HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

CBA Solutions Thread - Serious proposals only please!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-05-2004, 01:26 AM
  #26
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
And shame on the players that are so greedy that they are too stubborn to find a solution that both parties can agree to.
the players are open to lots of solutions, except one. the owners, despite their resources, are not willing to explore any solution but one. until the players reject a proposal that does not contain a salary cap enviroment, I hold them unaccountable for the stoppage of the games.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
07-05-2004, 01:32 AM
  #27
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
No worries here. I agree he does come up with some well considered articulate arguments, but like you said, the foundations of his positions are wrong. Rather than listen to any more of his spewing of the NHLPA party line (I think he is on their payroll...) I decided to cut it short. It doesn't matter how well he states his position, when someone has to resort to implying people are chumps or whatever other insults he's used in the past because they don't agree with his position, they are not worth listening to.

I normally wouldn't agree as I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, a lot. Especially on a message board where efficient and effective communication (of thoughts and ideas) is very hard to come by. This indirect communication just doesn't foster the best exchanges.

But I do agree here. All my training and instincts tell me his position on this situation is the wrong road to go down for the NHL. Not that my training and instincts matter on this issue, or that anyone would believe them. I'm just a rabid hockey fan with a background in business, the value of my opinion is the same as everyone else's. Little or none.

I just like to discuss and debate. But this issue is pretty much dead for me, we've beaten the hell out of it. When or if new and credible info surfaces on this situation, I'll probably come back guns blazing. Until then, I'll just post with less zeal than I normally do.


Last edited by cw7: 07-05-2004 at 03:19 AM.
cws is offline  
Old
07-05-2004, 02:24 AM
  #28
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,587
vCash: 500
Seven incremental (and not so incremental) changes I would like to see:

1). Reduce club buyout option on all contracts to 1/2 (from 3/4) of remaining money on deal. Mandate that player can only be bought out after 1/2 of his contract is performed. So, if you sign a guy to a four-year deal for $16M, you must pay him, and he must play, for two seasons. After that, you can let him walk, for $4M (1/2 of remaining $8M). Teams will remain punished for stupid deals, but will be able to recoup some of their money when making errors. Players will retain flexibility to find work elsewhere.

2). Hardcap on rookie salaries, through the first four full years in the NHL. Mandatory two-way deals for all players turning pro, and ceiling on earning power if player is in the Big Show. (Hardcap will be fixed figure(s), inclusive of any bonuses designed to circumvent it.) This will put a drag on overall salary increases, and ensure cost certainty at least with a certain group of players (younger ones). I'll leave it to the lawyers to determine the formula for determining rookie cap figures.

3). Years 5-10 in the NHL, a player is eligible for RFA. Under the new CBA, RFA is defined as the player having the ability to go out and sign an offer sheet from any club, but his current team has the right to retain him, as long as they are willing to pay him 5% more than the offer tendered. If an RFA signs with a new club, that team does not have to compensate the player's former team in any way. Players benefit from more liberal FA rights. Teams can retain their own players, if they wish. Another semblance of cost certainty.

4) In light of #3, all arbitration rights are eliminated. Value of players will be set by the teams themselves, not an arbitrator.

5) Years 10+ in the NHL, player is entitled to UFA rights. As such, players who entered the league straight out of the draft and have completed a decade's worth of service, will be eligible for UFA at age 28. And so on.

6) Reduce the regular season to 72 games. A nice, neat schedule of 12 games per month, October to March. Less is more. (One of the secrets of the NFL's success: a short 16 game schedule.) Fresher, healthier players, no problems breaking for the Olympics, also allows for a full week break at all-star time, to let players recharge. Ten less games also means that regular season games will mean more = better product for fans, less Nashville/NYI yawners in mid-December. In return for less service (work) time, players agree to incremental across the board reduction of salaries by ~ 10% (equaling 10 games less pay.)

7). Final, radical proposal: Set a soft cap leaguewide - at $80M. (Or whatever the highest team payroll is currently set at.) No spending minimum. Teams at the top will have to learn to operate as is budget-wise (or more cost-consciously), while at the same time, they will not be required to suddenly deconstruct their rosters simply to satisfy the thirst of some poorer teams (and their jealous fans) seeking draconian spending limits. Likewise, teams that are operating far below that cap number will have to now put up and manage their teams more wisely and will not be able to rely on the old excuse of "the Rangers, Avs and Wings are outspending us!" As teams are already tightening their belts this summer, that should not be so hard to continue to do, naturally.

The players want the status quo, they will literally get it, in some form, as payrolls won't be rolled back en mass to some mandated limit like $31M per team (a pipedream). But in return, the owners will maintain cost certainty, stability. If a team exceeds the cap, they pay out dollar-for-dollar to the league for their overage, the proceeds divied out among the other franchises somehow.

At the end of the next CBA, we will just have to see where the Brave New World of the NHL is, payroll-wise. If most teams are paying out around the $80M limit, then the league either is doing much better generating $$$, or the owners are truly lousy, lying businessmen, who cannot help themselves and should not be given a helping hand. If payrolls stay generally within their current range, league-wide, then the other recommendations made here should results in more revenue staying with franchises, instead of being shlled out disproportionately to players.

Trottier is offline  
Old
07-05-2004, 03:48 AM
  #29
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
7). Final, radical proposal: Set a soft cap leaguewide - at $80M. (Or whatever the highest team payroll is currently set at.) No spending minimum. Teams at the top will have to learn to operate as is budget-wise (or more cost-consciously), while at the same time, they will not be required to suddenly deconstruct their rosters simply to satisfy the thirst of some poorer teams (and their jealous fans) seeking draconian spending limits. Likewise, teams that are operating far below that cap number will have to now put up and manage their teams more wisely and will not be able to rely on the old excuse of "the Rangers, Avs and Wings are outspending us!" As teams are already tightening their belts this summer, that should not be so hard to continue to do, naturally.
Kinda sounds like what baseball did, I'll let others fill in the disasterous conclusion to that first line.
If this was implemented in a situation of a free market (or what's termed a perfectly competitive market), I'd agree with you. Problem is the NHL, and the other professional sports leagues, aren't operating in that free market. Many rules change; I don't even want to try and list all the differences between the two types of markets, would take forever. Within that are fundamental changes that I don't think everyone has their heads wrapped around; changes how the situation is viewed and what can be done to make it work well.

cws is offline  
Old
07-05-2004, 04:54 AM
  #30
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw7
Kinda sounds like what baseball did, I'll let others fill in the disasterous conclusion to that first line.
I'll try not to be that "ignorant man in an argument" to which your signature refers.

Briefly, what is the disaster in MLB to which some refer? That is a serious question.

Since the new CBA was implemented two years ago, salaries overall have decreased 3%. One team has gone over the luxury tax threshold, the others have maintained fiscal sanity (or at least the status quo, relatively speaking). Attendance is up leaguewide.

And, that one team that keeps spending? It has bought them exactly zero championships the last three years.

Trottier is offline  
Old
07-05-2004, 09:17 AM
  #31
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The owners are in a game of chicken with athletes who hate to lose so much they compete when they have broken bones. Do you really think a bunch of rich fat guys can win a contest of will with hockey players?
And while not all owners are athletes, they did not get to the position they are now without standing up to the competition. The owners biggest downfall has been that there have been more than enough owners happy with the the way things are to stop any real change. I don't believe that is the case now. Athletes are not the only people in the world that compete everyday.

*Yawn*

djhn579 is offline  
Old
07-05-2004, 09:25 AM
  #32
hockeyhomer99
Registered User
 
hockeyhomer99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dallas, Great State
Country: United States
Posts: 348
vCash: 500
It's always fun to watch mgmt. screw something up and come crying for help.. The owner, just like every other sport, have no one to blame but themself.. George Steinbrenner has been the devil for the baseball world, as Jerry Buss has been for the NBA, the driving force behind the upward spiral of salaries.. The owners simply can not police themself. So when the eco's get so out of hand, it's now the job of the players to help constrain the owners??? It's the same in the business world, mgmt. screws it up and comes crying to the rank and file to take pay cuts to help.

Here's a simply solution... All players on a year to year renewal.. Play like crap, take a pay cut, play like a HOF and get a raise..Of course neither side will go for this because all the old farts that have not been productive for years still drawing top money will cry, and the owners who prostitute young, productive player because they are not 31 years old yet, will not allow their cash cow to be taken either..


I have heard rumors that they are starting hockey maquilladora plants in Mexico.. Why not send more jobs out of this country. :mad: :mad: :mad:

hockeyhomer99 is offline  
Old
07-05-2004, 11:19 AM
  #33
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
To those of you that have contributed ideas and stuck to the thread topic, thank you. Some great ideas. As self appointed moderator of this thread the rest of you sound exactly like B and G and IMO have trouble thinking outside the box. No offence but many of you come across as having the same stubborn closed minded thought process that prevents Bettman and Goodenow from sitting down like 2 grown up mature men and hammering out a deal for the betterment of the game.

Keep in mind the 3rd and 4th parties here. THE FANS and CORPORATE MONEY that pay for players to play the game and permits owners to continue on with their expensive hobbies/business operations. If I were to invest my lifelong savings into a business, I'd be very disappointed if my employees who I hired had the right to a guaranteed % of my profits without being at risk for any potential losses or downturns. I think that both sides have valid concerns but I also think that FANS and CORPORATE support are taken for granted. If it keeps up the game will suffer and greed will kill and potential growth we have seen in the last decade.

eye is offline  
Old
07-05-2004, 12:20 PM
  #34
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
To those of you that have contributed ideas and stuck to the thread topic, thank you. Some great ideas. As self appointed moderator of this thread the rest of you sound exactly like B and G and IMO have trouble thinking outside the box. No offence but many of you come across as having the same stubborn closed minded thought process that prevents Bettman and Goodenow from sitting down like 2 grown up mature men and hammering out a deal for the betterment of the game.

Keep in mind the 3rd and 4th parties here. THE FANS and CORPORATE MONEY that pay for players to play the game and permits owners to continue on with their expensive hobbies/business operations. If I were to invest my lifelong savings into a business, I'd be very disappointed if my employees who I hired had the right to a guaranteed % of my profits without being at risk for any potential losses or downturns. I think that both sides have valid concerns but I also think that FANS and CORPORATE support are taken for granted. If it keeps up the game will suffer and greed will kill and potential growth we have seen in the last decade.
Now I can agree with that.

Although personally I'm not sure that going outside the box is necessary in this case. It could help, sure. But I believe that the solutions lie in compromise and like you said, both sides are stubborn. In the end when a compromise is eventually reached, they won't be able to stray far from the norms they have now. Neither side would allow it.

As for specific solutions, I can't help you there. I've got 101 ideas in my head but none of them would work because I simply don't know enough about the situation as a whole to come up with a solid plan. Like the others, I could just write down my ideas and we could deconstruct them here. But I can't bring myself to do that, knowing that isn't where the answer lies. And quite frankly, we've wasted enough time talking about such things.

Both sides have a right to do what they are doing, but at the same time they are both being at least somewhat selfish. Not caring that the league as a whole will suffer for that selfishness. That in itself is not a good sign.

I'll admit, I really don't add much to the discussion these days. But I am opinionated, can't resist the urge to comment.

cws is offline  
Old
07-05-2004, 05:53 PM
  #35
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,317
vCash: 500
Serious proposals only, thats funny

You know one of the big problems is that players get injured and their teams still have to pay them. This ties up teams' money and puts them at a serious disadvantage or forces them to lose money. Now if we could a way to prevent players from being paid when injured and giving that money back to the owners ..

How about an age cap? The average age of players on your team cant be more than 25.6 years old. The current CBA remains the same. I predict it would be even more effective than a money cap in addressing what many are stating as the problems.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
2nd) My proposal would require that teams no longer be allowed to trade draft picks and must start each year with their 9 picks as determined by the standings for a total of 270 selections.

3rd) Teams that build through free agency and drive the price up currently still benefit from drafting in the normal manner so the rich teams have a definite advantage and a willingness to overspend. I don't think they should benefit equally form both FA and the draft. If teams choose to pay players above the average payroll so that they can build through free agency then I think they should lose draft picks.
I do like your idea of making the luxury tax in the form of draft picks rather than money. Or perhaps only non playoff teams or bottom payroll teams get 1st round draft picks. But I dont sense this is adressing the owners share-of-the-pie concerns

I heard Brian Burke suggesting that to achieve your 2nd idea, move the trade deadline day back. He felt that by leaving the deadline so late, you were encouraging teams like Edm, Nash, Ott, Vanc to foolishly spend their draft picks in a vain hope for success now, because their fans incorrectly believe this is the right strategy and are pressuring them. If the deadline day was moved back, the teams will feel less pressure from fans to make this poor gamble. Is this who you had in mind protecting when proposing it?

I think your 3rd point is a bit of an oxymoron though. If they are building through free agency, they are not providing spots for their draft picks and have often traded draft picks to do it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
i suggest that the NHL offer the NHLPA a set amount of money to provide professional hockey players to the NHL. If the owners want to give 1.5billion or 900million or whatever it is, they can negotiate it.

Its called outsourcing.

This will give the NHL cost certainty and the NHLPA can come up with any system they want to divide up the money.

One nice by product, NHL managers will never have to deal with an agent again.
The owners give the players $1.95621847 Billion and the players divvy it up?


Im assuming that by outsourcing, you feel that by relieving the burdens of salary decisions from the Owners and GMs, salary decisions will no longer be an issue. Im skeptical. Wouldnt Gaborik still hold out? Except rather than some billionaire forking out a few hundred grand more, some lesser players take less to accommodate him. And how would the team have any control over a holdout? They would be handcuffed.

I wonder how the NHLPA would choose to split the money if that happened. Would the most egalitarian thing be to give each player an equal share? Or perhaps pro-rated by ice time? Or perhaps they could define a way of determing a numerical value to each players relative worth to each other and then split the pot in that fashion? I wonder how would this union would choose to do this? Hypothetically of course.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The owners are in a game of chicken with athletes who hate to lose so much they compete when they have broken bones. Do you really think a bunch of rich fat guys can win a contest of will with hockey players?

In another life.
. What if Bettman can make the case that a legislated correction mechanism is required due to the nature of the current distorted market? That its systemic. If you distort the market as they do, wouldnt you need a correcting mechanism.

What if after all the pending free agent signings, salaries are down to 65% of revenues? Which side is more pressured to settle I wonder, I've heard some radio personalities suggest that would more pressure the union. Perhaps the CBA uncertainty itself was exactly the market correction instigator required. Once the uncertainty has done its job, we just move on as normal.


I hope this doesnt make me the ignorant man in the argument either

thinkwild is offline  
Old
07-05-2004, 08:06 PM
  #36
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
. What if Bettman can make the case that a legislated correction mechanism is required due to the nature of the current distorted market? That its systemic. If you distort the market as they do, wouldnt you need a correcting mechanism.
Sure. The NHLPA is on record as saying if the owners think parts of the CBA force them to pay more than they can afford, they should lay out the concerns and the NHLPA will help them address those concerns.

I don't, however, think the NHL can possibly make a case that the player share of revenue should be xx% of revenues rather than yy%. Pegging that share is exactly what the NHLPA is not prepared to do.

Quote:
What if after all the pending free agent signings, salaries are down to 65% of revenues?
That's fine by the NHLPA. That's the way the market should work. If it falls to 55%, that's fine by the NHLPA. In fact, it should fluctuate according to the success of the business. The owner's share has to cover a number of mostly fixed costs including the return on investment.

When revenues are down, they need a larger share of the pie to assure a fair return. The NHLPA assumes under those circumstances, the owners will pay less. When revenues are up, however, the players deserve a larger share because the fixed costs don't go up and the owners will get the same return while conceding a larger share to the players. The NHLPA assumes under those circumstances, the owners will pay more.

The players assume if the owners can afford it, they will pay. If they can't, they won't. All they have to assume is that the owners can read their balance sheets and add up the return they need to realize.

Quote:
Which side is more pressured to settle I wonder, I've heard some radio personalities suggest that would more pressure the union. Perhaps the CBA uncertainty itself was exactly the market correction instigator required. Once the uncertainty has done its job, we just move on as normal.
I think early in the dispute the pressure is on the players. Even though it is a lockout, they will take the brunt of the blame. If they do not crack then, they will never crack in my opinion. It will mean they are reconciled to the idea they will wear the black hats in this dispute.

The closer we get to the playoffs, the more the pressure shifts to the owners. During the regular season the players are paid. During the playoffs they are not, and each game is a lot more profitable. If the owners are going to cave, they do it when it looks like the playoff revenues are about to evaporate.

I'm not sure how much the pending labour dispute is affecting things. It is really hard to say. Everyone agrees that revenues have flattened and flattening revenues should depress salaries. Wages exploded when revenues were exploding, but they have been quite stable for the past four years. In other words, new CBA or not, one would expect what we are seeing.

I think a more important point is that the owner's argument that they cannot control spending under this CBA is being completely blown out of the water. It doesn't matter why they have chosen to control spending last summer and this summer. We have been told that spending could not be controlled, that this CBA forces wages ever upward, and the league had no choice but to pay 75% of the revenues to the players. Obviously this is incorrect.

If the CBA uncertainty does actually provide the owners with leverage, the players can happily concede CBA certainty. Goodenow will agree to one year contracts indefinitely. Every year Bettman can demand a salary cap and every year the NHLPA can vote on it. When it fails, they can agree to a new one year contract without cost certainty.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
07-05-2004, 08:14 PM
  #37
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
To those of you that have contributed ideas and stuck to the thread topic, thank you. Some great ideas. As self appointed moderator of this thread the rest of you sound exactly like B and G and IMO have trouble thinking outside the box. No offence but many of you come across as having the same stubborn closed minded thought process that prevents Bettman and Goodenow from sitting down like 2 grown up mature men and hammering out a deal for the betterment of the game.

Keep in mind the 3rd and 4th parties here. THE FANS and CORPORATE MONEY that pay for players to play the game and permits owners to continue on with their expensive hobbies/business operations. If I were to invest my lifelong savings into a business, I'd be very disappointed if my employees who I hired had the right to a guaranteed % of my profits without being at risk for any potential losses or downturns. I think that both sides have valid concerns but I also think that FANS and CORPORATE support are taken for granted. If it keeps up the game will suffer and greed will kill and potential growth we have seen in the last decade.
I think that as long as the relationship between the players and owners is antagonistic, there is little chance of anyone coming up with a solution that is going to work for everyone. A good start to ending the antagonism is to define what is considered income and what is not.

Your mention of Corporate money got me thinking a little bit. The chances of this happening are close to impossible, but what if the teams were set up as public companies, and the players agree to play for shares of that company. You can have the owners with 50.1% of the shares and the players negotiate for the remainder of the shares. You can even have a different class of shares that the season ticket holders buy into. I don't know enough about the stock market to go beyond this general idea, but if both the players and the owners have a stake in the company, they share the risk for the teams success or failure and as a public company, everything is out in the open.

Edit: Another option to change the dynamics of the game is to make it much more of a free market. Right now, you have a very limited group of players. To play in the NHL, you must be drafted first off, then signed within a certain period of time. Even if a player doesn't make it to the NHL, a team can retain his rights for quite a period of time. If all players are available to be drafted, whether they opt into the draft or not, at age 18, 19, or 20 and the team has the rights to sign that player for 3 years. If after 3 years, the team does not attempt to sign that player, he becomes a free agent. If someone is not drafted by age 20, they are free agents and can sign with any team. If a player is drafted by a team but does not wish to sign with that team, he can re-enter the draft and the team that initially drafted him gets to pick immediately after that player is selected. If a player signs, and is not a regular in the NHL after 4 seasons, he becomes a free agent, otherwise, the team has the rights to the player for 10 NHL seasons.

These rules would significantly increase the number of players available, especially in the average range and will also allow young players more opportunity to get into the NHL. The net effect should be to bring down the salaries of average and below average players since they will be more easily replaced.


Last edited by djhn579: 07-05-2004 at 08:49 PM.
djhn579 is offline  
Old
07-06-2004, 03:52 AM
  #38
Brain Hemorrhage
Registered User
 
Brain Hemorrhage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,431
vCash: 500
Most of these suggestions do not appeal to me. I have read a lot about player restraint systems and it is an important part of my business to know a lot about labor transfer in professional sports.

What I would like to see accomplished, rather than specifically saying how to achieve it (since, in fact, there are many more than fair and plaussible ways):

Rookie salary cap
Tenure-based minimum salary
Veteran salaries under the league average (mean) do not count against the cap
Partially-gauranteed contracts (anything over three times the league average (mean) is not gauranteed)
Player release fee which payment is inturn disbursed to the other owners (A penalty for not being prudent in signing players)
"Roll-over" salary cap dollars
Luxury tax dollar for dollar for spending over the sum of cap plus "roll-over" cap dollars
Luxury tax dollars must be CLAIMED or FORFEITED.
"Z-Bo's Luxury-Pay Refusal Equilibrium" - No team may receive luxury dollars after a year in which it claimed luxury dollars and did not use it to increase team payroll by the amount of luxury tax dollars (pay-refusal).
UFA pool increased dramatically by drastically lowering UFA requirements

Brain Hemorrhage is offline  
Old
07-06-2004, 03:23 PM
  #39
Brain Hemorrhage
Registered User
 
Brain Hemorrhage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Edit: Another option to change the dynamics of the game is to make it much more of a free market. Right now, you have a very limited group of players. To play in the NHL, you must be drafted first off, then signed within a certain period of time. Even if a player doesn't make it to the NHL, a team can retain his rights for quite a period of time. If all players are available to be drafted, whether they opt into the draft or not, at age 18, 19, or 20 and the team has the rights to sign that player for 3 years. If after 3 years, the team does not attempt to sign that player, he becomes a free agent. If someone is not drafted by age 20, they are free agents and can sign with any team. If a player is drafted by a team but does not wish to sign with that team, he can re-enter the draft and the team that initially drafted him gets to pick immediately after that player is selected. If a player signs, and is not a regular in the NHL after 4 seasons, he becomes a free agent, otherwise, the team has the rights to the player for 10 NHL seasons.
Actually this would make the NHL labor rights situation more like baseball. Please read "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" for more on baseball's amateur labor rights situation.

Brain Hemorrhage is offline  
Old
07-07-2004, 04:28 PM
  #40
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brain Hemorrhage
Most of these suggestions do not appeal to me. I have read a lot about player restraint systems and it is an important part of my business to know a lot about labor transfer in professional sports.

What I would like to see accomplished, rather than specifically saying how to achieve it (since, in fact, there are many more than fair and plaussible ways):

Rookie salary cap
Tenure-based minimum salary
Veteran salaries under the league average (mean) do not count against the cap
Partially-gauranteed contracts (anything over three times the league average (mean) is not gauranteed)
Player release fee which payment is inturn disbursed to the other owners (A penalty for not being prudent in signing players)
"Roll-over" salary cap dollars
Luxury tax dollar for dollar for spending over the sum of cap plus "roll-over" cap dollars
Luxury tax dollars must be CLAIMED or FORFEITED.
"Z-Bo's Luxury-Pay Refusal Equilibrium" - No team may receive luxury dollars after a year in which it claimed luxury dollars and did not use it to increase team payroll by the amount of luxury tax dollars (pay-refusal).
UFA pool increased dramatically by drastically lowering UFA requirements
There are a lot of similar effects on salary caps as you have suggested but the key is setting a total to the cap wherever it may be.

Guest is offline  
Old
07-08-2004, 08:15 AM
  #41
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,563
vCash: 500
Here's my idea for the new CBA

Luxury tax starts at 35 million

35-40 million is subject to 25% tax
40.1-45 million is subject to a 50% tax
45.1 to 55 million is subject to a 75% tax
Anything over 55 million is subject to 100% tax

Salary floor of 20 million dollars. If any teams payroll is under the 20 million dollar mark they will not receive any of the luxury tax revenue sharing money.

The luxury tax money will be pooled up and dispersed equally to every NHL team who's payroll is under the 55 million dollar mark.

Rookie contracts can not exceed one million dollars, including bonuses.

I would also like to add something like the NBA's version of the Larry Bird rule. I'm gonna call it the "Steve Yzerman Rule" (okay i'm homer ) Were as one players salary will not be counted toward the tax number. But unlike the NBA, this NHL version has teeth. In order to claim a player under the Steve Yzerman rule said player will have to be drafted by your team and played his entire career with that team. Players must be above the age of 30 years old.

Trading deadline is moved up to February 28th.

Ticket revenue sharing:
75% of the money goes back to the home team, with the other 25% going to the road team.

Unrestricted Free Agency age will be dropped to 30 years old.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
07-08-2004, 11:27 AM
  #42
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWI19
Here's my idea for the new CBA

Luxury tax starts at 35 million

35-40 million is subject to 25% tax
40.1-45 million is subject to a 50% tax
45.1 to 55 million is subject to a 75% tax
Anything over 55 million is subject to 100% tax

Salary floor of 20 million dollars. If any teams payroll is under the 20 million dollar mark they will not receive any of the luxury tax revenue sharing money.

The luxury tax money will be pooled up and dispersed equally to every NHL team who's payroll is under the 55 million dollar mark.

Rookie contracts can not exceed one million dollars, including bonuses.

I would also like to add something like the NBA's version of the Larry Bird rule. I'm gonna call it the "Steve Yzerman Rule" (okay i'm homer ) Were as one players salary will not be counted toward the tax number. But unlike the NBA, this NHL version has teeth. In order to claim a player under the Steve Yzerman rule said player will have to be drafted by your team and played his entire career with that team. Players must be above the age of 30 years old.

Trading deadline is moved up to February 28th.

Ticket revenue sharing:
75% of the money goes back to the home team, with the other 25% going to the road team.

Unrestricted Free Agency age will be dropped to 30 years old.
Best proposal I have read to date. Well balanced with lots of room for negotiation on key aspects. I just wish there was a way to add draft picks as part of the luxury tax so that the rich teams that overuse free agency don't get equal opportunity to abuse the draft and kill their prospects stuck in the minors.

eye is offline  
Old
07-08-2004, 11:39 AM
  #43
TVanek26*
 
TVanek26*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Buffalo,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,583
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TVanek26*
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWI19
Here's my idea for the new CBA

Luxury tax starts at 35 million

35-40 million is subject to 25% tax
40.1-45 million is subject to a 50% tax
45.1 to 55 million is subject to a 75% tax
Anything over 55 million is subject to 100% tax

Salary floor of 20 million dollars. If any teams payroll is under the 20 million dollar mark they will not receive any of the luxury tax revenue sharing money.

The luxury tax money will be pooled up and dispersed equally to every NHL team who's payroll is under the 55 million dollar mark.

Rookie contracts can not exceed one million dollars, including bonuses.

I would also like to add something like the NBA's version of the Larry Bird rule. I'm gonna call it the "Steve Yzerman Rule" (okay i'm homer ) Were as one players salary will not be counted toward the tax number. But unlike the NBA, this NHL version has teeth. In order to claim a player under the Steve Yzerman rule said player will have to be drafted by your team and played his entire career with that team. Players must be above the age of 30 years old.

Trading deadline is moved up to February 28th.

Ticket revenue sharing:
75% of the money goes back to the home team, with the other 25% going to the road team.

Unrestricted Free Agency age will be dropped to 30 years old.

To bad you're not Bettman.I would like FA to be 29 though,when they are just entering their primes.

TVanek26* is offline  
Old
07-08-2004, 11:43 AM
  #44
Joe T Choker
Wookin' Pa Nub in...
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: all the wrong places
Country: Italy
Posts: 24,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWI19
Here's my idea for the new CBA

Luxury tax starts at 35 million

35-40 million is subject to 25% tax
40.1-45 million is subject to a 50% tax
45.1 to 55 million is subject to a 75% tax
Anything over 55 million is subject to 100% tax

Salary floor of 20 million dollars. If any teams payroll is under the 20 million dollar mark they will not receive any of the luxury tax revenue sharing money.

The luxury tax money will be pooled up and dispersed equally to every NHL team who's payroll is under the 55 million dollar mark.

Rookie contracts can not exceed one million dollars, including bonuses.

I would also like to add something like the NBA's version of the Larry Bird rule. I'm gonna call it the "Steve Yzerman Rule" (okay i'm homer ) Were as one players salary will not be counted toward the tax number. But unlike the NBA, this NHL version has teeth. In order to claim a player under the Steve Yzerman rule said player will have to be drafted by your team and played his entire career with that team. Players must be above the age of 30 years old.

Trading deadline is moved up to February 28th.

Ticket revenue sharing:
75% of the money goes back to the home team, with the other 25% going to the road team.

Unrestricted Free Agency age will be dropped to 30 years old.
The only things I would change...UFA changes to 29; revenue sharing from 75 to 66.6; and move the top number to 50 mil at 100%

Joe T Choker is offline  
Old
07-08-2004, 11:44 AM
  #45
hoserthehorrible
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWI19
Here's my idea for the new CBA

Luxury tax starts at 35 million

35-40 million is subject to 25% tax
40.1-45 million is subject to a 50% tax
45.1 to 55 million is subject to a 75% tax
Anything over 55 million is subject to 100% tax

Salary floor of 20 million dollars. If any teams payroll is under the 20 million dollar mark they will not receive any of the luxury tax revenue sharing money.

The luxury tax money will be pooled up and dispersed equally to every NHL team who's payroll is under the 55 million dollar mark.

Rookie contracts can not exceed one million dollars, including bonuses.

I would also like to add something like the NBA's version of the Larry Bird rule. I'm gonna call it the "Steve Yzerman Rule" (okay i'm homer ) Were as one players salary will not be counted toward the tax number. But unlike the NBA, this NHL version has teeth. In order to claim a player under the Steve Yzerman rule said player will have to be drafted by your team and played his entire career with that team. Players must be above the age of 30 years old.

Trading deadline is moved up to February 28th.

Ticket revenue sharing:
75% of the money goes back to the home team, with the other 25% going to the road team.

Unrestricted Free Agency age will be dropped to 30 years old.
I agree with this one for the most part. Basically a soft cap whereby teams can go over the cap if they wish but have to pay a luxury tax to the teams that abide by the cap limits. This should allow the big spenders to spent their money if they want (i.e. NY Rangers) while helping out the financially strapped teams.

I'd add one more thing though. If teams exceed the top salary cap limit then they start losing draft picks to the teams who abide by the cap limits. The more you exceed the limit the more draft picks you lose. The draft picks are then thrown into a pool and teams under the cap limits get the draft picks based on an NBA style lottery situation. If you're one of the worst 7 teams, and you were under the cap limits, then you get thrown into a lottery for the extra draft picks. All remaining extra drafts picks are then handed out according to the team's standings the previous year (those that were under the cap limits only of course).

The reason I'd add this last clause is because I don't think the luxury tax is quite enough to prevent the big market teams from over spending to excess. This would make it a little more painful for the big market teams to exceed the cap while allowing the small market teams to continue to rebuild their franchises at the expense of the big spenders. This would make the big spenders take a little bit bigger risk than just spending money for large contrcts and paying the luxury tax. Overspending would also deplete their resource pool while building up the resources of those cap friendly teams who are having trouble competing on and off the ice.


Last edited by hoserthehorrible: 07-08-2004 at 11:51 AM.
hoserthehorrible is offline  
Old
07-08-2004, 12:19 PM
  #46
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
1. Soft Cap at 60% of revenues (Currently works out to $40M)
There will be exemptions put in place that are the only reasons a team can go over the cap. Going over the cap for any other reason would result in loss of draft picks. This is not a luxury tax.

Obviously this sort of system would require a system put in place to determine what constitutes as revenues. The other leagues have figured this out so to think that the NHL can’t accomplish this or that the NHLPA just wouldn’t feel like doing this isn’t exactly reasonable.

2. Salary Floor at 40% of revenues (Currently works out to $30M)
Each team’s payroll must be at least 40% of the league’s revenues divided by 30 teams. Cap exceptions don’t apply here, meaning that a team might only have $25M worth of their cap filled but they’re actually paying out $32M and they’d be fine.

3. Exemptions
Some of you may be familiar with what is known as the Larry Bird Rule in the NBA. The point of this rule is to help teams retain their players by reducing the cap hit for players that have been with a team for a certain length of time. The cap hits that I recommend:

4th year with organization: 95%
5th year with organization: 90%
6th & 7th years with organization: 80%
8th year or more with organization: 70%

However, unlike the NBA, players traded to not get their ‘tenure’ traded with them.

4. Contract Buyout @ 33%
Players understandably want guaranteed contracts but with a cap, there needs to be some way to get out of a contract. Instead of making contracts non-guaranteed teams would be able to buy out contracts at 33% of the remaining balance and that amount would not count towards the cap. In addition, the first year of every contract is guaranteed. This effectively guarantees 33% plus the amount of the first year of every contract.

This would prevent the outrageous signing bonus system that has developed in the NFL as a result of the cap.

5. Revenue Sharing
I don’t support any form of revenue sharing that takes directly from the rich and gives directly to the poor. Such a system can encourage teams to keep themselves at a level where they qualify for the free money. I recommend sharing:

- 50% of Local TV Contracts: Money would be put into a pool and split up evenly among all 30 teams.
- 33% of Gate Revenue: Like the local TV contracts, the money would be split up evenly along all the teams.

6. Reduce unrestricted free agency to 28
Players value freedom, so you’re going to have to offer them something other than a salary floor to make them happy.

7. If you think a luxury tax is the answer, just look how great it has been for the MLB.


Last edited by degroat*: 07-08-2004 at 12:53 PM.
degroat* is offline  
Old
07-08-2004, 12:47 PM
  #47
Iggy-4-50
Registered User
 
Iggy-4-50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 5,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWI19
Here's my idea for the new CBA

Luxury tax starts at 35 million

35-40 million is subject to 25% tax
40.1-45 million is subject to a 50% tax
45.1 to 55 million is subject to a 75% tax
Anything over 55 million is subject to 100% tax

Salary floor of 20 million dollars. If any teams payroll is under the 20 million dollar mark they will not receive any of the luxury tax revenue sharing money.

The luxury tax money will be pooled up and dispersed equally to every NHL team who's payroll is under the 55 million dollar mark.

Rookie contracts can not exceed one million dollars, including bonuses.

I would also like to add something like the NBA's version of the Larry Bird rule. I'm gonna call it the "Steve Yzerman Rule" (okay i'm homer ) Were as one players salary will not be counted toward the tax number. But unlike the NBA, this NHL version has teeth. In order to claim a player under the Steve Yzerman rule said player will have to be drafted by your team and played his entire career with that team. Players must be above the age of 30 years old.

Trading deadline is moved up to February 28th.

Ticket revenue sharing:
75% of the money goes back to the home team, with the other 25% going to the road team.

Unrestricted Free Agency age will be dropped to 30 years old.
Love it,the only changes i would make are:

Rookie contracts: restricting the first year players may keep the future euro stars home.
Hard cap: set a ceiling at say 60 mil so there won't be a NYY's type in the NHL making other owners go over the soft cap to the extreme.

And make the players buy their own friggen sticks!!

Iggy-4-50 is offline  
Old
07-08-2004, 12:52 PM
  #48
TVanek26*
 
TVanek26*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Buffalo,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,583
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TVanek26*
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T

And make the players buy their own friggen sticks!!
I agree,it's ridiculous that these players have ten or twelve custom Synergies at 200 bucks a pop....that add's up quickly.

TVanek26* is offline  
Old
07-08-2004, 01:53 PM
  #49
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Best proposal I have read to date. Well balanced with lots of room for negotiation on key aspects. I just wish there was a way to add draft picks as part of the luxury tax so that the rich teams that overuse free agency don't get equal opportunity to abuse the draft and kill their prospects stuck in the minors.
The union would go for it, the owners won't. Salaries are not tied to revenues which means the union will at least negotiate around the numbers.

The problem with the luxury tax idea from the owner's perspective - and revenue sharing in general - is that it involves a transfer of equity. The New York Rangers immediately become less valuable. The Edmonton Oilers immediately become more valuable. How do you convince the owners of the more valuable teams to give tens of millions of dollars to the owners of the less valuable franchises?

It is a pipe dream. The owners do not want to share revenues. In some cases, they can't legally share them. If the owners were willing to share revenues all of the other problems become moot. Pool everything and share and there are no "rich" teams and no "poor" teams.

I'm not convinced revenue sharing is good for a sport. Two objections:

1) The New York Rangers do get their revenues from the fans. They pay more. They should pay more to see their money used to improve the Buffalo Sabres?

2) The only reason the Montreal Expos still exist is the revenue sharing inherent in the big TV contract. Without that cash, they fold or move long ago. Are the Expos good for baseball? What if revenue sharing keeps hockey in a place hockey should not be?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
07-08-2004, 02:10 PM
  #50
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
How do you convince the owners of the more valuable teams to give tens of millions of dollars to the owners of the less valuable franchises?
With Bettman needing only 16 owners to approve the CBA, you don't have to convince the owners of the more valuable franchises.

degroat* 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 08:32 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.