm teams. Most signings are done at or near the rookie contract maximum so it might as well just turn into a lottery that you sign up for, and any players that you win, just have a contract negotiated with the agent like any other rookie deal.

Some interesting ideas overall IMO.

Canuck09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 11:04 AM
  #11
Ohio Jones
Moderator
The other Dexter
 
Ohio Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dryden View Post
Raise the slider....raise the slider...clap clap ..clap clasp...raise the slider...raise the slider...clap clap...clap clap.

And if you're going to give money to people doing things they should do anyway then shouldn't SimDonkey and the other admin guys get cash for doing their thankless jobs?
That's a good point, Dryden.

As far as the sliders go (I gather there are two that would affect in-season revenue), I'd like to see some tests run with each tweaked up individually and in combination to know what the effects would be, because at face value that seems the most logical, straight-forward and non-labour-intensive means of addressing the gap between the NHL's revenue and ours.

I recognize the danger inherent in injecting vast sums of "free money" into the league economy, which is why I'm suggesting some tests o see way the most modest adjustment would achieve.

Ohio Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 11:05 AM
  #12
Ohio Jones
Moderator
The other Dexter
 
Ohio Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,599
vCash: 500
I agree with Josh that the mad dash for in-season UDFAs is a little crazy, and we might want to keep all UDFAs for the summer FA period.

Ohio Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 01:59 PM
  #13
Hossa
Registered User
 
Hossa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Abroad
Posts: 9,219
vCash: 500
Not that I see the connection with the bigger financial debate, but on the mid-season UDFA issue I think it's just a matter of definition. Right now, the European and college UDFAs are put into the summer free agent pool, but CHL Overagers are not, and it's true there is a contradiction there. There is no reason Charles Sarault should be available mid-season, but a college UDFA has to wait until the summer free agency, particularly when the college players are often available for late-season ATOs earlier anyways. This is simply a bit of a loophole which has emerged that we should close - not a big deal.

On the other hand, UDFAs should not, IMO, include guys who emerge mid-season in the AHL from wherever and get signed mid-season. As an example, I signed Cory Conacher around November of last year. We all had a chance to sign him as a UDFA that summer, but none of us made an offer. After noticing a good training camp and hot start, I signed him, months before he got an NHL contract. Once that first UDFA off-season has passed, there should be no reason the first GM to sign Conacher shouldn't get him mid-season, IMO.

I don't see it as a problem that some GMs are quicker on these things than others - that's part of the game. The UDFA "market" used to be wide open and completely about individual research, but over the years has become more of a lottery. But I think we need to protect the ability for individual GMs to take some initiative and do their own homework, for the same reason we always have our draft before the NHL draft. It's a tad ironic as well considering the OP in this thread was about using endorsements to award individual participation and initiative.

In other words, our objective should be for equality of opportunity in asset management (trades, signings, drafting), but we should never strive for equality of outcome in that regard, and with the exception of a few quirks (eg. CHL UDFAs) I think we have done a very good job with this league in that regard. That's why I think it's important to separate the pure revenue issues from the smaller asset management issues, because we have key fundamental questions regarding the former.

Hossa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 02:07 PM
  #14
Hossa
Registered User
 
Hossa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Abroad
Posts: 9,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFNHL PIT GM View Post
agree with Dryden ... and no one will want to read the stuff i am capable of writing anyhow ;-)

id also like to say that Vagrant (not sure which GM that is, sorry) has some excellent points. i have said many times the problem is that the NHL floor is around 49m and we use NHL salaries so we should be able to spend at least 49m, miss the playoffs and not lose money.

the NHL revenue share system is designed to make sure teams can afford to spend to the mid point, we cant even spend to the floor.
Although it's not a perfect number either, it's true that if the NHL floor is 49M, our actual revenue through the sim (ie. through ticket sales) is pretty backwards if it's 5-10M below that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio Jones View Post
That's a good point, Dryden.

As far as the sliders go (I gather there are two that would affect in-season revenue), I'd like to see some tests run with each tweaked up individually and in combination to know what the effects would be, because at face value that seems the most logical, straight-forward and non-labour-intensive means of addressing the gap between the NHL's revenue and ours.

I recognize the danger inherent in injecting vast sums of "free money" into the league economy, which is why I'm suggesting some tests o see way the most modest adjustment would achieve.
Have we tried testing the sliders before with previous versions of the Sim, or is this just a new option we haven't had?

Hossa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 03:07 PM
  #15
Dryden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto
Country: St Lucia
Posts: 1,746
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dryden Send a message via Skype™ to Dryden
I think I have the fourth highest income per game at $1,171,000. So that's $48M for 41 games. Not nearly enough

Dryden is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 03:28 PM
  #16
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 19,921
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
I see no reason why, regardless of our team situation, we should be uncomfortably against falling into financial disrepair at any point. I just don't find that very realistic. While it's ideal to make a profit, there are teams in the NHL that make a hefty profit regardless of what product they ice. Thus, revenue sharing making things a bit more equal around the league.

I feel as if one should have to DRAMATICALLY disregard finances in order to stray into where the math would be a problem. I mean, this isn't a financial simulation as much as a hockey simulation, and when teams start having to make decisions about players they want to keep, have the cap to keep, but can't find the liquidity to do it then I think we have a problem that is no longer representative of the NHL. While there are a number of teams with a self-imposed budget to adhere to, that number is quite fluid and most owners are willing to spend into the red when the play of the team dictates.... which is not even an option we have here.

I feel like we have to make a decision if what we're trying to do here is to emulate the NHL or if we're trying to create our own financial/hockey game that requires us to make unrealistic roster decisions based upon an arbitrary bank account in a flawed system.

Vagrant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 04:49 PM
  #17
HFNHL PIT GM
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,637
vCash: 500
for the record, i looked it up and the salary floor next season is scheduled to be at 44m.

i believe its 49m for this transition season.

HFNHL PIT GM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 01:19 PM
  #18
MatthewFlames
Registered User
 
MatthewFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: America
Posts: 3,129
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to MatthewFlames Send a message via MSN to MatthewFlames Send a message via Yahoo to MatthewFlames Send a message via Skype™ to MatthewFlames
....

MatthewFlames 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 08:48 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.