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.

Proposed Agreement - With Model

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-05-2005, 01:15 AM
  #1
regehr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mars
Posts: 744
vCash: 500
Proposed Agreement - With Model

Here is my proposed agreement - it drops linkage entirely, but has a hard cap. I ran a very detailed test model of this solution below -- it seems to work (the numbers below ensure every team breaks even). If you dare to read, do so carefully, it is full of small points. I'm happy to have feedback.
-Regehr


1) SALARY CAP.
Not linked to league revenues.
Hard payroll floor: $27 million.
Soft payroll ceiling: $36 million.
Hard payroll ceiling: $45 million.
Significant fines if > $45 million (to be negotiated).

2) LUXURY TAX.
100% tax over $36 million (of amount >$36 million, i.e. max. tax/team = $9 million).
Teams less than $36 million receive pro-rata share of taxes/fines.

Example:
Let's say $48 million is collected from taxes/fines paid by 8 teams (assuming no team is fined), based on the following estimated payrolls:

Payroll Estimates:
1) Toronto $45m (tax = $9m)
2) Dallas $45m (tax = $9m)
3) Colorado $43m (tax = $7m)
4) NY Rangers $43m (tax = $7m)
5) Philadelphia $42m (tax = $6m)
6) Detroit $41m (tax = $5m)
7) Montreal $39m (tax = $3m)
8) Boston $38m (tax = $2m) (total taxes = $48m)
9) Los Angeles $36m
10) Edmonton $36m
11) Vancouver $35m
12) Calgary $35m
13) Anaheim $34m
14) Tampa Bay $34m
15) Chicago $34m
16) Ottawa $34m
17) Minnesota $33m
18) New Jersey $33m
19) Columbus $32m
20) Pittsburgh $32m
21) Nashville $32m
22) St. Louis $32m
23) San Jose $32m
24) Buffalo $32m
25) NY Islanders $31m
26) Atlanta $28m
27) Phoenix $28m
28) Washington $27m
29) Carolina $27m
30) Florida $27m

So, 22 teams receive portion of tax. 242 total shares (22+21+20+19...+2+1)
So, 1 share = $48 million / 242 = approx. $200,000
#30 payroll team (FLA) would receive 22 shares = $4.4m
#29 payroll team (CAR) would receive 21 shares = $4.2m
#28 payroll team (WSH) would receive 20 shares = $4.0m
#27 payroll team (PHX) would receive 19 shares = $3.8m
#26 payroll team (ATL) would receive 18 shares = $3.6m
#25 payroll team (NYI) would receive 17 shares = $3.4m
#24 payroll team (BUF) would receive 16 shares = $3.2m
#23 payroll team (SJ) would receive 15 shares = $3.0m
#22 payroll team (STL) would receive 14 shares = $2.8m
#21 payroll team (NSH) would receive 13 shares = $2.6m
#20 payroll team (PIT) would receive 12 shares = $2.4m
#19 payroll team (CBJ) would receive 11 shares = $2.2m
#18 payroll team (NJ) would receive 10 shares = $2.0m
#17 payroll team (MIN) would receive 9 shares = $1.8m
#16 payroll team (OTT) would receive 8 shares = $1.6m
#15 payroll team (CHI) would receive 7 shares = $1.4m
#14 payroll team (TB) would receive 6 shares = $1.2m
#13 payroll team (ANA) would receive 5 shares = $1.0m
#12 payroll team (CAL) would receive 4 shares = $0.8m
#11 payroll team (VAN) would receive 3 shares = $0.6m
#10 payroll team (EDM) would receive 2 shares = $0.4m
#9 payroll team (LA) would receive 1 share = $0.2m
--- teams beyond this point are > $36 million soft cap.

3) REVENUE SHARING.
Bring revenues of bottom 15 team within 30% of top 15 teams.
Highest 10 teams contribute pro-rata share (55 total shares, #1 = gives 10 shares, #10 = gives 1 share).
Lowest 10 teams receive pro-rata share (55 total shares, #30 = receives 10 shares... #21 = receives 1 share).

If is safe to assume revenues will be down as a result of the lockout.
Let's assume league revenues will be down ~ 15% overall.
It is reasonable to assume that non-traditional markets will be hit the hardest.
Non-traditional markets are also largely the ones with lowest revenues.
Let's assume after lockout revenues to be (in millions):

1 NYR 118 - 10% = 106.2
2 TOR 117 - 10% = 105.3
3 PHL 106 - 10% = 95.4
4 DAL 103 - 10% = 92.7
5 COL 99 - 10% = 89.1
6 DET 97 - 10% = 87.3
7 BOS 95 - 10% = 85.5
8 MTL 90 - 10% = 81.0
9 TB 88 - 15% = 74.8
10 LA 80 - 15% = 68.0
11 SJ 74 - 15% = 62.9
12 VAN 74 - 15% = 62.9
13 MIN 71 - 15% = 60.5
14 CHI 71 - 15% = 60.5
15 OTT 70 - 15% = 59.5
16 CAL 70 - 15% = 59.5
17 STL 66 - 15% = 56.1
18 CBJ 66 - 15% = 56.1
19 NYI 64 - 15% = 54.4
20 NJD 61 - 15% = 51.9
21 WSH 61 - 20% = 48.8
22 FLA 60 - 20% = 48
23 ATL 59 - 20% = 47.2
24 PHX 57 - 20% = 45.6
25 NSH 57 - 20% = 45.6
26 EDM 55 - 20% = 44
27 ANA 54 - 20% = 43.2
28 PIT 52 - 20% = 41.6
29 CAR 52 - 20% = 41.6
30 BUF 51 - 20% = 40.8

Top 15 revenues: $1191.4 million (avg = $79.4 million)
Bottom 15 revenues: $724.4 million (avg = $48.3 million)
Thus, to bring the bottom half within 30% of the top half will require a revenue pool of about $66 million.

Thus 55 shares, $66 million, so 1 share = $1.2 million.

Therefore:
#1 revenue team (NYR) would contribute 10 x $1.2m = $12 million (11.3% of their revenue)
#2 revenue team (TOR) would contribute 9 x $1.2m = $10.8 million (10.3%)
#3 revenue team (PHL) would contribute 8 x $1.2m = $9.6 million (10.1%)
#4 revenue team (DAL) would contribute 7 x $1.2m = $8.4 million (9.1%)
#5 revenue team (COL) would contribute 6 x $1.2m = $7.2 million (8.1%)
#6 revenue team (DET) would contribute 5 x $1.2m = $6 million (6.9%)
#7 revenue team (BOS) would contribute 4 x $1.2m = $4.8 million (5.6%)
#8 revenue team (MTL) would contribute 3 x $1.2m = $3.6 million (4.4%)
#9 revenue team (TB) would contribute 2 x $1.2m = $2.4 million (3.2%)
#10 revenue team (LA) would contribute 1 x $1.2m = $1.2 million (1.8%)

...
#30 revenue team (BUF) would receive 10 x $1.2m = $12 million (29.4% increase)
#29 revenue team (CAR) would receive 9 x $1.2m = $10.8 million (26.0%)
#28 revenue team (PIT) would receive 8 x $1.2m = $9.6 million (23.1%)
#27 revenue team (ANA) would receive 7 x $1.2m = $8.4 million (19.4%)
#26 revenue team (EDM) would receive 6 x $1.2m = $7.2 million (16.4%)
#25 revenue team (NSH) would receive 5 x $1.2m = $6 million (13.2%)
#24 revenue team (PHX) would receive 4 x $1.2m = $4.8 million (10.5%)
#23 revenue team (ATL) would receive 3 x $1.2m = $3.6 million (7.6%)
#22 revenue team (FLA) would receive 2 x $1.2m = $2.4 million (5.0%)
#21 revenue team (WSH) would receive 1 x $1.2m = $1.2 million (2.4%)
(actual payments to be adjusted to ensure order or revenue ranking maintained)

4) SALARY ROLLBACK.
24% across-the-board immediate rollback on all current salaries.
(this would also apply to qualifying offers for current free agents)

5) ENTRY-LEVEL:
a) Cap base salary at $850k.
b) Cap signing bonus at 25% of base salary.
c) Performance bonuses at per league schedule (see #X below)

6) QUALIFYING OFFERS:
< $850,000: 100% of previous salary
$850k-$1.5m: 95% of previous salary
$1.5m-$2m: 90% of previous salary
$2m-$4m: 85% of previous salary
$4m-$6m: 80% of previous salary
>$6m: 75% of previous salary

7) FREE AGENCY:
Unrestricted free agency at 30 yrs or after 500 games (min age = 28 yrs).

8) BONUSES.
All contract bonuses to follow league-wide uniform negotiated schedule.
a) 'A' bonuses for individual team achievements (to be negotiated)
b) 'B' bonuses for major awards and top 10 league achievements (to be negotiated)
c) 'C' bonuses for education, travel, accommodation (to be negotiated)

9) MINIMUM SALARY:
Raise to $300k.

10) ADVISORY COUNCIL:
Players, managers, former players & managers, officials, etc. to advise on revisions to game.

*****

SIMULATION
Total league payrolls = $1040m
Total league revenues = $1915.8m (down 14.4%)
Total league revenues (2003/04) = $2238m
% of revenues to players = 54.3%


Balance Sheets:

1) ANAHEIM MIGHTY DUCKS
Own Revenues = $43.2m
Shared Revenue = +$8.4m
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$1.0m
TOTAL REVENUES = $52.6 million
--
Player costs = $34m (estimated)
Other costs = $18.4m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $52.4 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = $0.8 million
(2003/04 = -$22.4 million)


2) ATLANTA THRASHERS:
Own Revenues = $47.2m
Shared Revenue = +$3.6m
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$3.6m
TOTAL REVENUES = $54.4 million
--
Player costs = $28m (estimated)
Other costs = $25.1m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $53.1 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = $1.3 million
(2003/04 = +$0.9 million)


3) BOSTON BRUINS
Own Revenues = $85.5m
Shared Revenue = -$4.8m
Tax/Fine Revenue = -$2m
TOTAL REVENUES = $78.7 million
--
Player costs = $40m (estimated)
Other costs = $39.7m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $77.7 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$1.0 million
(2003/04 = +$2.3 million)

4) BUFFALO SABRES
Own Revenues = $40.8m
Shared Revenue = +$12m
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$3.2m
TOTAL REVENUES = $56.0 million
--
Player costs = $32m (estimated)
Other costs = $23.5m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $54.5 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$0.5 million
(2003/04 = -$10.5 million)


5) CALGARY FLAMES
Own Revenues = $59.5m
Shared Revenue = 0
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$0.8m
TOTAL REVENUES = $60.3 million
--
Player costs = $35m (estimated)
Other costs = $24.7m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $59.7 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$0.6 million
(2003/04 = +$2.3 million)

6) CAROLINA HURRICANES
Own Revenues = $41.6m
Shared Revenue = +10.8m
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$4.2m
TOTAL REVENUES = $56.6 million
--
Player costs = $27m (estimated)
Other costs = $29.2m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $56.2 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$0.4 million
(2003/04 = -$18.2 million)


7) CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS
Own Revenues = $60.5m
Shared Revenue = 0
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$1.4m
TOTAL REVENUES = $61.9 million
--
Player costs = $34m (estimated)
Other costs = $27.6m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $61.6 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$0.3 million
(2003/04 = +$9.4 million)


8) COLORADO AVALANCHE
Own Revenues = $89.1m
Shared Revenue = -$7.2m
Tax/Fine Revenue = -$7m
TOTAL REVENUES = $74.9 million
--
Player costs = $43m (estimated)
Other costs = $30.1m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $73.1 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$1.8 million
(2003/04 = -$1.1 million)


9) COLUMBUS BLUE JACKETS
Own Revenues = $56.1m
Shared Revenue = +$3m
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$2.2m
TOTAL REVENUES = $61.3 million
--
Player costs = $32m (estimated)
Other costs = $29.1m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $61.1 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$0.2 million
(2003/04 = +$0.9 million)


10) DALLAS STARS
Own Revenues = $92.7m
Shared Revenue = -$8.4m
Tax/Fine Revenue = -$9m
TOTAL REVENUES = $75.3 million
--
Player costs = $45m (estimated)
Other costs = $29.3m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $74.3 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$1.0 million
(2003/04 = -$0.3 million)


11) DETROIT RED WINGS
Own Revenues = $87.3m
Shared Revenue = -$6m
Tax/Fine Revenue = -$5m
TOTAL REVENUES = $76.3 million
--
Player costs = $41m (estimated)
Other costs = $33.4m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $74.4 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$0.9 million
(2003/04 = -$16.4 million)


12) EDMONTON OILERS
Own Revenues = $44.0m
Shared Revenue = +$7.2m
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$0.4m
TOTAL REVENUES = $51.6 million
--
Player costs = $36m (estimated)
Other costs = $14.7m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $50.7 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$0.9 million
(2003/04 = +$3.3 million)


13) FLORIDA PANTHERS
Own Revenues = $48.0m
Shared Revenue = +$2.4m
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$4.4m
TOTAL REVENUES = $54.8 million
--
Player costs = $25m (estimated)
Other costs = $31.7m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $56.7 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = -$1.9 million
(2003/04 = -$3.7 million)


14) LOS ANGELES KINGS
Own Revenues = $68.0m
Shared Revenue = -$1.2m
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$0.2m
TOTAL REVENUES = $67.0 million
--
Player costs = $36m (estimated)
Other costs = $29.3m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $65.3 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$1.7 million
(2003/04 = -$5.3 million)


15) MINNESOTA WILD
Own Revenues = $60.5m
Shared Revenue = 0
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$1.8
TOTAL REVENUES = $62.3 million
--
Player costs = $33m (estimated)
Other costs = $29.3m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $62.3 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = 0 million
(2003/04 = +$11.5 million)


16) MONTREAL CANADIENS
Own Revenues = $81.0m
Shared Revenue = -$3.6m
Tax/Fine Revenue = -$3m
TOTAL REVENUES = $74.4 million
--
Player costs = $41m (estimated)
Other costs = $31.5m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $72.5 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$1.9 million
(2003/04 = +$7.5 million)


17) NASHVILLE PREDATORS
Own Revenues = $45.6m
Shared Revenue = +$6m
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$2.6m
TOTAL REVENUES = $54.2 million
--
Player costs = $32m (estimated)
Other costs = $21.8m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $53.8 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$0.4 million
(2003/04 = +$6.2 million)


18) NEW JERSEY DEVILS
Own Revenues = $51.9m
Shared Revenue = 0
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$2.0
TOTAL REVENUES = $53.9 million
--
Player costs = $33m (estimated)
Other costs = $20.9m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $53.9 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = 0 million
(2003/04 = -$13.9 million)


19) NEW YORK ISLANDERS
Own Revenues = $54.4m
Shared Revenue = 0
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$3.4
TOTAL REVENUES = $58.0 million
--
Player costs = $31m (estimated)
Other costs = $26.5m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $57.5 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$0.5 million
(2003/04 = -$9.5 million)


20) NEW YORK RANGERS
Own Revenues = $106.2m
Shared Revenue = -$12m
Tax/Fine Revenue = -$7m
TOTAL REVENUES = $87.2 million
--
Player costs = $43m (estimated)
Other costs = $43.4m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $86.4 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$0.8 million
(2003/04 = -$3.3 million)


21) OTTAWA SENATORS
Own Revenues = $59.5m
Shared Revenue = 0
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$1.6m
TOTAL REVENUES = $61.1 million
--
Player costs = $34.0m (estimated)
Other costs = $27.0m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $61.0 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$0.1 million
(2003/04 = -$5.0 million)


22) PHILADELPHIA FLYERS
Own Revenues = $95.4m
Shared Revenue = -$9.6m
Tax/Fine Revenue = -$6m
TOTAL REVENUES = $79.8 million
--
Player costs = $42.0m (estimated)
Other costs = $37.1m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $79.1 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +0.7 million
(2003/04 = -$4.1 million)

23) PHOENIX COYOTES
Own Revenues = $45.6m
Shared Revenue = +$4.8m
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$3.8m
TOTAL REVENUES = $54.2 million
--
Player costs = $28.0m (estimated)
Other costs = $25.8m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $53.8 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +0.4 million
(2003/04 = -$7.8 million)


24) PITTSBURGH PENGUINS
Own Revenues = $41.6m
Shared Revenue = +$9.6m
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$2.4m
TOTAL REVENUES = $53.6 million
--
Player costs = $32.0m (estimated)
Other costs = $20.6m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $52.6 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +1.0 million
(2003/04 = -$0.6 million)


25) ST.LOUIS BLUES
Own Revenues = $56.1m
Shared Revenue = 0
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$2.8m
TOTAL REVENUES = $58.9 million
--
Player costs = $32.0m (estimated)
Other costs = $26.8m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $58.8 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$0.1 million
(2003/04 = -$28.8 million)


26) SAN JOSE SHARKS
Own Revenues = $62.9m
Shared Revenue = 0
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$3.0m
TOTAL REVENUES = $65.9 million
--
Player costs = $32.0m (estimated)
Other costs = $33.7m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $65.7 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$0.2 million
(2003/04 = +$1.3 million)


27) TAMPA BAY LIGHTNING
Own Revenues = $74.8m
Shared Revenue = -$2.4m
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$1.2m
TOTAL REVENUES = $73.4 million
--
Player costs = $34.0m (estimated)
Other costs = $38.4m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $72.4 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$1.0 million
(2003/04 = +$8.6 million)


28) TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS
Own Revenues = $105.3m
Shared Revenue = -$10.8m
Tax/Fine Revenue = -$9m
TOTAL REVENUES = $85.5 million
--
Player costs = $45.0m (estimated)
Other costs = $33.9m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $78.9 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$6.6 million
(2003/04 = +$14.1 million)


29) VANCOUVER CANUCKS
Own Revenues = $62.9m
Shared Revenue = 0
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$0.6m
TOTAL REVENUES = $63.5 million
--
Player costs = $35.0m (estimated)
Other costs = $27.7m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $62.7 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$0.8 million
(2003/04 = +$1.3 million)


30) WASHINGTON CAPITALS:
Own Revenues = $48.8m
Shared Revenue = +$1.2m
Tax/Fine Revenue = +$4.0m
TOTAL REVENUES = $54.0 million
--
Player costs = $27m (estimated)
Other costs = $26.7m (based on 2003/04)
TOTAL COSTS = $53.7 million
--
OPERATING INCOME = +$0.3 million
(2003/04 = -$14.7 million)

regehr is offline  
Old
02-05-2005, 01:25 AM
  #2
ResidentAlien*
Unregistered User
 
ResidentAlien*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,749
vCash: 500
Well..you made my head spin..thanks

ResidentAlien* is offline  
Old
02-05-2005, 02:23 AM
  #3
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
it drops linkage entirely
which is why it will never happen.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
02-05-2005, 02:49 AM
  #4
regehr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mars
Posts: 744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
which is why it will never happen.

dr
i don't agree. look at the model. it has a salary cap.
you don't need linkage to control costs. this solution ensure every team breaks even (even if revenues drop by 15%).

regehr is offline  
Old
02-05-2005, 04:31 AM
  #5
Malakian#13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: capo beach california
Posts: 2,833
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Malakian#13
I was doing something simular thanks for the time save

I just want idiots to agree on something so I can watch hockey.

Malakian#13 is offline  
Old
02-05-2005, 08:35 AM
  #6
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by regehr
i don't agree. look at the model. it has a salary cap.
you don't need linkage to control costs. this solution ensure every team breaks even (even if revenues drop by 15%).
im sure it does.

the NHL owners want linkage. dont ask them to consider anything else. it sounds to me like the offer the owners tabled is the only model the owners are interested in and the points are not subject to negotiation.

its a lump it or leave it offer. sign it as is or continue to not play NHL hockey. its pretty clear why the players wont vote under those circumstance.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
02-05-2005, 08:39 AM
  #7
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by regehr

4) SALARY ROLLBACK.
24% across-the-board immediate rollback on all current salaries.
(this would also apply to qualifying offers for current free agents)
i dont understand why the players should agree to a roll back. they offered it as an ALTERNATIVE to a cap.

Its completly obnoxious of the owners to include it in their counter proposal with the words "the league accepts the players offer of a rollback".

The owners signed a contract and MUST be expected to fulfil them. Just as we would demand of a player.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
02-05-2005, 08:43 AM
  #8
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,377
vCash: 500
looks very decent to me. I'd say it's a fair deal for both sides and it will work too.

ChemiseBleuHonnete is offline  
Old
02-05-2005, 11:03 AM
  #9
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Looks very good to me, it could certainly work and is the kind of deal I have supported for months now.

Only potential problem I see occurs with the luxury tax soft cap. If there is no linkage, which I am fine with, this soft cap will stay the same. With increased revenues via revenue sharing and luxury tax kickbacks, I am sure that within a couple of years most teams will be able to spend at or over the luxury tax of $36 million. The problem that this could lead to is that you might only have 8 teams under the luxury tax in 4 years from now, and those 8 teams are going to make a killing. I think that the hard floor and cap should be set, but if you are going to have a luxury tax system, where spending over a certain amount will give money directly to other teams, than it needs to be a linked number that can float as the payrolls of the league change. Possibly I would propose to have the luxury tax at the average team payroll of the year before. Last year it was around 41 million, but with the 24% cut in salaries it would probably be around 36 million this year anyway. But as teams start to spend more over the next couple of years, that number can move up. Essentially you would be looking at a situation where every year half of the league is paying a payroll tax and the other half are geting that money. If you have a floating tax threshold, I believe that over time you will achieve this.

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
02-05-2005, 12:53 PM
  #10
crossxcheck
Registered User
 
crossxcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nashvegas
Country: United States
Posts: 2,762
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to crossxcheck Send a message via MSN to crossxcheck Send a message via Yahoo to crossxcheck
I agree. This is the kind of deal I've been thinking about, too. If they agreed to this, both sides could save face. Won't happen, though.

crossxcheck is offline  
Old
02-05-2005, 12:57 PM
  #11
Habsfan 32
Registered User
 
Habsfan 32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Way up north...
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,319
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Habsfan 32 Send a message via MSN to Habsfan 32
Send it to the league my friend because this looks very good. Nice work.

Habsfan 32 is offline  
Old
02-05-2005, 01:36 PM
  #12
trahans99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Home of the 2005 Memorial Cup
Posts: 1,443
vCash: 500
Absolutely genious!!!!!

trahans99 is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 03:00 AM
  #13
Oilman72
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
I'd be happy with that.

Oilman72 is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 12:50 AM
  #14
regehr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mars
Posts: 744
vCash: 500
What this system would also do is give teams an incentive to reduce their 'other' costs (i.e. non player payroll). In other words, to run the team in a more prudent manner. This incentive would be lessened by a linkage system. Look at the range of those 'other' costs -- from Edmonton's $14.7 million to the Rangers $43.4 million. The current average is $28.6 million. The league's most frugal teams (EDM, NSH, NJ, ANA) seem to be able to run their teams on siginificantly less additional costs. If those costs can be cut by 15%, that would result in an average savings of $4.3 million per year.

regehr is offline  
Old
02-08-2005, 01:47 AM
  #15
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
I've gotta say, I like this type of thinking.

In a moderately perfect world, the NHL and the PA could at the very least use this as basis for compromise. Tweaked of course; the ruthless nature of a good business entity cannot be completely restrained.

Honestly, I don't believe that either side would like to make this agreement complicated in any way. They would prefer a more simplistic, more restrictive approach. But that luxury has pretty much flown the coop, and each side has realized that (regardless of what they present in the media).

They're smarter than most or all of us in regards to these issues. The principle players in all this know a hell of a lot more than we do, they know the realities better than us. And they are respectively trying to get the most lucrative deal possible. I can't fault that, from either side.

Just a fan's hope that they may look upon a possible solution such as this.

cws is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 11:38 AM
  #16
regehr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mars
Posts: 744
vCash: 500
Given there is some (unconfirmed) reports of a model such as what I proposed below floating around, I am simply replying to put this back up for discussion.

regehr is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 11:58 AM
  #17
wazee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,140
vCash: 500
It looks good to me. I think the owners would go for it. I have never believed they were hung up on the linkage issue. If the owners could get a realistic cap like the one in this example, they would jump on it.

Would the players go for it? I am not as sure. They seem to still be singing the 'We will never play under a cap' song...

wazee is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 12:01 PM
  #18
dolfanar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Like a midget at a urinal, I'm going to have to stay on my toes.
Posts: 2,948
vCash: 500
Salary arbitration, not touched here, is still a MAJOR stumbling block. Aside from that, good stuff here

dolfanar is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 12:18 PM
  #19
HaBs_ReNeGaTe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Quebec, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 550
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to HaBs_ReNeGaTe
Yeah really good but it looks like the owners proposal (can't remember which one) just need some adjustements and it would be perfect!

HaBs_ReNeGaTe 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 03:31 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.