HFBoards

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

Dreger: NMC, NTCs could be major sticking points for next CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-07-2017, 02:56 PM
  #101
Riptide
Registered User
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
If you don't want your team's players to have NTC/NMCs then don't give them out. Problem solved. They want to keep the benefits of the clauses in contract negotiations without actually having to honor them which is a self-created problem.
Not really. If team A is offering a NTC/NMC and team B isn't and both teams are relatively comparable... odds are probably decent that the player is going to go to the team offering the NTC/NMC.

All it takes is 1 GM to be willing to offer these clauses and suddenly they all have to offer them (to one extent) or they won't get the players. And if no GM offers them, there would be cries of collusion all over the place - and honestly? They'd probably be correct in assuming that.

__________________
I've been looking for trouble... but trouble hasn't been cooperating!
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2017, 03:21 PM
  #102
Riptide
Registered User
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
2019 is the deadline to decide, but a lockout wouldn't happen until 2020.

I'm really not sure. The PA has made the most noise about opting out, however I'm skeptic they'll get happy solutions to their issues in a new CBA.

The NHL so far as I'm aware hasn't tipped their hat whether they would opt out. The offer to the PA to extend the CBA in exchange for Olympic participation suggests the NHL doesn't see an urgent need to opt out of the current CBA.
I think the NHL is finally getting to the point where it's not in their best interest to miss games. I don't think we're there quite yet, but I think we're getting closer to it.

Will we miss time/games next CBA? Almost certainly - because the NHL will not lose as much as they'll gain in concessions from a work stoppage. But I think we're finally getting closer to that tipping point where the benefits are not worth the missed games.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2017, 09:54 AM
  #103
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
I doubt GM's fail to account for that, it's more of a matter of what choice do they have? Every player isn't available every year. Most teams aren't looking to trade a guy in his mid 20's with the great contract. GM's usually have to take what they can get, when they can get it. If Vancouver doesn't sign the twins, who are they going to get instead?
And that is why the draft is the lifeblood of any organization.

Last 2 years of the Nonis regime followed by the Gillis regime produced almost no NHL level talent. Talking between 2006-2013. Grabner, Hodgson (now retired), Schroeder (AHL/NHL tweener), Rodin (coming off a series knee injury in Sweden), Connoughton (spare D man), Hutton, Corrado (spare D man), Horvat, and Shinkaruk are the only NHL names.

Only Grabner, Hutton, and Horvat (who came at the cost of Schneider) for sure are on an opening 20 man roster come this fall. Rodin, maybe. That's 8 years.

This failure, and you can insert whatever team you want, is what causes teams to have to pay guys high salaries into their late 30's. The Blues opted to walk away from Backes and his contract due to the 5 year term. Think they were offering 3 years only.

If you draft poorly, then you give yourself no option but to retain the player on their terms. The media in Vancouver loves using the term "succession plan" with the twins. The draft, each and every year is your succession plan. Never draft for current need, as players take 2-3 years to make the NHL when you are drafting from the playoff position in each round. Draft the most impactful players and allow them to make your roster or use them to deal for a position of need.

I really doubt NMC/NTC are a make or break for the owners. Their main target is going to be more cash related which is the contract term, signing bonus % of the compensation, buyout rates.

Outside of the elite players, you should not give a full NTC to players for the entire length of their contract. A 6 year deal for a 30 year old generally will see the first 3 as full NTC, while the final 3 will have a M-NTC with a 8-12 team trade list.

Street Hawk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2017, 11:39 AM
  #104
IME
Registered User
 
IME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Cloud
Country: Canada
Posts: 653
vCash: 50
It's also a give-and-take. A player getting a NTC or NMC is going to take a haircut on actual salary. Don't think teams are just giving these away for free.

IME is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2017, 12:15 PM
  #105
CokenoPepsi
Registered User
 
CokenoPepsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
What does signing bonus really matter to the owners? I can understand them being pissed so many players getting them in lockout years as they have to pay out no matter what, but what about in other years?

CokenoPepsi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2017, 12:44 PM
  #106
The Macho Man
Fire Cooper
 
The Macho Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 30,773
vCash: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
I'm not shocked by this one. Especially a contract like Stamkos'. It does give a pretty significant tax benefit in those instances over a normal contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esq View Post
If the owners agree not to hand out NMC/NTCs, then everyone cries collusion.
No - the NHLPA files a 1 claim against the owners for violation of the antitrust laws. Owners can't agree to anything except through CBAs.

The Macho Man is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2017, 10:23 PM
  #107
Harry22
GO HABS GO!
 
Harry22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,473
vCash: 500
I think no trade clauses are fine. I just don't agree with no move clauses. If a player really sucks a team should be able to waive that player.

Harry22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2017, 11:17 PM
  #108
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Macho Man View Post
No - the NHLPA files a 1 claim against the owners for violation of the antitrust laws. Owners can't agree to anything except through CBAs.
Not completely accurate. Owners can agree to things among themselves so long as the agreement doesn't contradict or alter any subject covered by the CBA. Nor can an owner agreement violate labor law or other laws.

Some examples:

- The Owners can agree that no team is allowed to release a player to participate in the Olympics. And can impose fines and other penalties on teams that attempt to do so. Those subjects are not covered by the CBA.

- The Owners cannot agree to change the revenue sharing formula and % different teams pay or receive. Revenue sharing and the formula is covered in the CBA.

- The Owners cannot agree not to hand out NTC/NMC's as those subjects are covered by the CBA.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2017, 08:11 AM
  #109
The Macho Man
Fire Cooper
 
The Macho Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 30,773
vCash: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Not completely accurate. Owners can agree to things among themselves so long as the agreement doesn't contradict or alter any subject covered by the CBA. Nor can an owner agreement violate labor law or other laws.

Some examples:

- The Owners can agree that no team is allowed to release a player to participate in the Olympics. And can impose fines and other penalties on teams that attempt to do so. Those subjects are not covered by the CBA.

- The Owners cannot agree to change the revenue sharing formula and % different teams pay or receive. Revenue sharing and the formula is covered in the CBA.

- The Owners cannot agree not to hand out NTC/NMC's as those subjects are covered by the CBA.
Probably should rephrase - they can do stuff that is league-wide under the guise of league governance. They cannot do things that affect competition (in an economic sense) - refusing to hand out NTCs/NMCs would be one such agreement (since these clearly have value). I don't think that would violate labor laws, but it would absolutely violate the antitrust laws.

The Macho Man is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 07:37 AM
  #110
Curufinwe
Registered User
 
Curufinwe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 30,176
vCash: 50
I'm surprised they didn't limit singing bonuses to something like 50% of a contract's total value in the last CBA.

Curufinwe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 08:59 AM
  #111
Riptide
Registered User
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curufinwe View Post
I'm surprised they didn't limit singing bonuses to something like 50% of a contract's total value in the last CBA.
It wasn't really an issue before. I think the Clarkson contract (07/13) was the first one we really saw where a huge chunk of the money was made up in bonuses (27.75m / 36.75m; 75.5%). And while I don't think we've seen a ton like this, there have been a few. Putting some rules around this isn't a bad thing - especially with regards to how buyout's work (or don't) when it comes to signing bonuses.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 09:46 AM
  #112
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
It wasn't really an issue before. I think the Clarkson contract (07/13) was the first one we really saw where a huge chunk of the money was made up in bonuses (27.75m / 36.75m; 75.5%). And while I don't think we've seen a ton like this, there have been a few. Putting some rules around this isn't a bad thing - especially with regards to how buyout's work (or don't) when it comes to signing bonuses.
McDavid gets $86 out of his $100 million in signing bonus for his new deal. But, not like he's going to get bought out. Not unlike NTC/NMC, if you are going to hand out most of the contract in signing bonus, it should be reserved for your core players, not the "support" players (ie. your #6 to #10 best/valuable players on your roster).

One thing to give McDavid a signing bonus laden contract, another to hand that out to Clarkson for example.

I'm surprised that Hedman only has $12 million in signing bonus, since he would benefit from the FLA no state taxes by having the bonuses paid while in FLA. Conversely, Stamkos has $60 million of his deal in signing bonuses, which helps him take advantage of playing in FLA.

Radulov got $18 million in signing bonuses, so he will benefit from the TX no state taxes too.

Signing bonuses just impact the buyout, since those are still paid, so your future cap savings is ultimately what is left in future salary. So, the savings can be minimal and the team really isn't going to be able to find someone else to replace what that player should perform at.

Street Hawk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 10:20 AM
  #113
Noldo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,330
vCash: 500
It is interesting that both NTC/NMC and potential limits to the signing bonuses are issues that would more likely divide players than the owners.

Noldo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 10:22 AM
  #114
Azor ahai
GOT snow?
 
Azor ahai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,364
vCash: 75
the biggest problem I see, is the owners look at lockouts not as a last ditch resort, but as a negotiating tactic.

the majority of the negotiations do not even truly begin until after the owners have decided to lock the players out, and that is not a healthy bargaining environment. lockouts/strikes should be seen as an absolutely last ditch effort to resolve whatever the contentious issues may be, but the NHL does not operate that way and tend to throw work stoppages around like candy.

Azor ahai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 10:32 AM
  #115
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azor ahai View Post
the biggest problem I see, is the owners look at lockouts not as a last ditch resort, but as a negotiating tactic.

the majority of the negotiations do not even truly begin until after the owners have decided to lock the players out, and that is not a healthy bargaining environment. lockouts/strikes should be seen as an absolutely last ditch effort to resolve whatever the contentious issues may be, but the NHL does not operate that way and tend to throw work stoppages around like candy.
Unfortunately, I do not think you will ever see the owners allow a season to start on an expired CBA. Otherwise, the players play the regular season, then strike before the play-offs ala 92 and 94 in MLB (although that was in August). By that time the players have made most of their money for the season, but the owners have not.

I guess they could try to play, but have a no-strike agreement in place for the season, but not sure if that is commonplace or not.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 10:35 AM
  #116
Azor ahai
GOT snow?
 
Azor ahai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,364
vCash: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Unfortunately, I do not think you will ever see the owners allow a season to start on an expired CBA. Otherwise, the players play the regular season, then strike before the play-offs ala 92 and 94 in MLB (although that was in August). By that time the players have made most of their money for the season, but the owners have not.

I guess they could try to play, but have a no-strike agreement in place for the season, but not sure if that is commonplace or not.
in other unionized environments, continuing to operate under the expired CBA until the new deal is in place, is very commonplace. but unfortunately the NHL does not operate that way.

Azor ahai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 10:44 AM
  #117
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azor ahai View Post
in other unionized environments, continuing to operate under the expired CBA until the new deal is in place, is very commonplace. but unfortunately the NHL does not operate that way.
None of the major north american sports operate that way anymore.

Donald Fehr put an end to that.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 10:47 AM
  #118
Riptide
Registered User
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azor ahai View Post
in other unionized environments, continuing to operate under the expired CBA until the new deal is in place, is very commonplace. but unfortunately the NHL does not operate that way.
Two reasons.
1) After what the MLB did where they striked before the playoffs, of course not. And especially not with Fehr at the head of the NHLPA.

2) In most other "unionized environments", employee's do not have an average salary in the millions (3m+ now?). I mean your local telecom (or teachers or whomever) are going to be in the 60-90k range, and are much more likely to be living paycheque to paycheque. And while I do not think that NHL players are nearly as rich as some suggest (after taxes, fee's, expenses, etc), they are going to be better off then most other unionized employee's.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 10:54 AM
  #119
Azor ahai
GOT snow?
 
Azor ahai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,364
vCash: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
None of the major north american sports operate that way anymore.

Donald Fehr put an end to that.
absolutely he did, and its' extremely unfortunate that good faith bargaining has been completely destroyed by him.

Azor ahai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 11:10 AM
  #120
Trizent
Registered User
 
Trizent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oil Country
Posts: 1,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
McDavid gets $86 out of his $100 million in signing bonus for his new deal. But, not like he's going to get bought out. Not unlike NTC/NMC, if you are going to hand out most of the contract in signing bonus, it should be reserved for your core players, not the "support" players (ie. your #6 to #10 best/valuable players on your roster).

One thing to give McDavid a signing bonus laden contract, another to hand that out to Clarkson for example.

I'm surprised that Hedman only has $12 million in signing bonus, since he would benefit from the FLA no state taxes by having the bonuses paid while in FLA. Conversely, Stamkos has $60 million of his deal in signing bonuses, which helps him take advantage of playing in FLA.

Radulov got $18 million in signing bonuses, so he will benefit from the TX no state taxes too.

Signing bonuses just impact the buyout, since those are still paid, so your future cap savings is ultimately what is left in future salary. So, the savings can be minimal and the team really isn't going to be able to find someone else to replace what that player should perform at.

Tax laws are the same whether salary is paid through signing bonus or regular salary? It's not like Radulov is paying state income tax on his non-signing bonus salary.

Trizent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 11:20 AM
  #121
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trizent View Post
Tax laws are the same whether salary is paid through signing bonus or regular salary? It's not like Radulov is paying state income tax on his non-signing bonus salary.
As I understand it, players have to pay state income taxes in the road cities that they play in. So, when Radulov plays in California against the Sharks/Ducks/Kings, he is subject to CA state taxes for those games. Each state is different and I don't think all states require visiting players to pay state taxes, thus when you are in a state like FLA like Stamkos and Hedman and you get signing bonus money, it is considered earned in the state you play in, thus no state tax. That's why I was surprised that Hedman didn't get more of his contract in signing bonus like Stamkos.

Street Hawk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 11:41 AM
  #122
Mr Positive
Cap Crunch Incoming
 
Mr Positive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 14,580
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
As I understand it, players have to pay state income taxes in the road cities that they play in. So, when Radulov plays in California against the Sharks/Ducks/Kings, he is subject to CA state taxes for those games. Each state is different and I don't think all states require visiting players to pay state taxes, thus when you are in a state like FLA like Stamkos and Hedman and you get signing bonus money, it is considered earned in the state you play in, thus no state tax. That's why I was surprised that Hedman didn't get more of his contract in signing bonus like Stamkos.
that doesn't seem correct. I recall that players don't get paid at every game, but get a regular salary at regular time intervals during the season, and it doesn't depend on how many games they played in that interval or how much on the road they were.

That would also make no sense for Price to have almost all his contract in signing bonuses then. Montreal is near the top of the league in terms of tax burden for players, so I'd think that he'd want zero signing bonuses just so more of his total cash would be taxed less.

Mr Positive is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 12:13 PM
  #123
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Positive View Post
that doesn't seem correct. I recall that players don't get paid at every game, but get a regular salary at regular time intervals during the season, and it doesn't depend on how many games they played in that interval or how much on the road they were.

That would also make no sense for Price to have almost all his contract in signing bonuses then. Montreal is near the top of the league in terms of tax burden for players, so I'd think that he'd want zero signing bonuses just so more of his total cash would be taxed less.
1) Players are paid every 2 weeks, but the team would have to log where the player "earned" his salary and if it was in another state, then they owe taxes on that. I know, tax laws are long and complicated. I don't know if the state tax is game day or they do an average daily rate and tax that.

2) There is the time value of money. So, getting paid on July 1, still lets you have that money early, nearly 4 months before you take home your first pay check from the NHL since the season begins early October so the first payment is after mid October. So, Price can invest his signing bonus and have that earn something during the season.

Street Hawk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 12:23 PM
  #124
sharkhawk
Registered User
 
sharkhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Aurora, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,182
vCash: 500
I think the average players really get screwed by the signing bonuses in case of a lockout. The big stars who hold a lot more power in the NHLPA then their numbers would indicate are going to be sitting there not caring if the impasse gets settled. Stamkos will have his $7,000,000. Mcdavid will have his 13,000,000 meanwhile the 2nd and 3rd liners will be losing their paychecks throughout the lockout and have nothing to show for it.

sharkhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2017, 12:53 PM
  #125
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
1) Players are paid every 2 weeks, but the team would have to log where the player "earned" his salary and if it was in another state, then they owe taxes on that. I know, tax laws are long and complicated. I don't know if the state tax is game day or they do an average daily rate and tax that.
I think it varies state to state. I remember reading that some states charge you for any day you are in the state, some only for games, and some even more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
2) There is the time value of money. So, getting paid on July 1, still lets you have that money early, nearly 4 months before you take home your first pay check from the NHL since the season begins early October so the first payment is after mid October. So, Price can invest his signing bonus and have that earn something during the season.
That is definitely an issue, hence why the players want the contracts front-loaded as much as possible. Start gaining interest on a bigger chunk of cash faster.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:00 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.