My own CBA agreement

[barrel_master]

Okay okay, we've had a lot of these but I'd just like to hear your input on this... (if you're not already sick and tired or reading stuff like this)

1. Hard CAP - 55% of revenue

2. Special system where players' salaries are discounted based on the number of games player plays for team. For example, for playing 82 games with team players will have their salaries discounted by 2%. If a player plays for 10 years on one team 82 games x 10 years = 820 games == 20% discount. If you want you can put a max on this at say 30% or 20%. (this clause would help teams keep players who fans like). We could add other fun things too like we could set aside an extra 10% for playoff wins (say 16 playoff wins in one year will get you an extra 5% discount on top of regular season games played.)

3. 5% Escrow tax on gate revenues to compensate players if they fall below 50% of leauge wide revenue.

3a. Teams may, if they wish, 'Buy' extra salary cap space. Teams may increase cap to 60% but must also sacrifice one percentage point of gate revenue to revenue sharing for ever % over the 55% CAP. (when combined with 'clause 2' the absolue max that a team can spend is 1.36x the 55% cap, which I think would be about 52.4 million)

Certinly, there are probably a lot of things people could screw around with here. But as far as a 'hard cap' system goes I think it's kinda neat. Certainly one could argue that some numbers need to be higher and some need to be lower but that's why I'm posting. For whatever input you wish to give. (I imagine most of you would rather not have anything like this implemented but would you prefer this over other CAP systems?)

[Dar]

You've lost me on your second clause. Maybe it's in the way you worded it, but taken literally, your asking players to lower % of salary the more they play for one team.

I'm near positive that's not what you want but:
"for playing 82 games with team players will have their salaries discounted by 2%
That says to me if Sundin plays all 82 games then he would receive $7.84 million as opposed to $8 million and:
"If a player plays for 10 years on one team 82 games x 10 years = 820 games == 20% discount."
Then he would only receive $6.67 million.

[barrel_master]

Originally Posted by Dar

You've lost me on your second clause. Maybe it's in the way you worded it, but taken literally, your asking players to lower % of salary the more they play for one team.

I'm near positive that's not what you want but:
"for playing 82 games with team players will have their salaries discounted by 2%
That says to me if Sundin plays all 82 games then he would receive $7.84 million as opposed to $8 million and:
"If a player plays for 10 years on one team 82 games x 10 years = 820 games == 20% discount."
Then he would only receive $6.67 million.

You're right... it is confusing...

I ment that the salary amount would be discounted when added up in the final CAP figure... say an 8 million player with 20% off would have his salary/costs only count as 8*.8=6.4 million against a CAP.

[leafs_nation]

whole thing sounds feasible to me, i like point 2 now you've explained it - means teams could theoretically offer a little more to franchise players to kepp them at the clubs 'cos in a few years that cap space would be free again, nice

my suggestion is to sack goodenow and bettman as their not hockey people and the players select a board of six to represent them ie. gretz, lemieux, shanahan, pronger, yzerman and brodeur and the owners select six to represent them ranging from small market ie. minny to the leafs at the other end of the scale.

I think we might get more sense then.

but i really like your suggestion anyhow