HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Circumventing the Entry-Level System

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-07-2005, 03:58 PM
  #26
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterjaggers
It harnesses salary inflation.
\

A salary cap harnesses inflation.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 03:59 PM
  #27
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
In a plan to force a trade and are in on the buyout /trade plan with its current team .. The goal isn't to get the player to play its to get the trade package and for the player to get the bigger contract on his second deal ..
But…

Quote:
So Caps sign Ovenckin to a ELS contract and Ovechkins basically holds out saying his is not playing .. So Washington buys him out in a trade deal for a Lindros type deal that would benefit them ..
So Washington signs him, he holds out, Washington buys him out, he signs elsewhere.

Where does the “trade” part come in? If he’s bought out, he can’t be traded.

I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t make sense.

If I'm still misunderstanding you, my apologies. Many of your schemes are so convoluted they're difficult to decipher...

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:00 PM
  #28
HSHS
Losing is a disease
 
HSHS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Redondo Beach, Ca
Country: United States
Posts: 17,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiebez
Article 9.1 a) of the current CBA says....
No Club may enter into a Player Contract with a Rookie
(excluding a player who is age 25 or older) that provides for
Compensation in excess of that permitted by this Article.


In other words, the fact that its a player's first contract, second contract, whatever - doesn't matter one bit. It's an age restriction - the first four years of your career, assuming you are under the age of 25, you are subject to the rookie cap.

End of discussion, I hope.
Not really... the above says "enter into a Player Contract with a Rookie".... in year two, they are not rookies. So an extension that voids the last 3 years of the ELC and is replaced by a newer, more expensive, longer term contract that is beneficial to both team and player is not covered by the article above... IMHO

HSHS is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:01 PM
  #29
HSHS
Losing is a disease
 
HSHS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Redondo Beach, Ca
Country: United States
Posts: 17,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029
But…



So Washington signs him, he holds out, Washington buys him out, he signs elsewhere.

Where does the “trade” part come in? If he’s bought out, he can’t be traded.

I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t make sense.

If I'm still misunderstanding you, my apologies. Many of your schemes are so convoluted they're difficult to decipher...
That's what I said above to him and he has yet to answer... once you are bought out, you are an UFA, and not a tradeable asset to the team.

HSHS is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:04 PM
  #30
Hellfish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Posts: 117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti-vite
How about:

Owner 'X' gives Coca Cola (invests in) 5M$. Coca Cola then endorses, a few months later, player 'Y' for 5M$ whom happens to play for Owner 'X'...

Legal
Possible
This would be a great business opportunity. Set up a sham business, have teams give you cash to set up an endorsment deal with a player, and keep a percentage.
Highly improbable, but better than trying to win the lottery.

Hellfish is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:07 PM
  #31
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 69,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029
But…



So Washington signs him, he holds out, Washington buys him out, he signs elsewhere.

Where does the “trade” part come in? If he’s bought out, he can’t be traded.

I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t make sense.

If I'm still misunderstanding you, my apologies. Many of your schemes are so convoluted they're difficult to decipher...
1) The player is not going to play in the NHL under the ELS amount .

2) Unless you can sign and buyout he can't avoid it as the thread suggests ..

3) You agree to trade the player to the other team and he is only going to play for them if its not ELS contract .. So a new contract is worked out and signed just not filed with the league

4) The trade occurs as part of it includes a ELS contract bought out by Washington as in Ovechkin in this case..

5) Ovechkins new team files the contract they had presigned with the league .

Moral lots of money business to get these young stars into the league why not just adjust the CBA to allow in special cases and why are the Owners being so stubborn in the first place when the Hard Cap per team address the whole problem anyways .

Mess is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:10 PM
  #32
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 69,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heshootshescores
That's what I said above to him and he has yet to answer... once you are bought out, you are an UFA, and not a tradeable asset to the team.
Please see my other post above for clarification .. basically the buyout is a prearranged sceme the player and his agent are in on it as its being done to benefit him get more $$..

i posted it as an answer to your question of how to get around a ELS contract . .The wording of the old CBA said " your first contract" ..

Thus the idea that you have to have a first and get rid of your first to get to the 2nd NHL contract ..


Last edited by Mess: 07-07-2005 at 04:24 PM.
Mess is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:11 PM
  #33
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
3) You agree to trade the player to the other team and he is only going to play for them if its not ELS contract .. So a new contract is worked out and signed just not filed with the league

4) The trade occurs as part of it includes a ELS contract bought out by Washington as in Ovechkin in this case..
1) How do you trade a player whose contract has been bought out? If he has been bought out he no longer belongs to the team and cannot be traded, he is UFA.

2) Even if by some miracle they attempted this (why Washington would even consider it is beyond me), the league would see through it in a millisecond.

Sorry, this is just plain silly.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:16 PM
  #34
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Wow. Spinmaster is at it again. Trading bought-out players in an effort to circumvent the cap. I guess the whole concept of a buy-out and immediate free agency never came into play.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:16 PM
  #35
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,976
vCash: 2635
Quote:
Originally Posted by heshootshescores
I believe the only reason is to prevent rookies from "holding a gun" to the owners head. And this system will work for the 99.9% of rookies.
Why shouldn't they be able to hold a gun to the owner's head just like any other player? The market forces created under a hard cap can determine their salary. The only reason draft picks are being treated differently is that they don't belong to the NHLPA and aren't represented in the CBA negotiations. An entry level cap will be put in place to insure that 3rd-4th liners draw a hefty minimum salary.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:18 PM
  #36
HSHS
Losing is a disease
 
HSHS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Redondo Beach, Ca
Country: United States
Posts: 17,651
vCash: 500
I find it hard to comprehend that you'd (Messenger) take my question as to whether giving extensions to 2nd/3rd yr players is legal under the old cap and probably under the new and turn it into this buyout/trade/sign unfiled contract scenario...

Perhaps you are trying to circumvent the rookie year too while I am just looking at the later years.

HSHS is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:19 PM
  #37
HockeyCritter
Registered User
 
HockeyCritter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,656
vCash: 500
Are there not limits on rookie earnings in other leagues? Aren’t NBA prospects contracts determined by draft position?

HockeyCritter is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:20 PM
  #38
HSHS
Losing is a disease
 
HSHS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Redondo Beach, Ca
Country: United States
Posts: 17,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
Wow. Spinmaster is at it again. Trading bought-out players in an effort to circumvent the cap. I guess the whole concept of a buy-out and immediate free agency never came into play.
Ico: you have any thoughts though on the scenario I attempted to suggest? Or are you just continuing your Messenger bashing? I find myself agreeing with you on many things and I was hoping to hear your opinion.

HSHS is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:26 PM
  #39
jamiebez
Registered User
 
jamiebez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heshootshescores
Not really... the above says "enter into a Player Contract with a Rookie".... in year two, they are not rookies. So an extension that voids the last 3 years of the ELC and is replaced by a newer, more expensive, longer term contract that is beneficial to both team and player is not covered by the article above... IMHO
Fair enough, but how is spending more money "beneficial to the team"? And why wouldn't Boston have done this for Thornton already instead of using the creative "bonus plan"?

IMO, the answer is that this type of loophole (and most of the loopholes discussed on this board like paying Gatorade $5M to pay Pronger ) will be closed pretty tightly in a 600-page document.

jamiebez is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:26 PM
  #40
HSHS
Losing is a disease
 
HSHS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Redondo Beach, Ca
Country: United States
Posts: 17,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffaloed
Why shouldn't they be able to hold a gun to the owner's head just like any other player? The market forces created under a hard cap can determine their salary. The only reason draft picks are being treated differently is that they don't belong to the NHLPA and aren't represented in the CBA negotiations. An entry level cap will be put in place to insure that 3rd-4th liners draw a hefty minimum salary.
As a person who tends to fall on the right side of center about 60% of the time, I agree with you.... as a fan that watches many sports, I completely disagree. The only way I would get rid of EL caps is to allow the team to hold the drafted person's rights indefinitely OR issue a comp pick for the spot the person was taken and remove that same pick from the new team that he signs with (sort of like baseball).

example: AO doesn't like what DC offers... either the Caps ALWAYS own his rights OR if he signs with another team (LA) after the CBA mandated time, Caps would get 1st overall pick the next draft and LA loses there #1 pick that year (whatever their position).

HSHS is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:32 PM
  #41
HSHS
Losing is a disease
 
HSHS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Redondo Beach, Ca
Country: United States
Posts: 17,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiebez
Fair enough, but how is spending more money "beneficial to the team"? And why wouldn't Boston have done this for Thornton already instead of using the creative "bonus plan"?

IMO, the answer is that this type of loophole (and most of the loopholes discussed on this board like paying Gatorade $5M to pay Pronger ) will be closed pretty tightly in a 600-page document.
What I meant of beneficial is kind of like the Eagles signing McNabb to the 100M contract... they gave him money before they needed to but in the long run saved money on what he would have cost them as a UFA.

In the Caps/AO example. What if he is really really good... leads the team in scoring, hitting, +/-, etc... and the Caps are like, this guy IS the real deal. Well, from AO's perspective, he is only guaranteed 850x3yr= 2.55M. If the Caps offered 40M/8yrs guaranteed... that may be cheaper in years 4-8 than what he would have cost. Also, if you believe both revenue and cap space is going up, then it would not be as restrictive on the Cap.

I just seriously doubt how you can "close" a "loophole" on contract extensions... and this would only apply to those SPECIAL individuals: Nash, Ilya, perhaps AO and SC.

Edit: I agree that other option of having Gatorade pay Pronger is simply and most easily defined as "out of bounds"...

HSHS is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:35 PM
  #42
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 69,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heshootshescores
I find it hard to comprehend that you'd (Messenger) take my question as to whether giving extensions to 2nd/3rd yr players is legal under the old cap and probably under the new and turn it into this buyout/trade/sign unfiled contract scenario...

Perhaps you are trying to circumvent the rookie year too while I am just looking at the later years.
The way I see it working legally is that inorder to get Ovechkin and Crosby types to play under ELS contract is to promise to make it up to him in his 2nd contract ..

So If you make it up to him by overpaying him in the 2nd deal .. So rather then paying him $3 you give him $4 mil over 4 years to compenste for earlier losses .(giving him an extra million year).

I am guessing that the amount on the deffered payment if you like would have to be be equal to what he is giving up to not stay in Europe ..

Mess is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:41 PM
  #43
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,976
vCash: 2635
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
The way I see it working legally is that inorder to get Ovechkin and Crosby types to play under ELS contract is to promise to make it up to him in his 2nd contract ..
That sort of thing isn't legal in any league that has a CBA with a cap.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:47 PM
  #44
jamiebez
Registered User
 
jamiebez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heshootshescores
What I meant of beneficial is kind of like the Eagles signing McNabb to the 100M contract... they gave him money before they needed to but in the long run saved money on what he would have cost them as a UFA.

In the Caps/AO example. What if he is really really good... leads the team in scoring, hitting, +/-, etc... and the Caps are like, this guy IS the real deal. Well, from AO's perspective, he is only guaranteed 850x3yr= 2.55M. If the Caps offered 40M/8yrs guaranteed... that may be cheaper in years 4-8 than what he would have cost. Also, if you believe both revenue and cap space is going up, then it would not be as restrictive on the Cap.

I just seriously doubt how you can "close" a "loophole" on contract extensions... and this would only apply to those SPECIAL individuals: Nash, Ilya, perhaps AO and SC.

Edit: I agree that other option of having Gatorade pay Pronger is simply and most easily defined as "out of bounds"...
I think closing the loophole is as easy as saying "in the first four years of a player's career he can only make $850k" in whatever "legalese" you need to.

I agree that there should be some kind of provision in place for guys that come in and immediately enter the superstar category, and it sounds like there will be. But the idea of a rookie cap is to stop high salaries for "undeserving" rookies that raises the salary bar for 22-28 year old RFAs. A loophole that allows a team to tear up a contract after one year is a pretty clear violation of that intent. And besides, like I said before, I'm sure someone must have thought of this before & it hasn't happened yet.

jamiebez is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:51 PM
  #45
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 69,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffaloed
That sort of thing isn't legal in any league that has a CBA with a cap.
Really ??

as Carson would say I never knew that !!!

How does it work though .. There are no check and balances in a CBA that says a player needs to make X amount .. So what prevents his team from overpaying him in future deals??? .. or is it the prearranged part that violates rules ??

So a team says " We will look after you in the future is a CBA violation ? " or are we talking about a different thing here ??.

Mess is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 04:54 PM
  #46
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heshootshescores
Ico: you have any thoughts though on the scenario I attempted to suggest? Or are you just continuing your Messenger bashing? I find myself agreeing with you on many things and I was hoping to hear your opinion.
Okay, here's my take. The new CBA is going to rival the phone book in weight and reading enjoyment. I suspect that every loophole has been discussed to death and that rookie salaries are the one aspect that has been hashed out ad naseum. The odds of a loop hole in rookie salaries is going to be zero IMO. There is a structure in place and ikely a well defined bonus structure that agents will be allowed to follow. After that there will be no negotiation. Rookies have been tossed under the bus before and I suspect this has not changed in this negotiation at all. I suspect that the NHL and NHLPA has outlined a generous bonus schedule that will allow for the exceptional rookies to cash in and make a very good living. But it will not be as easy as it has in the past and the performance will have to be exceptional to hit the big numbers.

Now to what you suggest, no I do not see the potential for one year of the contract to be served then re-worked. I suspect that all contracts will have terms on them and that these contracts will not be extendible until the player is in his final year of service. As well, IIRC, there is a three year limit on contracts, so it would not be in the teams long term interest to do what you suggest until the final year of the rokie contract, and the term limit being an inhibitor to re-opening deals. This is a pretty obvious loop hole and I think that it will be one of the first ones that has been shut down. Hockey has been hurt by rookie contracts in the past, I really don't think they will leave themselves open to the abuse again in the future.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 05:08 PM
  #47
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 69,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029
1) How do you trade a player whose contract has been bought out? If he has been bought out he no longer belongs to the team and cannot be traded, he is UFA.

2) Even if by some miracle they attempted this (why Washington would even consider it is beyond me), the league would see through it in a millisecond.

Sorry, this is just plain silly.
Do you accept that you could buy out a player ??

Could that player once free could go sign with another team ..

Lets pick Crosby .. He is bought out by the team that gets him .. and Crosby signs with Montreal the team he wants to play for ..

Now to complete the prearranged deal the Habs trade the package to the team that bought out Crosby for a roster player or something else from that team + FUTURE CONSIDERERATIONS (which was the buying out of Crosby)

That does that address your concern over the buyout and not being able to trade him then ??

Could that work to make all parties happy?

Mess is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 05:13 PM
  #48
Digger12
Gold Fever
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Back o' beyond
Posts: 16,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Do you accept that you could buy out a player ??

Could that player once free could go sign with another team ..

Lets pick Crosby .. He is bought out by the team that gets him .. and Crosby signs with Montreal the team he wants to play for ..

Now to complete the prearranged deal the Habs trade the package to the team that bought out Crosby for a roster player or something else from that team + FUTURE CONSIDERERATIONS (which was the buying out of Crosby)

That does that address your concern over the buyout and not being able to trade him then ??

Could that work to make all parties happy?
You just live for this...I can tell.

Digger12 is online now  
Old
07-07-2005, 05:14 PM
  #49
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by heshootshescores
Sean Taylor (pre-arrest) was asking for a new contract after 1 year. The NFL addresses rookie contracts through allowing a "pool" of money being used to sign rookies. Throughout Taylor's contract debate, there was never any discussion on how the "pool" would be affected by him potentially getting a new contract.
I was not referring to your post. I was referring to the post revolving around the issue of signing a rookie player to a 1 year contract. That has been addressed in the NBA, NFL, and NHL as far as I know. That a team can enter into negotiations to alter an appropriate length rookie contract in mid-contract is another matter altogether and was not my post's contention.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 05:15 PM
  #50
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,976
vCash: 2635
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Really ??

as Carson would say I never knew that !!!

How does it work though .. There are no check and balances in a CBA that says a player needs to make X amount .. So what prevents his team from overpaying him in future deals??? .. or is it the prearranged part that violates rules ??

So a team says " We will look after you in the future is a CBA violation ? " or are we talking about a different thing here ??.
The NFL CBA has it well covered and provides for stiff sanctions:
http://www.nflpa.org/Media/main.asp?...Complete#art25


Quote:
ENFORCEMENT OF THE SALARY

CAP AND ENTERING PLAYER POOL

Section 1. Undisclosed Terms: A Club (or a Club Affiliate) and a player (or a Player Affiliate or player agent) may not, at any time, enter into undisclosed agreements of any kind, express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind: (a) involving consideration of any kind to be paid, furnished or made available or guaranteed to the player, or Player Affiliate, by the Club or Club Affiliate either prior to, during, or after the term of the Player Contract; and/or (b) concerning the terms of any renegotiation and/or extension of any Player Contract by a player subject to a Franchise Player or Transition Player designation.
Even the expired NHL CBA prohibits circumvention.
http://www.nhlcbanews.com/cba/article26.html
Quote:
26.1. No Club or Player shall enter into any Player Contract, Offer Sheet or other agreement that includes any terms which are designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement, including without limitation, provisions with respect to the Entry Level System or Restricted Free Agency. However, any conduct permitted by this Agreement shall not be considered to be a violation of this provision.
The prohibition of "other agreement" includes verbal ones. Similar language can be found in the NBA CBA.

Buffaloed 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 07:25 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.