The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Creative CBA solutions? Do you have one? Have you seen any?
Year 1 - Players 56%, Owners 44%
Year 2 - Players 54%, Owners 46%
Year 3 - Players 52%, Owners 48%
Year 4 - Players 50%, Owners 50%
Year 5 - Players 48%, Owners 52%
Year 6 - Players 46%, Owners 54%
Year 7 - Players 44%, Owners 56%
Year 8 - Players 46%, Owners 54%
Year 9 - Players 48%, Owners 52%
Year 10 - Players 50%, Owners 50%
The players share is slowly decreased, so as not to disrupt current salaries and the salary cap too much. Teams have ample time to deal with cap issues in a gradual manner. Owners are compensated for allowing the players more than 50% in the first 3 years of the deal (and the previous agreement) by getting more than 50% in years 5-9. By year 5 (presumably) HRR has grown enough that players will not see a decrease in salary anyway.
Year 1 - Players 56%, Owners 44%
Year 2 - Players 54%, Owners 46%
Year 3 - Players 52%, Owners 48%
Year 4 - Players 50%, Owners 50%
Year 5 - Players 48%, Owners 52%
Year 6 - Players 46%, Owners 54%
Year 7 - Players 44%, Owners 56%
Year 8 - Players 46%, Owners 54%
Year 9 - Players 48%, Owners 52%
Year 10 - Players 50%, Owners 50%
The players share is slowly decreased, so as not to disrupt current salaries and the salary cap too much. Teams have ample time to deal with cap issues in a gradual manner. Owners are compensated for allowing the players more than 50% in the first 3 years of the deal (and the previous agreement) by getting more than 50% in years 5-9. By year 5 (presumably) HRR has grown enough that players will not see a decrease in salary anyway.
Okay! Let's play hockey!
Because the owners are human will view this proposal using hyperbolic discounting. Moreover, should the owners realize that this proposal benefits them in later years, a lot of them in struggling markets need the increased revenue percentage now.
Just like the last CBA had escalators built in for the players based on revenue growth... hows about implementing the same thing this CBA except the other way around....
Players in yr 1 - 54% (plus make whole for 3 yrs)
once revenues hit:
$ 3.5 billion - 53%,
$ 3.75 bil - 52%,
$ 4 bil - 51%,
$ 4.25 bil - 50%
$ 4.5 bil- 49%,
$ 5 bil and beyond - 50%
Both sides would obviously highly motivated to increase revenues and grow the game.
An example of a 5% growth rate:
Yr 1: $3.30,
Yr 2: $3.47,
Yr 3: $3.64,
Yr 4: $3.82,
Yr 5: $4.01,
Yr 6: $4.21,
Yr 7: $4.42,
Yr 8: $4.64,
Yr 9: $4.88,
Yr 10: $5.12,
The best idea I've read was from someone on this board who suggested each team pays 50% of their revenue towards salaries and its just shared among all the teams. So the Leafs will be paying some huge money, while Phoenix will pay almost nothing.
Leave the cap as it is with hrr to be dropped by one per cent a year until it reaches 50-50. Scrap the floor. All contracts to be honoured in full but the amount above the cap will result in penalties to the club--loss of draft picks. After 4 years all players are ufa but signing team must pay 20% of the cost of the contract to the team losing the player. Contracts can be as long as agreed upon but bonuses may not be more than 10% of the total contract and contracts are not guaranteed after 3 years. CBA will be for 10 years. Teams who make money have the choice of paying for the other teams players (revenue sharing socialism) or reducing their own ticket prices by a like amount. No player may make more than 5 times the minimum league wage---revenue sharing virus takes hold. Kris Versteeg to be the PR director for the NHL and Milan Lucic to be the Goodwill Ambassador for the Buffalo Sabres.
Alright... the players want a min $67.25 cap regardless of revenues...
Hows about this solution... Make Whole the Other Way.
so in yr 2:
$67.25 cap (mp+20%) = $56mil midpoint = $1.68bil players share = requires revenue of $3.36 bil in revenue to cover @ 50-50.
If revenues only hit $3 bil, it would mean the players got $180 mil more than they should of.
Instead of taking the money out of escrow let the players keep it, but defer repayment of the $180 mil plus interest from the players once the revenues surpass the $3.36 bil mark by taking out of the total player share later in the CBA.
Make the Owners whole...
So say the revenues finally hit $3.72 bil, the players share would be $1.86 bil - $180 mil owning = $1.68 bil....
Just like the make whole the original way, the owners don't lose more than 50% of revenues, just like the players don't drop below a system with a $67.25 mil cap.
You know.. there is something that has not been mentioned very much in ll this debate and that is the money "the players make BECAUSE they are hockey players" but that have nothing to do with salary.
Shouldn't the league get some royalties on that? With no league... the players don't get that money.
(I know they pro-players are probably while the pro-owners are probably ...)
How about this:
The players can make that money FREE of royalties UNTIL the salaries and "the money made BECAUSE they are hockey players" surpasses the 68M mark.
The extra money gets taxed. This tax the players pay... is also a credit on the cap % (since they are responsible for the extra income). So the cap can go higher then 50% (even though it nver passes the 50% of HRR) if they bring in a load of royalties to the owners, etc.
I got tired of reading "creative" offers that were mostly, consciously or not, on the players side.
The players need to take a deal quick because the more this goes on, the more the players and the fans lose. The owners can wait a while since they are already losing and need a real fix.
How much can Crosby, Toews, Iginla, Weber etc. make in appearances and endorsements playing for Zug, or Omsk, in relation to what is available in US and Canada? Or even Ovechkin in Moscow? Those guys can make and do make a ton of money and then have stuff available even after retiring--spokesperson, commentator, administration/coaching. American/Canadian pay for those jobs may well be higher than the pay overseas for hockey analysts etc...and as far as North America positions after overseas hockey is concerned--out of sight/out of mind.
If NHL wants to get rid of escalating second contracts they simply drop variance, term limit, arbitration etc and focus all attention on group II free agency.
Complete elimination of group II FA solves the problem of rising contracts. Crosby, Hall, Hopkins could no longer go from becoming a $1m SALARY (not including bonuses) to a $6-8M salary player.
If Crosby signs a contract at 19 yrs old:
Yrs 1-3= $1M salary and up to $3.5M Bonuses
take him to 22 yrs old
Yrs 4-7= any salary team wants to offer but doesn't have to offer 10 yrs $100M...could offer even $10M for 4 yrs max........alternately as Nashville did with Weber and Suter could offer second contract at $3.5-4M over 3-4 yrs
once a player is 27 he becomes a UFA and can sign for any term and any dollar amount!!!
This gives any team a chance to build around the draft without escalating contracts beyond control!
Thoughts?
My thoughts although meaningless once submitted to a thread...is the fact that this will solve the escalating 2nd contract of star players. Thus giving teams a chance to keep THEIR homegrown around without having to commit to 10 yr contracts.
super simple potential solution to the problem that harms no one... doesnt guarantee fix the problem, but is simple enough maybe it will work enough to get a deal done...
the idea is allow all teams to 'exempt' one player from the cap... this player doesnt get paid from the players share of the pot. this player doesnt count against the cap for the team that exercises the option.
the effect of this... say 10 teams choose this option... and exempt 70 million dollars or so of salary from the players side. This 70 million becomes the 'make whole' money. The exempt players get all their money directly from the team/owner. The remaining players have an extra 70 million to split. ALL the players should be happy. Its not the 200 mill they want immediately, but its 70 or so million again and again and again and again throughout the entire next cba and beyond.
As for the owners... some of them are going to be very handcuffed by the new lower cap limit. This option gives them more room to compete/please their fans. Lets face it, some owners want to pleasure their ego's and dont care if they spend an extra 5-10 million to get a great player on their team.
The small market teams though dont need to spend more then the 50% they are fighting for. This is entirely voluntary.
So this is kind of a way to create extra money for the common players... let the superstars make an unlimited amount of money {which they deserve anyhow} and to put the burden of paying for it onto the rich owners who dont mind {but need a bonus for their trouble}
the rest of the cba could be reasonably bargained once the money is taken care of i think. Ultimately, the players only get 50% and how they split it really should be up to them anyhow. This idea of limits on contract term is kind of stupid. What needs to be done though is to stop the circumsism of the cap intention. Front loading deals and adding retirement years at the end need to be elliminated. You can do that without the need of a limit on term or a limit on second contracts.
players agree to a 50/50 split.......can work on if it takes 0 yrs - 1 yr - 2 yrs or 3 yrs to get there.
players also agree to the new 2 division formate in each confrence.....and playoffs vs own division for first two rds....saves owners money on travel esp in playoffs.
owners give full coverage on existing contracts....
cap is still linked to revenues......except that you have an artificial bufer in the agreement........the cap can only grow each year by a few million....and also a set 5yr amount.........helps the lower budget teams............THE EXCESS REVENUE FOR THE PLAYERS that cant be apllied to current salaries ie because of limited cap......goes into player pension funds(maybe directed to older players first......and go from there?????
limit of 7yr contract but with protection from circumventing....NHL either goes with current UFA rules or they can agree to a shorter first contract ...and a longer 2nd contract that still falls in the current 7 yrs to UFA
maybe NHL takes .5% from their 7% gain to be put towards the bottom 7-10 teams in profit sharing ....therby even the big market teams will still gain 6.5% of the pie
while the pro-owners are probably 
...)
