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.

Does Anybody Here Remember Vera Lynn? (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XXVIII ‎

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-14-2012, 09:53 PM
  #251
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripleX View Post
There are two types of reconstructing contracts in NFL. The first is to increase cap room by asking players to reconstruct their contracts to convert salary to bonus. This is the one you mentioned.

The second is to ask players to take a pay cut or being released. Players only loses in this case. You obviously "forgot" about this.

And again, NFL teams can cut players to crease cap room when the pro-rated singing bonus is less than salary. Most players do not have huge amount of singing bonus to prevent this from happening in the later part of the contracts.
I didn't forget because these players are free to sign with another team and get another upfront signing bonus.

Happens all of the time.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 09:57 PM
  #252
tripleX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 90
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
I didn't forget because these players are free to sign with another team and get another upfront signing bonus.

Happens all of the time.
Maybe they can, maybe they can't. It depends on how well they can still play. But this doesn't change the fact NFL contracts aren't guaranteed and NFL teams can cut a player to create more cap room when pro-rated bonus is less than salary in later part of the contract.

And no, it doesn't happen all the time. It does sometimes happen, but more often older players on decline do not get another big signing bonus.

tripleX is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 09:59 PM
  #253
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripleX View Post
Not true, when pro-rated bonus is less than salary, cutting a player actually create more cap room even with dead money.
This only happens towards the end of a contract, because most deals are front loaded.

By the time a player is cut for cap purposes, he has earned the bulk of his money through the signing bonus and front loading.

Agents add phony years because of this very reason. Players and agents expect a cap purge in the last 2-3 years.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:01 PM
  #254
tripleX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 90
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
This only happens towards the end of a contract, because most deals are front loaded.

By the time a player is cut for cap purposes, he has earned the bulk of his money through the signing bonus and front loading.

Agents add phony years because of this very reason.
Not true. Most contracts are back loaded especially with big signing bonus. Just look at Peyton's case when he was released by Colts.

tripleX is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:01 PM
  #255
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
I'll say this to that comment.

The owners wrote the CBA and did a poor job in doing so.
Practice makes perfect.

Well, in theory at least.

Butch 19 is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:01 PM
  #256
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,589
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
As a relatively new NFL fan, the cuts they have in that sport are shocking to me. In hockey guys begin a long, slow decline. They get demoted down lines, and finally the stars have a farewell tour season.

I liked star guys in the NFL and before I can blink, they're done. Like out. Heinz Ward is the most recent example I can think of. What do you think would happen to Gomez in the NFL? lol.
Little off topic but I have to ask, since I have done the same. How's the transition from hockey to football? As for Gomez, I doubt he would even be in the NHL if they had rules like the NFL.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:02 PM
  #257
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
“It used to be you got bailed out when you sold your team even if you lost money year after year,” said Marc Ganis, president of SportsCorp Ltd., a consulting firm. “Now, you’re no longer assured of cashing out to cover your capital costs and losses.”

Also, if team valuation doesn't increase fast enough you can't recoup losses, now can you? TWELVE of the twenty-one WORST franchise investments since 2000 are NHL franchises.

Yes, some teams can ride on valuation. But that model is getting worse, which is why you see a change in team philosophy and a decrease from ~70% of revenue going to team salaries in the 90's is now 50% or below now. That's not a fluke.

Also, Maclean was saying on hockeycentral about a month ago that many of the minority owners in the league are now banks, who also happen to be the creditors for the teams. Since most teams don't have the actual month-to-month cashflow necessary to actually run the team, they rely a lot on debt service. It is in the bank's best interest to ensure more financial stability in the league so that these teams can continue to make their payments without defaulting.

When look at that list of teams that have been a poor investment, it makes it fairly clear why the Owners needed (yes Needed) to lockout the players.

Orrthebest is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:03 PM
  #258
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeety mcjeet View Post
So Gomez and Redden type contracts are more fair and better for the league as a whole than the NFL's franchise tag rule? Nope. Also when you put it that way you make earning $7.5 mill sound so bad. Its really hard to make earning $7.5 million in one year sound bad FYI.
That's $91M or so less than he got. NFL structures aren't as zany as NHL structures and players absolutely despise being tagged.

guyincognito is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:07 PM
  #259
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripleX View Post
Not true. Most contracts are back loaded especially with big signing bonus. Just look at Peyton's case when he was released by Colts.
No, most contracts are front loaded. Look at the Bree's deal as a typical example. Players and agents would never agree to backloaded deals.

Manning had a phony roster bonus added to his contract, which is why he was cut. Then he turned around and got paid more with his new contract, than if he stayed with the Colts.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:13 PM
  #260
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Little off topic but I have to ask, since I have done the same. How's the transition from hockey to football? As for Gomez, I doubt he would even be in the NHL if they had rules like the NFL.
Sorry, I don't understand the question. I never stopped watching hockey so watching football was something I started to do with my cousins and it became a habit. Did I understand correctly?

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:14 PM
  #261
whskybarJM
Registered User
 
whskybarJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: ca
Country: United States
Posts: 920
vCash: 500
evil people at work here.

how dare they ruin my sport for me.

I am getting angry at Snider for not getting this nonsense under control. I know for a fact he just wants the league to start.

I despise jacobs.
I despise the players
I despise bettman
I despise fehr

most of all I despise these hard stance small market owners with a horrible fanbase.

whskybarJM is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:15 PM
  #262
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Brees' deal is 40-10-11-19-20. Unless his arm falls off he will get 3-60.

guyincognito is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:18 PM
  #263
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrquincy27 View Post
Can someone explain Eklund's optimism?
Yep. In February 2005 eklund expressed similar optimism on his, I think blogspot page, then reported a deal had been reached. This was picked up by several media outlets.

The season was canceled later that night. This event is actually what made this guy "famous."

In other words, my guess is he thinks doing the same thing again will bring more notoriety,

billybudd is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:20 PM
  #264
tripleX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 90
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
No, most contracts are front loaded. Look at the Bree's deal as a typical example. Players and agents would never agree to backloaded deals.

Manning had a phony roster bonus added to his contract, which is why he was cut. Then he turned around and got paid more with his new contract, than if he stayed with the Colts.
wow, you even bring up Brees' contract to prove your own claim is wrong.

Brees' contract breakdown:

Signing bonus: 37M

1st year salary: 3M
2nd year salary: 9.75M
3rd year salary: 10.75M
4th year salary: 18.75M
5th year salary: 19.75M

There are also workout bonuses etc for 1M totally (250K each in 2nd to 5th year).

The reason prevents Brees from being released early is his big signing bonus, which is not common in NFL. His salary is obviously backloaded, not your claim of frontloaded.

The Saints' cap hit each year is

1st year: 10.4M
2nd year: 17.4M
3rd year: 18.4M
4th year: 26.5M
5th year: 27.4M

Even with huge 37M signing bonus, it only protects Brees in the first 3 years. Saints can cut him before 4th or 5th year and save cap space and Brees won't see the 38.5M in the last two years of the contract.

Remember, this is Brees, a star player holding out and get a "good" contract with big signing bonus and his contract is still not that safe. Most NFL players don't get close to anything like his and have even less protection.


Last edited by tripleX: 11-14-2012 at 10:25 PM.
tripleX is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:32 PM
  #265
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,539
vCash: 500
Nice. I like the NFL lesson. Let's never get there.

CerebralGenesis is online now  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:35 PM
  #266
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,055
vCash: 492
Someone get this guy on the line:
http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...k-at-cba-talks

pepty is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:35 PM
  #267
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripleX View Post
wow, you even bring up Brees' contract to prove your own claim is wrong.

Brees' contract breakdown:

Signing bonus: 37M

1st year salary: 3M
2nd year salary: 9.75M
3rd year salary: 10.75M
4th year salary: 18.75M
5th year salary: 19.75M

There are also workout bonuses etc for 1M totally (250K each in 2nd to 5th year).

The reason prevents Brees from being released early is his big signing bonus, which is not common in NFL. His salary is obviously backloaded, not your claim of frontloaded.

The Saints' cap hit each year is

1st year: 10.4M
2nd year: 17.4M
3rd year: 18.4M
4th year: 26.5M
5th year: 27.4M

Even with huge 37M signing bonus, it only protects Brees in the first 3 years. Saints can cut him before 4th or 5th year and save cap space and Brees won't see the 38.5M in the last two years of the contract.

Remember, this is Brees, a star player holding out and get a "good" contract with big signing bonus and his contract is still not that safe. Most NFL players don't get close to anything like his and have even less protection.
Convenient that you leave out the most important facts.

Brees is making 40m in the first year. 3m + 37m signing bonus.

In year two, unless he is cut (not likely), he is guaranteed 10m, plus another 5m for year three.

He is making half the contract value in the first two years.

That is called front loading.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:37 PM
  #268
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Sorry, I don't understand the question. I never stopped watching hockey so watching football was something I started to do with my cousins and it became a habit. Did I understand correctly?
I think he means that Gomez would have been cut years ago under the NFL rules, and no one would have given him another big contract (even if Jiggy tells you they would have).

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:37 PM
  #269
AirheadPete
Registered User
 
AirheadPete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 6,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
i still dont think mediation would accomplish anything. one interesting thing from the article though for me (in reference to NFL negotiations):

Quote:
A large part of Boylan’s job was not just to find traction in negotiations but also to determine which lawyers worked well together and which owners and which players were helpful to the process.


Last edited by AirheadPete: 11-14-2012 at 10:48 PM.
AirheadPete is online now  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:41 PM
  #270
tripleX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 90
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Convenient that you leave out the most important facts.

Brees is making 40m in the first year. 3m + 37m signing bonus.

In year two, unless he is cut (not likely), he is guaranteed 10m, plus another 5m for year three.

He is making half the contract value in the first two years.

That is called front loading.
We were talking about the salary being frontloaded and backloaded since salary distribution decides when players can be cut to create cap room which decides how much is guaranteed and how much is not. In NFL, what matters is cap hit and the cap hit of signing bonus is spread to the whole length of the deal.

How much Brees earn doesn't matter, what matter is whether the contract is guaranteed. As mentioned, Brees can be cut before 4th or 5th year and not guarantee to earn the full amount of the contract.


Last edited by tripleX: 11-14-2012 at 10:53 PM.
tripleX is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:43 PM
  #271
mrquincy27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 222
vCash: 500
Does anyone think this could go into next season?

mrquincy27 is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:49 PM
  #272
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Convenient that you leave out the most important facts.

Brees is making 40m in the first year. 3m + 37m signing bonus.

In year two, unless he is cut (not likely), he is guaranteed 10m, plus another 5m for year three.

He is making half the contract value in the first two years.

That is called front loading.
It's a 3 year/$60M contract with insurance on year 2/3. Is it front-loaded, yes, but there's also money in that deal that can never be obtained because of the cap values.

Now if he was a hockey player, he'd get all $100M.

His career earnings will be $131.7M, up until that window. Everything else is up in the air. Zach Parise's will be $118M. I don't have Kovalchuk's ELC, but his total eliminating the last 5 years of his deal will be probably $125M.

NFL players get the shaft. Yeah that one year windfall is great, but the players do not get paid enough, I shouldn't be able to take one of the, if not the premier QB's in the NFL and put their career earnings up against two top class NHL FA.

guyincognito is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:54 PM
  #273
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
No matter what you say or how you try to deflect, you simply cannot prove what future growth may be. Historical trends doesn't guarantee future patterns. That is not an opinion. That is an absolute fact. If you would like to argue otherwise, then the delusion in your argument won't merit further discussion.

But let's get back to what you actually said and what you're deflecting. You said the owners are asking for raises. You have no proof that future revenue will not suffer so you can't proclaim decreased revenue to be an impossible scenario. You don't believe it will drop but don't confuse yourself with what is your own opinion and what should be taken as fact. Revenues aren't protected from decreasing so as my example shows, it is possible for the owners to make less at 50% than at 43% taking context into consideration. Making less in dollar terms goes against the spirit of what you meant by the owners are asking for raises. You're free to back track your comment but your posts already show how ill conceived your comment and response are.
You have no proof that revenue will not continue to grow: Is history not the best indicator for the future? Do you have a reason to believe that (excluding the current lockout) revenues are/ were going to suddenly take a nose dive? If that's the case, the NHL should plan for the worst scenario possible and pay the players minimum wage.

I think the NHL should just fold right now: Revenues are guaranteed to decrease! The NHL will never make money! The last 8 years were a farce!

It's possible, but it isn't going to happen. I mean, seeing as "only 3 teams made real money" who would notice anyway? It's possible for the players to make more at 43% this year than they did at 57% last year, but again that's not going to happen. If you believe otherwise you're just being foolish: Historical trends do not guarantee what will happen, but they are certainly the best indicator that we have. Does every business simply forget what sales it had in the most recent year (or most recent 8 years) and say "Well, that'll never happen again so we should lay-off 50% of our employees right now"?

Quote:
Again, you should take some economics courses before you comment on others understanding of the math. The reason why owners are able to deduct a certain amount of expenses is so that both sides can gain. Someone used the example of hot dogs which I think works well. If the owner has to give the players $3 for every $5 hot dog he sells in his arena and it costs him $3 to make that hot dog, why would the owner continue to offer the hot dog in his stadium when he ends losing $1 with each hot dog sold while giving the players $3 from the sale. What incentive does the owner have to provide these concessions at hockey games when he's losing money with each hot dog? Instead he'll tell his consumers to go buy the hot dog outside the stadium. You know how much money the players get from the hot dog vendor outside? ZERO DOLLARS. By splitting the $2 profit, the owner has the incentive to continue providing the hot dogs because he is making money and therefore the players are making money.

The real problem is that you're commenting on things you have seemingly taken little time to research and understand before engaging others in discussion and then make underhanded comments about their position when it seems you are the one that could use some crash courses on what both sides are proposing and the implications of each of those proposals.
Personal attacks on HF: That's a new one! Perhaps you should take some "crash courses" on apostrophes before commenting on a person's comprehension of a subject.

You don't need to take "60% of every hot dog sold", it simply gets added to the total pot. You're also assuming that it would be structured in a way that forces the owners to lose money: By simply stating that for every hot dog sold the players get 60% of the profit (as opposed to the revenue) you've ensured a profitable situation for yourself as an owner, as well as the players. I like your close-minded approach though; it really demonstrates where the NHL is coming from: Don't listen to a word they have to say! We're right and they're wrong!


Quote:
Originally Posted by whskybarJM View Post
evil people at work here.

how dare they ruin my sport for me.

I am getting angry at Snider for not getting this nonsense under control. I know for a fact he just wants the league to start.

I despise jacobs.
I despise the players
I despise bettman
I despise fehr

most of all I despise these small market owners with a horrible fanbase.
FTW

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:55 PM
  #274
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripleX View Post
Incorrect, the frontloaded and backloaded is based on salary and salary distribution decides when players can be cut to create cap room.

How much Brees earn doesn't matter, what matter is whether the contract is guaranteed. As mentioned, Brees can be cut before 4th or 5th year and not guarantee to earn the full amount of the contract.
Ya, making 40m in year one doesn't matter. Right. That IS front loading.

The value of the contract is based on the signing bonus. That is what is the most important aspect of the deal, because it is guaranteed. It is considered part of the salary, and that is why you will never see a deal that isn't front loaded.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:55 PM
  #275
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,539
vCash: 500
I think he's arguing just to argue, like the NHLPA ironically.

This is the first time that I really got what happened in the NFL since their contracts seemed like a mystery so I got something valuable out of this outside of pointless bickering. When your point is proved wrong, just change your angle.

CerebralGenesis is online now  
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 08:07 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.