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.

Circumventing the Entry-Level System

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-07-2005, 05:16 PM
  #51
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
You just live for this...I can tell.
Well its a part of my job in principle .. Software design and testing involves trying to come up with ways to make it fail ..

Mess is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 05:20 PM
  #52
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffaloed
The NFL CBA has it well covered and provides for stiff sanctions:
http://www.nflpa.org/Media/main.asp?subPage=CBA+Complete#art25




Even the expired NHL CBA prohibits circumvention.
http://www.nhlcbanews.com/cba/article26.html


The prohibition of "other agreement" includes verbal ones. Similar language can be found in the NBA CBA.
Thanks

That makes it pretty clear that this has been well thought out in many leagues and has been closed off in the form of any loophole to circumvent a ELS or Cap . .

Mess is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 05:23 PM
  #53
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Well its a part of my job in principle .. Software design and testing involves trying to come up with ways to make it fail ..
And I don't begrudge you for a second. It's interesting reading.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 05:25 PM
  #54
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
FYI ...

In the old CBa, the entry level compensation limits endure for the entire duration that a player is a Group I player. A player's group I status is determined essentially by his draft year, with extensions for defected players and players who did not play the requisite number of games.

To answer the question posed, the ridiculous scenario proposed by Massager is "it would not work". I say ridiculous because it is such a patently obvious ploy the restrictions preventing it were undoubtedly among the first items drafted when clause 9 of the old CBA was drafted.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 05:27 PM
  #55
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
And I don't begrudge you for a second. It's interesting reading.
Creative thinking as I call it ..

I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL Owners has a room full of people sitting and doing the same thing as I am here on a message board, both from a legal point of view and finding and closing Loopholes if you like that are familiar with cba's and the system and sport .

Mess is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 05:37 PM
  #56
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
Finally ... a pro-cap guy who makes sense.

To many people seem to be lined up on one side or the other, and they are unable to stray from party lines in these discussions.
Therefore, if you're pro-owner, you have to be against every player trying to make more money.
And if you're pro-pa, you're against all attempts to keep salaries down.

Lost is the ability to address each other's points.
Isn't a rookie cap (when used in conjunction with a hard cap) really a benefit for the majority if existing players? It guarantees that the vast majority of available $'s is used to pay proven NHL players, and not paid to guys until they prove they can contribute. The owners are relatively safe in either case - they can't spend more than the cap limit.

Beukeboom Fan is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 05:46 PM
  #57
HockeyEh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause
Agreed. Maybe I am naive, but I refuse to believe that the NHL would allow such an obvious loophole. Most loopholes require quite a bit of creative thinking. The sign to one year loophole is incredibly obvious and has probably been addressed in many other major leagues (NFL, NBA) as well as well as the last NHL CBA. It's just too easy to let it slide.
The Internal Revenue Code and the accompanying pages of regulations go on for tens of thousands of pages. Length (and thousands of drafting hours) does NOT mean "no loopholes."

HockeyEh is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 07:21 PM
  #58
Resolute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffaloed
Why is an entry level system even needed with a hard cap? If a team can create the cap room, they should be able to pay any player whatever they want.
I am surprised almost everyone overlooked the obvious answer.

It isnt he NHL that needs an entry level cap. It is the NHLPA that needs it. The entry level cap leaves more money available for the players who have paid their dues in the union. Sign Crosby to a $4 million deal out of the gate, and that is $3.15 million that is going to a kid who is not yet an NHLPA member rather than a member in good standing.

And, since the majority of the leagues players are going to be below $1 million now, the bulk of that $3.15 million is going to be taken out of the pockets of the higher paid players. Thus, it is in the stars best interest to restrict rookie salaries.

Ironically, Sidney Crosby could potentially lose more money down the road for this very reason than he would make in his first four years without a rookie cap.

Resolute is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 07:53 PM
  #59
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
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?

Okay, so you are saying that both teams and the player sign a secret agreement. An agreement that if it becomes public would result in all parties paying substantial penalties?

Here would be my concerns...

1.) The team that gets Crosby (or whatever player) is going to agree to let him go and risk losing substantial amounts of money and draft picks just so that the player can get more money? Does this make sense?

2.) Once the player gets bought out, what is to stop him from changing his mind and going to a totally different team? The other parties involved in the secret deal can't come forward without exposing themselves to more severe penalties.

3.) Once the team recieves the key player what is to keep them from saying to hell with the deal and not making the trade with the future considerations? Again, none of the teams can come forward with out exposing themselves.

For all of the parties involved, there is very high risk and the only thing that it really accomplishes is to give one player more money.

Why would anyone do this?

djhn579 is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 08:21 PM
  #60
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,281
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Okay, so you are saying that both teams and the player sign a secret agreement. An agreement that if it becomes public would result in all parties paying substantial penalties?

Here would be my concerns...

1.) The team that gets Crosby (or whatever player) is going to agree to let him go and risk losing substantial amounts of money and draft picks just so that the player can get more money? Does this make sense?

2.) Once the player gets bought out, what is to stop him from changing his mind and going to a totally different team? The other parties involved in the secret deal can't come forward without exposing themselves to more severe penalties.

3.) Once the team recieves the key player what is to keep them from saying to hell with the deal and not making the trade with the future considerations? Again, none of the teams can come forward with out exposing themselves.

For all of the parties involved, there is very high risk and the only thing that it really accomplishes is to give one player more money.

Why would anyone do this?
I'm still wondering why Washington would do this -- after all, they'd take a hit to their cap space with the buyout, right? No matter how much $$ Ovechkin or his "new team" paid Washington in secret, it would not change the hit to the cap.

I also don't know why on earth Washington would want to go to so much time and trouble to get more money for a player who has basically just told them to drop dead.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 08:26 PM
  #61
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Okay, so you are saying that both teams and the player sign a secret agreement. An agreement that if it becomes public would result in all parties paying substantial penalties?

Here would be my concerns...

1.) The team that gets Crosby (or whatever player) is going to agree to let him go and risk losing substantial amounts of money and draft picks just so that the player can get more money? Does this make sense??
The goal was to try and find a way around the ELS system .. Think of it like the Lindros situation and the player will NOT play for the team that drafted him .. In this case pick Crosby .. He can earn more money in Europe then here in the NHL .. So team MUST/WANTS to trade him so that they can get the players in exchange



Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
2.) Once the player gets bought out, what is to stop him from changing his mind and going to a totally different team? The other parties involved in the secret deal can't come forward without exposing themselves to more severe penalties.??
In real of course he could go anywhere ..but the player and agent is aware of this as this is being done to get around the ELS contract and into the NHL .. In this case Crosby wants to go to Montreal and a contract could already be worked out in advance just not filed with the NHL yet .. To secure that from happening as you suggest .. Don't forget this is not for every pick just special players .. Crosby, Ovechkin etc ..


Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
3.) Once the team recieves the key player what is to keep them from saying to hell with the deal and not making the trade with the future considerations? Again, none of the teams can come forward with out exposing themselves.

For all of the parties involved, there is very high risk and the only thing that it really accomplishes is to give one player more money..??
Same anwser as above .. Why would the teams screw each other over ?? The trade could again be made and on paper sign sealed and delivered .. You have to put the time on the trade form just date and names .. You could complete this first even before you have bought out the player . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Why would anyone do this?
Keep this in context of trying to find a ELS contract loophole .. in the NEW CBA just to test the CBA .. Would this be normal .. Of Course not .. but if its was for special Marquee Franchise players that refuse to play for the team that drafts because of the $$$ limitation and better money outside the NHL ..

Mess is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 08:31 PM
  #62
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029
I'm still wondering why Washington would do this -- after all, they'd take a hit to their cap space with the buyout, right? No matter how much $$ Ovechkin or his "new team" paid Washington in secret, it would not change the hit to the cap.

I also don't know why on earth Washington would want to go to so much time and trouble to get more money for a player who has basically just told them to drop dead.
What good does Ovechkin do Washington if he stays in Russia and makes doulbe and triple what the NHL can offer .. If that is the case the reason for trading him like Lindros is the return .. Quebec got Forsberg as one of those players in that trade ..

Washington needs players now not 5 years down the road ..

Only trading him gives the Caps value to help them today ..

The conveluted way to go about is for the reason you just can't trade Ovechkin because you just transfer the player .. His new team is no better off .. Ovechkin will stay in Russia for them to ..

Mess is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 08:41 PM
  #63
HSHS
Losing is a disease
 
HSHS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Redondo Beach, Ca
Country: United States
Posts: 17,639
vCash: 500
This is becoming not what I intended... sorry.

HSHS is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 08:48 PM
  #64
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heshootshescores
This is becoming not what I intended... sorry.
And well you should be ...

Massager has appropriated the thread for his own with his toying with newbies, about fanciful theories that are patently ridiculous. Even after he has been shown that his little buyout theory (even if there were some reason a team would want to draft Corsby and then give him away for a song so he could get more money) was prevented in the last CBA and is so patently obvious that to call it a loophole is an insult to all loopholes, and he even admits as such, he still spews on this thread.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 08:50 PM
  #65
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan
Isn't a rookie cap (when used in conjunction with a hard cap) really a benefit for the majority if existing players? It guarantees that the vast majority of available $'s is used to pay proven NHL players, and not paid to guys until they prove they can contribute. The owners are relatively safe in either case - they can't spend more than the cap limit.
Yes. IMO, it benefits the PA more than it does the owners. Every dollar paid to a rookie is taken out of the pocket of a veteran.

I'm not pro-Crosby or pro-Ovechkin.
I just want teams to have the ability to sign their guys. It's seems pretty ludicrous to adopt as system that encourages its best young players to look elsewhere to play.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 08:53 PM
  #66
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 HockeyEh
The Internal Revenue Code and the accompanying pages of regulations go on for tens of thousands of pages. Length (and thousands of drafting hours) does NOT mean "no loopholes."
I realize this is your first post, but where did I say there would be no loopholes? I merely stated there wouldn't be such obvious loopholes.

And as someone who has worked in tax, I am quite familiar with the Internal Revenue Code. ria.thomson was my homepage for about a year. But this is a completely different beast than the IRC. It is exponentially smaller and less complex and this CBA, unlike the IRC, is not subject to every business/market development in U.S. Even though it is a Dr. Suess book compared to the IRC, I still expect loopholes in the CBA. But I don't think they'll be anywhere near the simplicity of the loophole mentioned in the post I was responding to. Hopefully, like the IRC, there is a mechanism in place to help close loopholes if and when they do appear.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 09:00 PM
  #67
HSHS
Losing is a disease
 
HSHS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Redondo Beach, Ca
Country: United States
Posts: 17,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gscarpenter2002
And well you should be ...

Massager has appropriated the thread for his own with his toying with newbies, about fanciful theories that are patently ridiculous. Even after he has been shown that his little buyout theory (even if there were some reason a team would want to draft Corsby and then give him away for a song so he could get more money) was prevented in the last CBA and is so patently obvious that to call it a loophole is an insult to all loopholes, and he even admits as such, he still spews on this thread.
I know I know... all I wanted to see is if the extension (which is a normal part of ALL contracts for ALL leagues) could be used to go around the ELS in the old system, and by default, the new system. As I said, it would have to be beneficial to both club and player and would be reserved for the most unique players.

HSHS is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 09:22 PM
  #68
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,677
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
What good does Ovechkin do Washington if he stays in Russia and makes doulbe and triple what the NHL can offer .. If that is the case the reason for trading him like Lindros is the return .. Quebec got Forsberg as one of those players in that trade ..

Washington needs players now not 5 years down the road ..

Only trading him gives the Caps value to help them today ..

The conveluted way to go about is for the reason you just can't trade Ovechkin because you just transfer the player .. His new team is no better off .. Ovechkin will stay in Russia for them to ..
This is just plain out there, even by your standards. The NHL head office might even nix the buyout because its too obvious and rather shallow and then fine the team(s) for trying to avoid the cap. Problem solved in about 1 minute.

If you want to get creative you'd see Washington sign Ovechkin and leave/assign him to Russia and let his rookie contract runout while Overchkin's bill is being picked up by his Russian team. Washington might even make a few dollars renting Ovechkin to the Russian club. Ovechkin gets his money, Russian club gets to pay grossly overinflated wages, Washington loses Ovechkin for a few years but maintains his rights. Let some other sucker pay $2-3m a year to train a rookie.

me2 is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 02:20 AM
  #69
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,402
vCash: 500
The whole point of the rookie cap seems to be limit the amount of guaranteed money a rookie will get, like in Daigle case. There are still bonuses that could be given, but they would be ones the league would set (a GM could not give a player 5 million for five goals, but would have to add an NHL allowed bonus, ie. 20 goals 1 million, 60 points 2 million, Calder trophy 1 million, etc.)

OrrNumber4 is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 02:34 AM
  #70
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
If you want to get creative you'd see Washington sign Ovechkin and leave/assign him to Russia and let his rookie contract runout while Overchkin's bill is being picked up by his Russian team. Washington might even make a few dollars renting Ovechkin to the Russian club. Ovechkin gets his money, Russian club gets to pay grossly overinflated wages, Washington loses Ovechkin for a few years but maintains his rights. Let some other sucker pay $2-3m a year to train a rookie.
Why would Washington do that ??

I thought you had something at first, but then on second thought not so much ..

If you have signed a legal NHL contract I think you are not permitted to play in a Euro League as they honour those contracts .. I think that was put in place when the ELS contract first came about in fact in the old CBA ...

Also in regards to rights Washington has those from draft day until UFA as Ovechkin was drafted out of Europe. Well at least that is what the old CBA said .. Unless you mean in the form of they keep him rather then are forced to trade him.

Mess is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 07:04 AM
  #71
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Why would Washington do that ??

I thought you had something at first, but then on second thought not so much ..

If you have signed a legal NHL contract I think you are not permitted to play in a Euro League as they honour those contracts .. I think that was put in place when the ELS contract first came about in fact in the old CBA ...

Also in regards to rights Washington has those from draft day until UFA as Ovechkin was drafted out of Europe. Well at least that is what the old CBA said .. Unless you mean in the form of they keep him rather then are forced to trade him.
Do you EVER get tired of talking out your ass? There are lots of examples of European players that signed NHL contracts that contained a cavet that allowed them to go to Europe should they not make the NHL club. In this concept, the Caps can easily sign Ovechkin to the entry level contract and allow him to escape to Russia for three of the four years, essentially only demoting him to their minor league team. In year four, when the player's waiver rights have lapsed, Ovechkin will have to bite the bullet and play for what ever salary he agreed to with Washington and play the year out, or be exposed to waivers. This is totally allowable under the old CBA. NOt sure how it would work under the new one, but it is a concept that has some merit if your only goal is to give the player the ability to make more money. Fortunately that is all bullshizzle as no team is going to sign a high profile player like Ovechkin and then allow his development to handled by someone else. Interesting idea, but common sense says this is unlikely to happen.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 07:12 AM
  #72
ti-vite
Registered User
 
ti-vite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellfish
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.
Illegal?

ti-vite is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 03:22 PM
  #73
HockeyEh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smotheredhope
As much scrutinizing each sides lawyers have done on this document I am not sure there will be any loopholes. This is going to be the most thorough cba in the history of sports imho.
So sorry, SmokeyClause. My one (make that two) post(s) and I bow down before you and your 6700 plus posts.

I was responding to Smotheredhope when I said, more or less, that the thousands of pages of law and regulations that make up the Internal Revenue Code and the thousands of hours that lawyers have spent "carefully" drafting them do not mean NO loopholes.

HockeyEh is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 11:34 PM
  #74
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heshootshescores
Quick question to those who know the old CBA more than me... Since the new one is probably going to be modeled like the old one (with loophole and number changes), what's to prevent a team from doing this:



Caps sign AO to max rookie contract (4yrs). Assume that AO excells after year one. Then can the Caps offer AO to a new contract, say 8yrs/40M, to replace the entry contract? Could they even propose this idea PRIOR to signing the entry level contract?

Note: Replace Caps with team x and Crosby for AO if you like....

Just a thought in all of this Swiss league/RSL/NHL debate that's going around.
Yes and no. Assuming the new CBA ELS is similar to the last one, they could do that, but it wouldn't circumvent the system. Those next 3 years are still subject to the ELS limit, new contract or not. That 8yr/40M contract (assuming there wasn't a max contract length term in the CBA) would have to be structured 850K, 850K, 850K, 7.5M, 7.5M, 7.5M, 7.5M, 7.5M. Why would any team commit to 5 years of a 7.5M guaranteed salary commitment in the future for a player who only played one year in the league, when they can get the exact same effect by letting him play out the ELS and then signing him to a mega bucks deal.

Actually, I'll correct myself - they cannot do this (again assuming new CBA similar to last one):

Quote:
9.7. Player Contract Extensions. Player contracts for players subject to the Entry Level System may not be extended.


Last edited by kdb209: 07-08-2005 at 11:40 PM.
kdb209 is online now  
Old
07-08-2005, 11:45 PM
  #75
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heshootshescores
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
But it was covered by the article below:

Quote:
9.7. Player Contract Extensions. Player contracts for players subject to the Entry Level System may not be extended.
End of discussion, again.

The most compelling evidence though is that if that loophole had really existed in the last CBA, some agent would have exploited it, and none did.

kdb209 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 11:46 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.