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.

A Comprehensive CBA suggestion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-23-2005, 07:12 PM
  #1
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
A Comprehensive CBA suggestion

Collective Bargaining Agreement Structures

Team Salary Limits

For the NHL to be successful a linkage between revenues and salaries must be established. This linkage has been defined based on the league revenues, average salaries of players and average team salaries in the NHL for the year 2003-2004. The sharing limits have been defined based on a comparative analysis of the other major sports leagues and their salary commitment in relation to gate receipts and television revenues.

Throughout this document dollar examples will be listed in support of the percentage numbers outlined. These numbers are based on an estimate of the league revenues being set at $2 billion.

The NHL shall make a commitment to share 60% of revenues as salary associated expenditures. This will include base salary and associated expenses as well as a bonus pool. Teams will be expected to meet minimum salary requirements and stay under maximum salary requirements without seeing punitive damages from the league’s schedule of fines.

The league will contribute 10% of the commitment toward player bonuses and awards as outlined in the League Performance Bonus and Award section of this document.

Individual Team Salary Structures

Low – Teams will be required to maintain a minimal salary contribution of 2.625 percent of league salary targets (ex. $31.5M). Failure to do so will result in the team’s forfeiture of participation in the league entry draft.

High – Teams will be required to stay below a maximum salary contribution of 3.0 percent of league salary targets (ex. $40M). Failure to do so will result in a fine equivalent to 25% of the maximum salary contribution level plus additional fines as outlined (ex. $10M).

Penalties for Exceeding Contribution Levels

Exceeding the salary maximum by any amount up to and including an additional .125% of the league commitment to salary expenditures (ex.$40-45M) will result in a fine of 100% of the dollar value of the amount over the team maximum salary contribution.

Exceeding the salary maximum by any amount up to and including an additional .125% of the league commitment to salary expenditures (ex.$46-50M) will result in a fine of 200% of the dollar value of the amount over the team maximum salary contribution.

Exceeding the salary maximum by any amount up to and including an additional .250% of the league commitment to salary expenditures (ex.$51-55M) will result in a fine of 300% of the dollar value of the amount over the team maximum salary contribution.

Exceeding the salary maximum by any amount up to and including an additional .375% of the league commitment to salary expenditures (ex.$56-60M) will result in a fine of 400% of the dollar value of the amount over the team maximum salary contribution.

Exceeding the salary maximum by any amount over an additional .500% of the league commitment to salary expenditures (ex.$60M+) will result in a fine of 500% of the dollar value of the amount over the team maximum salary contribution.

All fines associated with payroll infractions shall be collected and used by the league in the areas of advertising and product promotion (50%), game development (25%) and charitable associations (25%).


Individual Contracts

Structure

All player contracts will be struck based on a minimum two-year contract with a maximum of five years being placed on duration. A contract may not escalate any more that 15% of the previous year’s value.

Performance Bonuses

All bonuses available to players shall be structured as team success bonuses. No bonuses for individual accomplishment shall be allowed in any agreement between a player and a team. Total bonuses shall not exceed 20% of the value of the player’s contract in any one given year. Performance Bonuses agreed to between the player and the team will count against the Team Salary Structure.

Signing Bonuses

Signing bonuses may be awarded to players but may not exceed 15% of the total value of the contract. Signing bonuses will count against the Team Salary Structure for the year in which the salary was signed.

No Trade Clauses

No Trade Clauses may be offered by either the team or the player and may not be rescinded at any time during the length of the contract.

Entry Level Contracts

All entry level contracts will be based on the band in which the player was selected and subject to the schedule that follows.

Drafted1-5... $900K base
Drafted 5-10... $850K base
Drafted 11-20... $800K base
Drafted 21-30... $750K base
Drafted 31-60... $500K base
Drafted 61-90... $400K base
Drafted 91-120... $350K base
Drafted 121 and later... $300K base

Players not selected through the NHL Entry Draft will be considered as being drafted later than the 121st pick and will be subject to the contract level agreed to for that draft band.

Bonuses

All entry level contracts will be subject to the same bonus schedule that regular players have access to. Individual bonuses are not permitted beyond those that the NHL awards.

League Performance Bonus and Award

The League will contribute 10% of league salary commitment to a Bonus Pool used to payout individual awards. The NHL will convene an Awards Committee and define the award structure. This committee will be comprised of representatives from the NHL, the NHLPA and retired players who will be responsible for selecting the weekly and yearly award winners. The NHL will have a three person review panel at each game who selects the “Three Stars” for award.

These bonuses will be awarded through the following schedule.

Being selected a Game Star – $5,000

Being selected a Player of the Week (Goaltender, Forward, Defenseman, Specialty Team Player) - $10,000

Being a Top Producer of the Week (Goals, Assists, Total Points, Best +/-) - $10,000

Being selected a Player of the Month (Goaltender, Forward, Defenseman, Specialty Team Player) - $25,000

Being a Top Producer of the Month (Goals, Assists, Total Points, Best +/-) - $25,000


Control Mechanisms

Contract Qualification

A players base contract qualification offer is dependent on his performance compared with the previous year. If a player has surpassed the previous season's performance criteria (to be determined) a players rights may be retained with a 100% qualification. If a player does not attain this criteria his rights may be retained with a 75% qualification. Any player who is not qualified by 12:00 midnight (EST) June 30th will be granted unrestricted free agent status.

Arbitration

Arbitration will be discontinued.

Contract Guarantees

Contract guarantees will be continued.

Buy-outs

A player may be bought out with an amount equaling 50% of his present year contract, plus 25% for each year remaining, not exceeding the amount of the greatest yearly value of the contract

eg. Joe Blow has three years remaining on his contract at $2, 2.5 and $3 million. The buyout would be 50% of $2 million plus 25% of 2.5 plus 25% of $3 million, with a maximum payout being $3 million. So Joe Blow's payout would be $2.09375 million, saving the team over $5 million and allowing the player to pursue employment elsewhere as an unrestricted free agent.

Drop Dead Date

All contracts must signed and registered with the league office by 12:00 midnight (EST) by September 30th each year. Failure to have a contract registered with this the league offices will suspend a player from service for the remainder of the season and playoffs. No player shall be contracted during the course of the regular season or playoffs and be eligible to play in that same season or playoffs. Teams are allowed to carry 50 contracts within their system and are advised to use them wisely.

Disclosure

No terms or conditions of contracts are to be released. No one gets this information but the team, the player and the agent. A non-disclosure clause is added to every contract and anyone caught disclosing this information is subject to a $1,000,000 fine for a first offense and then agent decertification for a second offense.

Free Agency

Unrestricted free agent status will be awarded to any player who has performed in the NHL for a minimum of 80 games and is not tendered a qualifying offer as set out by the rules of qualification within this document. Unrestricted free agent status will also be awarded to any player who has attained the age of 27 and has completed the full commitment of his existing contact. Any player having full filled seven seasons of NHL play (a season being defined as minimum 21 games played) will have the option of declaring themselves an unrestricted free agent at the end of their contractual commitments to their existing team.

Miscellaneous

Player Representation

A player may be represented by any individual the player sees fit. The NHL takes no responsibility for the actions of the player agent. The player assumes all responsibility of the actions of his agent.

Entry Draft

The NHL shall conduct a draft of players deemed eligible as outlined in the previous Collective Bargaining agreement with the following amendments to the system.

Players drafted shall be minimum 19 years of age.

The draft will be five rounds in length

Any player drafted will remain the team’s property until the player’s 21st birthday. If a player is not offered a contract prior to his 21st the player becomes an unrestricted free agent and be classified as an undrafted player for purposes of contract negotiation.

Merchandising

All merchandising dollars shall be equally divided between the NHL and the NHLPA. The NHL shall contribute their portion of merchandising dollars toward the NHLPA pension fund.

Appearances

Player appearance fees will be subject to review by the league. Any appearance that requires the player to wear a league owned property or a likeness there of, shall be subject to a 25% fee. This fee will be applied to the NHL’s payment toward the NHLPA Pension fund.

Insurance/Disability

The league will provide insurance that covers a player while they are playing and practicing. It is up to the member teams to insure that they carry enough coverage to meet the needs of their contract obligations. It is recommended that players carry supplemental insurance to cover themselves during training and travel periods.

Player Expenses

Players travel expenses will be covered by the teams when the player is accompanying the team on team designated business. All players will be allowed a $100 per diem. All of theses benefits are taxable benefits and will be noted accordingly on player’s T-4 and W-2 statements.

Pension

The NHL shall continue to provide payments to the NHLPA Pension Fund in accordance with the last Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 07:49 PM
  #2
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,270
vCash: 500
Some ideas could be workable, but of course i dont like your cap limits concept as a proxy for fairness, and i find a 500% tax unfair as only the rich will be able to justify it, small markets wont be able to justify it even if they are successful.

But a couple points maybe you could expand upon. How would the numbers change if the revenues were $2.7bil in 2 yrs say? Limiting each markets spending decisions like this could also be counterproductive to maximizing overall revenues too. Some teams by spending can increase league revenues more than others doing the same spending.

Also without arbitration, how do you accoutn for someone like Havlat who wasnt paid as an elite player, but turned out be the top of his draft class when he goes to his 2nd contract? Or what about players who were late picks but blossomed. Do they get a arbitrated or grievance mechanism to adjust their salary to a fair level or are they slotted forever where the scouts thought they'd be worth when they were 19.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 09:34 PM
  #3
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Some ideas could be workable, but of course i dont like your cap limits concept as a proxy for fairness, and i find a 500% tax unfair as only the rich will be able to justify it, small markets wont be able to justify it even if they are successful.

But a couple points maybe you could expand upon. How would the numbers change if the revenues were $2.7bil in 2 yrs say? Limiting each markets spending decisions like this could also be counterproductive to maximizing overall revenues too. Some teams by spending can increase league revenues more than others doing the same spending.

Also without arbitration, how do you accoutn for someone like Havlat who wasnt paid as an elite player, but turned out be the top of his draft class when he goes to his 2nd contract? Or what about players who were late picks but blossomed. Do they get a arbitrated or grievance mechanism to adjust their salary to a fair level or are they slotted forever where the scouts thought they'd be worth when they were 19.
The numbers for $2.7 billion are as follows:

Low - $42.5 million
High - $48.6 million

Tax starts at $48.6 million.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 09:54 PM
  #4
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,270
vCash: 500
What if one year, 40 prospects made the NHL and the next none did? What if the average age of the league dropped by 2 yrs? And then several years later rose by 3 yrs?

thinkwild is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:16 PM
  #5
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
What if one year, 40 prospects made the NHL and the next none did? What if the average age of the league dropped by 2 yrs? And then several years later rose by 3 yrs?
And how are those points relevant? Age has no effect on the systems presented. When I put this together the whole concept is to come up with a win-win that would provide the two sides something they could live with. I tried to balance out the points that the NHL defined as being most important (cost certainty, rookie salary structure) and the players (no cap, expanded pension benefits).

I know its not popular, but I too threw the younger players under the bus. Since the PA has offered them up I used this in the framework as a cost control. Now in regards to your concerns about Havlat, that is somethng the teams will work out. The system is set up to hold their salary down through their first negotiated contract. Free agency is set three years earlier so the player is really entering into their prime just as they gain free agency. The earning potential from that point is up to the player. No CBA is perfect, but I think that this is a good framework to work from.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:17 PM
  #6
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
 
Hockeyfan02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pistivity
Country: United States
Posts: 13,806
vCash: 500
I think this could be workable for both sides. There are probably a few things both sides dont like, but it seems both are making concessions. Looks like you've spent quite a bit of time working on this. Nice job.

Hockeyfan02 is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:42 PM
  #7
Coffey77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,340
vCash: 500
Interesting. I think it could work. But one line had me, ok 2 lines:

All player contracts will be struck based on a minimum two-year contract with a maximum of five years being placed on duration. A contract may not escalate any more that 15% of the previous year’s value.

IMO, that alone would put a huge drag on salaries. Let's take a rookie for example:
(I don't think you had rookie contract length in there so I'll say 3 years). So let's say there is hockey next year and a draft next year and Crosby is picked Number one. Here's is what he makes (please correct if wrong).

Year 1: $900,000
Year 2: $900,000
Year 3: $900,000
Year 4: $1,035,000
Year 5: $1,035,000
Year 6: $1,190,250
year 7: $1,190,250
Year 8: 1,368,787.50
Year 9: 1,368,787.50
Year 10: 1,574,105.63
Year 11: 1,574,105.63
Year 12: 1,810,221.47
year 13: 1,810,221.47
Year 14: 2,081,754.69
Year 15: 2,081,754.69

So by year 14 he may get $2 million a year? Is that right? If that happens a guy like Ovechkin may not even want to come over.

If that's the case then if I'm an owner if I get that clause in there everything is gravy. No need for a cap if salaries are given that kind of drag.

Coffey77 is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:44 PM
  #8
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Nice work.
I'd like to see a component that allows teams to exceed the cap and a less punishing tax level to retain homegrown players (a la the NBA) but otherwise it's a reasonable plan.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:48 PM
  #9
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,270
vCash: 500
I would think there would be an abvious strong correlation between league age and payroll in a system where players start off rookie capped low and then slowly get rises towards their market value. Chicago will have lots of young players who will get better and more expensive, and with 15% raises, $5mil a year? as they improve, they must disband as there is only a few mil disparity allowed between top and bottom. When they were young they would of been artifically priced high to meet the floor, and then cant get 15% raises without exceeding the cap



Quote:
A player may be represented by any individual the player sees fit. The NHL takes no responsibility for the actions of the player agent. The player assumes all responsibility of the actions of his agent.
Still find it a cheeky statement from one trying to protect the owners from themselves and allow them to write off all their past mistakes. The players did assume all responsibilty of the actions of their agents and got kicked in the teeth for it.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:50 PM
  #10
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,270
vCash: 500
Why isnt $40 mil an acceptable payroll disparity between the best elite team and the worst rebuilding team of teenagers. How about $20mil? Why is $6mil fair and $15mil isnt?

thinkwild is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:52 PM
  #11
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coffey77
Interesting. I think it could work. But one line had me, ok 2 lines:

All player contracts will be struck based on a minimum two-year contract with a maximum of five years being placed on duration. A contract may not escalate any more that 15% of the previous year’s value.
That portion might be a little confusing. What I was trying to build in was a cavet that during any one contract the maximum amount a player's salary could grow was 15% per annum. That was during the confines of a single contract. Negotiations that take place during contract negotiations have not limit on them.

In other words, if Ovechkin signs for the maximum in his rookie contract, and then sees it expire it doesn't mean he can't ask for more than a million per. He could ask for what ever he wants. The team could give it to him too. Say Ovechkin scores a boatload and the team decides he's worth $2 million and signs him for three years. That means Ovechkin would get $2, 2.3 and 2.645 million during those three years. Get it?

I did this to prevent teams from front ending or back ending contracts so they would not screw themselves or another team in a contract offer. It was not meant as a drag but was designed as a safety net so teams would not be screwed when tey decide to try and trade a player because of a dumb contract they back end loaded.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:56 PM
  #12
Coffey77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
That portion might be a little confusing. What I was trying to build in was a cavet that during any one contract the maximum amount a player's salary could grow was 15% per annum. That was during the confines of a single contract. Negotiations that take place during contract negotiations have not limit on them.

In other words, if Ovechkin signs for the maximum in his rookie contract, and then sees it expire it doesn't mean he can't ask for more than a million per. He could ask for what ever he wants. The team could give it to him too. Say Ovechkin scores a boatload and the team decides he's worth $2 million and signs him for three years. That means Ovechkin would get $2, 2.3 and 2.645 million during those three years. Get it?

I did this to prevent teams from front ending or back ending contracts so they would not screw themselves or another team in a contract offer. It was not meant as a drag but was designed as a safety net so teams would not be screwed when tey decide to try and trade a player because of a dumb contract they back end loaded.
Ah, I see now. Like Keith Tkachuk's contract. Some years it's like $9 million but the last year is $5 million.

Coffey77 is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:56 PM
  #13
Balk
Healthy Scratch
 
Balk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 342
vCash: 500
I am pretty pro-owner in this debate. But your proposal is very extreme and has no mechanisms that enable a player to make more.

1. There should be guaranteed contracts. If a team signs a guy, they should be stuck with him.

2. If a player can lose money (QO) for a bad season then if they surpass the previous years totals they should get 125% of their last salary. Makes sense.

3. If you do not disclose contracts, how do you enforce a salary cap. And that is just another mechanism to hold down salaries.

4. What is wrong with arbitration. Just make it a high-low system and keep the owners ability to walk away from the award. That in-itself is favourable to the owners.

5. For the revenue sharing, all revenue should be shared. The tax money should also get divided equally among the teams under the cap.

Your proposal looks to have taken a lot of time and i commend you for your work. I just find the proposal far to pro-owner.

Balk is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:57 PM
  #14
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
Collective Bargaining Agreement Structures

For the NHL to be successful a linkage between revenues and salaries must be established.
That is your opinion. Others differ.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:58 PM
  #15
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Still find it a cheeky statement from one trying to protect the owners from themselves and allow them to write off all their past mistakes. The players did assume all responsibilty of the actions of their agents and got kicked in the teeth for it.
That was not meant to be a cheeky statement at all. It was actually in response to something that Wetcoaster brought up and something that I do not personally like in regards to Goodenow's NHLPA, that being agent certification. To me a player can have anyone represent him, including his mother. But that player also has to live with the decisions and actions made by his mother (especially if her name is Bonnie) and not be a jackass about things. Its all about taking on responsibility of your actions and those that represent you, a weakness for players of the past decade IMO.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 11:15 PM
  #16
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balk
I am pretty pro-owner in this debate. But your proposal is very extreme and has no mechanisms that enable a player to make more.
Not true. There are a lot more opportunities for the player to make money. Bonuses are still there from the team. Performance bonuses are available from the league (a guaranteed 10% of salary revenues). Appearance revenues all go to the players, either directly or through the pension. A larger chunk of revenues go to the pension plan.

Quote:
1. There should be guaranteed contracts. If a team signs a guy, they should be stuck with him.
Guaranteed contracts are still there. I agree that teams should have to live with mistakes or be foreced to buy the player out.

Quote:
2. If a player can lose money (QO) for a bad season then if they surpass the previous years totals they should get 125% of their last salary. Makes sense.
We'll disagree here. A player is going to get minumim 15% with a new contract, so they are guaranteed 115% when the dust settles. The 100% qualification just means that the team is making a commitment to the player and that they have agreed to retain his rights.

Quote:
3. If you do not disclose contracts, how do you enforce a salary cap. And that is just another mechanism to hold down salaries.
How do you enforce a salary cap? All contracts are registered with the NHL. They know the value. The team knows the value. The player and his agent knows the value. The PA knows the value. Its everyone else that is out of the loop, as it should be (you don't run around telling everyone how little you make do you?). The only people that really need to know the information is the league the PA the player and the team.

Quote:
4. What is wrong with arbitration. Just make it a high-low system and keep the owners ability to walk away from the award. That in-itself is favourable to the owners.
Arbitration is too inflationary. Players can double or triple their salaries overnight. That is not responsible and not helthy for a league that has a tight budget and negative growth in their revenue streams. At this point, arbitration is a no go IMO. I have another version that has arbitration included, but I do not think this is the time for this mechanism.

Quote:
5. For the revenue sharing, all revenue should be shared. The tax money should also get divided equally among the teams under the cap.
I do not have revenue sharing. I do not believe in revenue sharing as I believe that mechanism to be inflationary as well. As you see the money from the taxes go directly into development mechanisms to fuel the growth of the game and find other revenue streams. I purposely directed the revenue in this direction so it is not funnelled into a non-sustaining revenue stream that creates a false market.

Quote:
Your proposal looks to have taken a lot of time and i commend you for your work. I just find the proposal far to pro-owner.
I think you have to look at it a little harder. I really focused on the things that would make this proposal "for the players" as much as it is "for the owners". The players are looked after in the guarantees that the league will continue to try and grow the game through taxes earned, that the players will be able to make additional monies from the league based on their performance, and that the league will continue to stringly support the pension plan and secure the future for all players.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 11:23 PM
  #17
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
The players would be foolish not to accept this system.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 02:19 AM
  #18
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Why the insistence on not disclosing contract values to the public?

As a fan, I damn well want to know how much my team is making. Joe Third Liner pops in 10 goals and is making $500K, I'm ok with that. Frank Third Liner pops in 10 goals but is signed for $3 million, I'm not so ok.

I also want to know if my team is cheaping out, or making a good run at things, has room to add a player, is in cap trouble, etc.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 12:24 PM
  #19
LordHelmet
Registered User
 
LordHelmet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Twin Cities
Country: United States
Posts: 942
vCash: 500
Wow - for someone that's so pro-owner that's a pretty balanced proposal...

From the players' side
1) You'll have to either lighten up on the tax or increase the buyout percentages. That's easy though - if the framework is there, those rates are negotiable. (And there are a couple of ideas below that allow you back off the rates without sacrificing drag on salaries).

2) since the tax thresholds are linked to revenues there HAS to be an agreed-upon model for determining revenues. Each team's model may be different, and that's fine. If the owners want to be 'partners' with the players then they HAVE to allow the players to participate in the accounting side of things. All team arrangements (lease contracts, vendor agreements, broadcast rights, etc.) would be reviewed, filed with and approved by the PA for compliance with accounting and revenue reporting standards. Any owner found to be 'hiding' revenue would be issued massive fines and other penalties.

From the owners' side (these two additions allow you to propose more player-palatable tax rates):
1) Add non-monetary penalties on that tax. Even with that heavy of a tax, fans will still call me a cheapskate for letting a guy walk. Back off the rates a little, but incorporate draft penalties instead (i.e. at the first threshold you have a 50% tax and your highest pick on draft day drops 15 spots. at the second threshold, you have a 100% tax and your highest pick drops 30 spots.) That way at least some of the fans will be on my side when I let a popular guy walk.

2) Incorporate an additional, compounding multiplier for each year that a team is over a certain threshold (this was in the PA's December proposal). If a team is in a threshold for one year, they pay X penalty of tax & pick positions. If a team is in that threshold for a second year, they pay X + 25% penalty of tax & pick positions. If they're in that threshold for three or more years, they pay the previous years penalty + 25%.

For both sides - there needs to be a clause that requires re-evaluation of the thresholds and penalties every two years. If salaries are above or below a certain percentage of revenue, the thresholds are tweaked accordingly.

LordHelmet is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 12:40 PM
  #20
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Why the insistence on not disclosing contract values to the public?

As a fan, I damn well want to know how much my team is making. Joe Third Liner pops in 10 goals and is making $500K, I'm ok with that. Frank Third Liner pops in 10 goals but is signed for $3 million, I'm not so ok.

I also want to know if my team is cheaping out, or making a good run at things, has room to add a player, is in cap trouble, etc.
I believe that when the league started to disclose this information that it made the jobs of the agents and the NHLPA that much easier. I believe that non-disclosure, a standard practice in pretty well every other business and demanded by FOIP, would act as a minor drag on salaries. I also believe that it puts the focus back on the ice where it belongs. Too much time is spent discussing issues off the ice and not focusing on the talent of the players. The only things that the fans should be concerned about it the fact that their players are signed and that the team is winning. All that other stuff has become such a distraction for the game that it has become a dark cloud over the game itself. Part of my plan is to try and get the game back to where it was when the game was what people talked about, not the personalities off the ice.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 12:56 PM
  #21
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EndBoards
Wow - for someone that's so pro-owner that's a pretty balanced proposal...
I'm really not that pro-owner, just really sick and tired of hearing how the players are so hard done by. I swear, if I hear one more of these tools say that they are willing to sit out for ever I'm gonna lose it. I really feel the players have lost all respect for the game and that is why I am so against them.

Quote:
From the players' side
1) You'll have to either lighten up on the tax or increase the buyout percentages. That's easy though - if the framework is there, those rates are negotiable. (And there are a couple of ideas below that allow you back off the rates without sacrificing drag on salaries).
I made those tax loads that heavy for reason. If you want to exceed the limit, you're going to pay. I guess with the heavy fine that is incorporated into the system that cutting the taxes 50% is possible, but I sure like the idea of crucifying a team that even thinks about trying to buy themselves a team.

Quote:
2) since the tax thresholds are linked to revenues there HAS to be an agreed-upon model for determining revenues. Each team's model may be different, and that's fine. If the owners want to be 'partners' with the players then they HAVE to allow the players to participate in the accounting side of things. All team arrangements (lease contracts, vendor agreements, broadcast rights, etc.) would be reviewed, filed with and approved by the PA for compliance with accounting and revenue reporting standards. Any owner found to be 'hiding' revenue would be issued massive fines and other penalties.
I agree with you whole heartedly. Unfortunately I did not want to open that kettle of fish with this document. I think its something that is definitely a requirement, much like a State of the Game Commission is needed, but that would be for a document outside of this one to define those bodies and who is on them.

Quote:
From the owners' side (these two additions allow you to propose more player-palatable tax rates):
1) Add non-monetary penalties on that tax. Even with that heavy of a tax, fans will still call me a cheapskate for letting a guy walk. Back off the rates a little, but incorporate draft penalties instead (i.e. at the first threshold you have a 50% tax and your highest pick on draft day drops 15 spots. at the second threshold, you have a 100% tax and your highest pick drops 30 spots.) That way at least some of the fans will be on my side when I let a popular guy walk.
This idea I do not like at all as I believe it leads to greater spending. I already compromised that belief in penalizing the teams that do not meet the minimum standard by bar them from the draft. I think that if you continue to tale picks away from teams then you actually set up a situation where the only way they can get competitive is to buy a team. Its a Catch-22. I'd orefer that you hit the teams in the pocketbook and allowed them to draft and develop the players required to be competitive.

Quote:
2) Incorporate an additional, compounding multiplier for each year that a team is over a certain threshold (this was in the PA's December proposal). If a team is in a threshold for one year, they pay X penalty of tax & pick positions. If a team is in that threshold for a second year, they pay X + 25% penalty of tax & pick positions. If they're in that threshold for three or more years, they pay the previous years penalty + 25%.
I don't mind that idea at all. The fine is pretty stiff as it is, but if a multiplier is required, I'm all for that. The more money the league makes off of these trangressions the more money that goes into development projects to increase the profile of the game.

Quote:
For both sides - there needs to be a clause that requires re-evaluation of the thresholds and penalties every two years. If salaries are above or below a certain percentage of revenue, the thresholds are tweaked accordingly.
That's fair as well. I'd go three years. Every second year seems a little extreme. But good comments and good feedback. I hope that my explanations outline why I did what I did.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 01:41 PM
  #22
gerbilanium
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 274
vCash: 500
The best part is putting the fine money NOT to other teams that would only be put into salaries or owners pockets which would leave us in the same situation. Putting the money into selling the game, everyone wins.

Also I really like the increasing the funding of players pensions as a compensation tool. It is smarter to give these players a comfortable secure future when they retire and takes away the incentive to buy ferraris and crash them when they still are essentially children.

If a player can be assured that once they retire they and their family will be taken care of for the rest of their lives as opposed to making $25 million for 2 years when they are 18.

gerbilanium is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 01:54 PM
  #23
LordHelmet
Registered User
 
LordHelmet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Twin Cities
Country: United States
Posts: 942
vCash: 500
The reason I use draft-position penalties is because it has worked so well as a deterrent against RFA snatching.

A soft cap that only includes monetary penalties has two problems:
1) An owner can come along with limitless funds, no concern about turning a profit and just ignore a lux tax regardless of the rate. (Yankees)

2) Owners would still be susceptible to public pressure when they are in negotiations with high-value RFA's.

One inflationary component of the current system is that fans can pressure the owners into signing players to overpriced contracts. They don't care if it costs the owner $2MM or $3MM, they want their guy signed and if the owner doesn't do it, he's just a greedy cheapskate. With a lux tax that only has a monetary penalty, the fans will still do the same thing. i.e. "What do I care if it costs ownership $1.5MM in luxury taxes? I just want my guy signed..."

With draft position penalties, if you've got a guy holding out for a contract that will cost you a draft pick, you'll still have some fans that want the guy signed at all costs, but you'll create a group of fans that will say "Don't mortgage the future for one guy..." It gives the owners something that they don't have right now (and incedentally can't get under a cap) - fan support for letting a guy walk.

Also, my idea doesn't take away picks, it just lowers them the equivalent of 1/2 round, 1 round, 1.5 rounds, etc.. The concept isn't to eliminate high-payroll teams from the draft and force them to build through free agency, the idea is to keep them from habitually overspending.

Finally, there are already teams that sacrifice draft positioning so that they can build through trades & free agency. Recent years show that this formula doesn't work. So even if GM was dumb enough to do what you're talking about - habitually spent past the thresholds, disregarded their lost draft positions, and just spent money on FA's - he'd crash & burn and be out of a job in no time.

LordHelmet is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 04:10 PM
  #24
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
I believe that when the league started to disclose this information that it made the jobs of the agents and the NHLPA that much easier.
I see, you're hoping the PA doesn't use them like in the past. But the reality is, they would. Players would talk, agents would talk, and soon we'd have the whole SCORE system in place again.

In a salary cap league, there's just no way to hide salaries. It's one of the prime things you've got to know about a player to properly run your team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EndBoards
The reason I use draft-position penalties is because it has worked so well as a deterrent against RFA snatching.
I don't think it has, actually. It's the right to match offers that has stopped RFA offers. Teams saw that it was impossible to actually get a player (see Ohlund, Sakic, Fedorov...) so they stopped making offers, because all they did was drive up salaries.

If there was no right to match, and you could get a guy by simply making the offer, you'd have seen tons of RFA's move over the past 10 years.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 05:06 PM
  #25
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
I see, you're hoping the PA doesn't use them like in the past. But the reality is, they would. Players would talk, agents would talk, and soon we'd have the whole SCORE system in place again.
I guess you missed the cavet in the proposal for substantial fines for those who violate the non-disclosure agreement? So no, when you are risking your livelihood and that of your client, you learn to keep your mouth shut. Agents and lawyers take disclosure pretty seriously. Or at least the ones I've known have.

Lanny MacDonald* 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 07:00 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.