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.

my idea to solve the cba

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-26-2004, 08:23 PM
  #1
TehDoak
I Like Eich
 
TehDoak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 20,803
vCash: 903
my CBA Idea....

I've been looking at the CBA, and I have a few ideas that could possibly help out:

1)A sliding scale for player salary refunding. I know the NHLPA offered 5% across the board, but i think it needs to be on a slidng scale. For instance:

Over 9 million-25% returned to teams
6-8 Million- 20% returned to teams
4-6 Million-15% returned to teams
2-4 Million-10% returned to teams
Under 2 million- 5% returned to teams

That would leave to a total of reduction of 100 million in salary (at least) while lowering the upper end of player salaries, thus lowering arbitration awards and the average salary signifigantly, thus making it better for qualifying offers.

2)Qualifying offers. A guaranteed 10% raise or guarantee to make the same amount has KILLED small market teams. A player who earns one 3 million contract when he is 25 is guaranteed to get that until he is 31, unless he plays his way out of the NHL completly (i.e. not qualified) I think this is why you see so many hockey holdouts, because the players know this. I think there needs to be (again) a sliding scale of contract guarantees based upon performance. This qualifying scale can go 25% either way, based upon the the players last contractual award. For example, player X scored 60 pts in 02 and was awarded a 2 year, 4 million contract per. Over the life of that contract, he scored 80 pts a season. While he will probably get a bigger award, he is guaranteed a 25% raise, because he improved his numbers signifigantly. However, if player X scores 40 pts a season, he can be qualified at 3 million per season, a 25% paycut given his decline in production. Now, this could be a slippery slope, and i think it would have to regulated with some pretty stiff penalties (i.e. a team lowballs a player when his performance has been the same, the player can challenge, and the player is awarded with a higher contract or, in the worst case, can walk as an UFA).

#3)Soft cap/Luxary tax. Since the massive player refund and changing of qualifying offers would give somewhat 'cost certainty', no hard cap would be required. But, Luxury tax issues still need to be addressed. I think the soft cap should be based upon the average salary of the 16 playoff teams (as of Jan 1st that year), and every dollar over should be taxed 50%. Now, in the current state, that would be $73 million to be redistrubted amongst all 30 teams. That would add up to 2.5 million extra income per year to teams under the 'soft cap'. Now, this before the salary refund (which large market teams would get most the benefit from), but it would still be an extra amount given to struggling teams. That, in combination of the other two rules should help alleviate teams money problems.

#4)And Finally, in order to appease the players after they have given up alot, the UFA age should be lowered to 29. Any money lost in the refund can be easily regained in getting at least one more UFA contract over the life of their career.

TehDoak is offline  
Old
02-26-2004, 09:37 PM
  #2
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdoak
I've been looking at the CBA, and I have a few ideas that could possibly help out:

1)A sliding scale for player salary refunding. I know the NHLPA offered 5% across the board, but i think it needs to be on a slidng scale. For instance:

Over 9 million-25% returned to teams
6-8 Million- 20% returned to teams
4-6 Million-15% returned to teams
2-4 Million-10% returned to teams
Under 2 million- 5% returned to teams

That would leave to a total of reduction of 100 million in salary (at least) while lowering the upper end of player salaries, thus lowering arbitration awards and the average salary signifigantly, thus making it better for qualifying offers.
Except that almost all the players earning over $6M are close to, or over, 31. It won't affect arbitration awards at all.

Quote:
2)Qualifying offers. A guaranteed 10% raise or guarantee to make the same amount has KILLED small market teams. A player who earns one 3 million contract when he is 25 is guaranteed to get that until he is 31, unless he plays his way out of the NHL completly (i.e. not qualified) I think this is why you see so many hockey holdouts, because the players know this. I think there needs to be (again) a sliding scale of contract guarantees based upon performance. This qualifying scale can go 25% either way, based upon the the players last contractual award. For example, player X scored 60 pts in 02 and was awarded a 2 year, 4 million contract per. Over the life of that contract, he scored 80 pts a season. While he will probably get a bigger award, he is guaranteed a 25% raise, because he improved his numbers signifigantly. However, if player X scores 40 pts a season, he can be qualified at 3 million per season, a 25% paycut given his decline in production. Now, this could be a slippery slope, and i think it would have to regulated with some pretty stiff penalties (i.e. a team lowballs a player when his performance has been the same, the player can challenge, and the player is awarded with a higher contract or, in the worst case, can walk as an UFA).
Too complex.

If a player is making $3M at 25, he'll have to be a hell of a player. Marian Hossa is 25 and he isn't even making $3M. Unless the GM of the team is an idiot, there would be very few 25 year olds making $3M a year.

Quote:
#3)Soft cap/Luxary tax. Since the massive player refund and changing of qualifying offers would give somewhat 'cost certainty', no hard cap would be required. But, Luxury tax issues still need to be addressed. I think the soft cap should be based upon the average salary of the 16 playoff teams (as of Jan 1st that year), and every dollar over should be taxed 50%. Now, in the current state, that would be $73 million to be redistrubted amongst all 30 teams. That would add up to 2.5 million extra income per year to teams under the 'soft cap'. Now, this before the salary refund (which large market teams would get most the benefit from), but it would still be an extra amount given to struggling teams. That, in combination of the other two rules should help alleviate teams money problems.
What about teams that keep their payroll really low just so they can make money from the tax?

Quote:
#4)And Finally, in order to appease the players after they have given up alot, the UFA age should be lowered to 29. Any money lost in the refund can be easily regained in getting at least one more UFA contract over the life of their career.
Absolutely brutal idea. This is the kind of thing that would help big market teams more then anything. Allowing the big money teams to get unrestricted free agents two years earlier would hurt the competitive balance in the league. It would mean teams might have to make a decision on keeping a player at 28 instead of 30.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
02-27-2004, 01:44 AM
  #3
TehDoak
I Like Eich
 
TehDoak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 20,803
vCash: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Except that almost all the players earning over $6M are close to, or over, 31. It won't affect arbitration awards at all.
The small descreases are signifigant too. Now, it may not affect arbitration signifigantly, but, when teams are tight, a few 100k here and there will certainly add up. Also, the idea that it lowers the league average quite a bit is signifigant as well.

Quote:

Too complex.

If a player is making $3M at 25, he'll have to be a hell of a player. Marian Hossa is 25 and he isn't even making $3M. Unless the GM of the team is an idiot, there would be very few 25 year olds making $3M a year.
I was just using that as an exaple (25% of 4 is easy math). But realistically, if lets say your team has 5 RFAs, all making around 1 million per. Now, instead of having to guarantee them 100k extra, no matter what, you have the choice to keep them the same if they all had about average years, that team just saved your self .5 million per. These aren't big chunks, they are alot of little ones.

Quote:

What about teams that keep their payroll really low just so they can make money from the tax?
The average payroll rate (approx 48 million) is somewhat high. Also considering that this is split evenly amongst all 30 teams, the only real benefit is to keep your payroll under that line. Chances are, if you go out skating with a 25 million dollar team, you are going to have low attendance and not make the playoffs. Sure, you'll still get that luxary tax slice, but chances are, you will loose more than you will make.

Quote:
Absolutely brutal idea. This is the kind of thing that would help big market teams more then anything. Allowing the big money teams to get unrestricted free agents two years earlier would hurt the competitive balance in the league. It would mean teams might have to make a decision on keeping a player at 28 instead of 30.
Chances are, most big market teams will already be over the luxary tax limit. So, if the NYR want to try and pay Jerome Iginla 8 million per year, it won't cost them 8 million, it will cost them 12. Now, lets say the Flames want to keep him. Considering they are well under the 48 million luxary tax threshold, they will be bringing in roughly 2 million per year (since they don't have to pay any). That means, they only have to spend 6 million of their own budget to keep him

TehDoak is offline  
Old
02-27-2004, 11:44 AM
  #4
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,239
vCash: 500
Have to give more consideration to your various solutions, but off the bat, I agree strongly with point #2. Qualifying offers are an artificial trigger that works in player's favor not unlike a cap would be an artificial trigger in the owners favor. Personally detest both, for a variety of personal and practical reasons.

Trottier is offline  
Old
02-27-2004, 12:06 PM
  #5
West
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
1)A sliding scale for player salary refunding. I know the NHLPA offered 5% across the board, but i think it needs to be on a slidng scale.

-I strongly agree with this. A 10 million a year player is a death sentence to most teams and it would quickly reduce teams cost. The only problem is that it dosen't really protect the same thing from starting all over again. I'd like a hard cap for player salary around 7 million a year(blast away).

2)Qualifying offers. A guaranteed 10% raise or guarantee to make the same amount has KILLED small market teams.

- Basically agree. You sign one bad contract and you stuck with it until you cut the player lose or he's a FA. I think that qualifing should be at about 80%. Just to add in a little forgiveness on teams financial decisions. Your method is to complex for my tastes.

3) Some sort of serious profit sharing needs to be introduced. Not a huge fan of what anyone's come up with yet.

#4)And Finally, in order to appease the players after they have given up alot, the UFA age should be lowered to 29.

-given them nothing!!!! (think shultz(old tv show))

What you've missed is that I think that teams should keep rookies right's as long as they offer the rookie max. (no bonus).

West is offline  
Old
04-20-2004, 04:47 PM
  #6
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,318
vCash: 500
My Cba

I cant see the players under any circumstances structuring a CBA with a hard cap.

This would be my solution which in structure is similar to the players proposal which was unilaterally rejected by the owners

1. A Luxury tax would be implemented, I would say at 40 Million, between 40 to 50 million a 10% tax would be assessed. For instance if a team had a 45 million dollar payroll, 5 million would be taxed which would be $500,000.00. From 50-60 million a 20% tax would be assessed for instance a team with a 59 million dollar payroll would pay 1 million dollars due to the 40-50 million dollar overage and 20% of 9 million dollars which would be 1.8 million dollars. The team with a 59 million dollar payroll would pay a tax of 2.8 million dollars. From 60-70 million dollars would be 30%, from 70-80 million dollars would be 40% up untill a max of 100%. The Revenue from this tax would be split up among teams losing money based on need.

2. A 10% across the board salary cut of pre existing contracts prior to the new CBA. The NHL claims that 76% of the revenues goes towards player salaries. This would push Salaries back to the 70% range if all other salaries followed suit.

3. Make a 6 million dollar max 15% of Luxury Tax threshold as the Max Salary. This would help teams keep a home grown superstar and still be able to field a team of decent players

4. 50% of all gate revenue must be shared among the teams. This will help small Market teams keep up with Large Market teams.

5.Raise the draft age from 18 years old to 21 years old. The draft at 18 years old is too much of a crap shoot. The 21 year old draft basically would put the 1st 10 to 15 players drafted in the NHL and would help the bad teams right away. Also teams would not have to give big money contracts to 18 year olds who arent NHL ready.


Please post feed back and let me know what you think

free0717 is offline  
Old
04-20-2004, 05:23 PM
  #7
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by free0717
I cant see the players under any circumstances structuring a CBA with a hard cap.

This would be my solution which in structure is similar to the players proposal which was unilaterally rejected by the owners

1. A Luxury tax would be implemented, I would say at 40 Million, between 40 to 50 million a 10% tax would be assessed. For instance if a team had a 45 million dollar payroll, 5 million would be taxed which would be $500,000.00. From 50-60 million a 20% tax would be assessed for instance a team with a 59 million dollar payroll would pay 1 million dollars due to the 40-50 million dollar overage and 20% of 9 million dollars which would be 1.8 million dollars. The team with a 59 million dollar payroll would pay a tax of 2.8 million dollars. From 60-70 million dollars would be 30%, from 70-80 million dollars would be 40% up untill a max of 100%. The Revenue from this tax would be split up among teams losing money based on need.

2. A 10% across the board salary cut of pre existing contracts prior to the new CBA. The NHL claims that 76% of the revenues goes towards player salaries. This would push Salaries back to the 70% range if all other salaries followed suit.

3. Make a 6 million dollar max 15% of Luxury Tax threshold as the Max Salary. This would help teams keep a home grown superstar and still be able to field a team of decent players

4. 50% of all gate revenue must be shared among the teams. This will help small Market teams keep up with Large Market teams.

5.Raise the draft age from 18 years old to 21 years old. The draft at 18 years old is too much of a crap shoot. The 21 year old draft basically would put the 1st 10 to 15 players drafted in the NHL and would help the bad teams right away. Also teams would not have to give big money contracts to 18 year olds who arent NHL ready.


Please post feed back and let me know what you think
I disagree on the soft cap, just because I don't think the penalty is great enough going over the cap. Ideally, I'd like to see the Toronto Maple Leafs spending as much as the Boston Bruins and the Detroit Red Wings spendings as much as the Nashville Predators.

It's going to be a real hard sell to get the owners to agree to sharing revenue I believe, but if they could wedge it in, I think the whole league should be based on revenue sharing. The teams making money wouldn't make as much money in a 20 team league I believe, so they should spread the wealth so the league is the strongest, not the teams are the strongest.

Too many concessions by the players as well, although I agree that player salaries need to be cut by 10% if you believe the owners numbers.

The draft age is something I've been contemplating the past couple of weeks actually. There is such a large majority of players that never make it to the NHL, never even receive a contract, and there are so few that jump into the NHL at 18, but there are some. The NHL has played with draft ages ranging from 18-21 in the past, and I wonder why they went back down to 18. If players could then go play in the AHL, signing contracts with those teams there, then they could still develop. It also might discourage more players from jumping from the leagues they currently play in whether college or juniors. Not sure if that is a good thing, but I am curious as to the ramifications.

Guest is offline  
Old
04-20-2004, 10:46 PM
  #8
chriss_co
Registered User
 
chriss_co's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: CALGARY
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,769
vCash: 500
If the NHLPA is so insistent on a luxory tax then i say give it to them at a $35 million total payroll cap. From 35-40, give a little leeway.. say 10%. But after that, be real tough on the tax. eg %50+. Thats how u control it.

Also, i think a 60% of all revenues going into salaries is where the league needs to be if they want to be healthy (in terms of the teams in small markets)

About the draft thing... i like the 18 year age requirement. Yes, alot of players are projects but thats the beauty of it. Teams really need a good scouting team to draft well. Plus, i think they should put a hard cap on rookie entry salaries at $500 000 (including bonuses!!). None of this 10% growth every year or outrageous bonuses..

But then again, I'm very against the NHLPA and I know for a fact that they would not like the CBA if I were commish.

chriss_co is offline  
Old
04-21-2004, 09:38 AM
  #9
BIGTRAIN*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chriss_co
If the NHLPA is so insistent on a luxory tax then i say give it to them at a $35 million total payroll cap. From 35-40, give a little leeway.. say 10%. But after that, be real tough on the tax. eg %50+. Thats how u control it.

Also, i think a 60% of all revenues going into salaries is where the league needs to be if they want to be healthy (in terms of the teams in small markets)

About the draft thing... i like the 18 year age requirement. Yes, alot of players are projects but thats the beauty of it. Teams really need a good scouting team to draft well. Plus, i think they should put a hard cap on rookie entry salaries at $500 000 (including bonuses!!). None of this 10% growth every year or outrageous bonuses..

But then again, I'm very against the NHLPA and I know for a fact that they would not like the CBA if I were commish.
And if I were the head of the players association you would not have a draft period >> All players at the end of contract totaly unrestricted free agents>> No hard cap>> You want to play hard ball go ahead the owners will settle for a reasonable tax on salaries Minium 40 million to 45 million and a dollar for dollar tax on all saaries over 45 million>> Players get free agency and draft limited to three rounds >> Wage scale for the first contract lenght no longer than five years >> All non drafted players are free to sign with any team for the wage sacle >> After the first contract ends the players are unrestricted free agents >> Teams ( small market ) share the funds from the tax only if their payroll is at 40 million and these funds must go signing players that would otherwise leave >> No contract after the first is longer than 3 years >> Thats a good starting point

BIGTRAIN* is offline  
Old
04-21-2004, 11:36 AM
  #10
Geese_Howard*
 
Geese_Howard*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,964
vCash: 500
I say 40 million for the salary cap

every 10 million your over you pay 1 million in Luxury taxes

that $$$ goes to a team that needs it

Geese_Howard* is offline  
Old
04-21-2004, 11:47 AM
  #11
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
I disagree on the soft cap, just because I don't think the penalty is great enough going over the cap. Ideally, I'd like to see the Toronto Maple Leafs spending as much as the Boston Bruins and the Detroit Red Wings spendings as much as the Nashville Predators.

It's going to be a real hard sell to get the owners to agree to sharing revenue I believe, but if they could wedge it in, I think the whole league should be based on revenue sharing. The teams making money wouldn't make as much money in a 20 team league I believe, so they should spread the wealth so the league is the strongest, not the teams are the strongest.

Too many concessions by the players as well, although I agree that player salaries need to be cut by 10% if you believe the owners numbers.

The draft age is something I've been contemplating the past couple of weeks actually. There is such a large majority of players that never make it to the NHL, never even receive a contract, and there are so few that jump into the NHL at 18, but there are some. The NHL has played with draft ages ranging from 18-21 in the past, and I wonder why they went back down to 18. If players could then go play in the AHL, signing contracts with those teams there, then they could still develop. It also might discourage more players from jumping from the leagues they currently play in whether college or juniors. Not sure if that is a good thing, but I am curious as to the ramifications.
The owners for years were very irresponsible by letting in new teams in Markets that had no buisness having an NHL team. Also they let owners come in who were almost 100% leveraged and have large debt to pay. The owners just wanted that 75 million dollar franchise fee and anyone who could raise 75 million dollars was given an NHL franchise. McDonalds not only checks out new prospective franchise owners to see if they are properly capitalized, they check out the location and make sure that the market will sustain the McDonalds franchise. I doubt the NHL did proper background checks and did proper research to see if these markets were viable. As a result of the owners irresponsibility, Revenue sharing is required. The only other way is too install a hard cap with a low limit so all teams can afford to pay upto the cap. Teams like the Red Wings, Rangers, Flyers, Maple Leafs would make tremendous profits at the expense of the players. Just remember the players are the product. I have never spent a dollar watching an owner play hockey.

free0717 is offline  
Old
04-21-2004, 12:24 PM
  #12
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,332
vCash: 500
One thing I look at is if you add up the top 690 salaries in the league, and divide it by 30, you get $44 million. The 690 comes from 30 teams with 23 active roster players. If that averages out to $44 million per team, that would be a starting point at bare minimum. They could even use such a formula to set the cap, where it would be a living cap that flucuated with the increase in salaries. However, a $10 million increase only would raise the cap $300,000 so you could potentially see the cap jump a bit every year if you figure when there are a lot of free agents.

Just look at every team over $44 million though, and imagine if they had to cut their roster down to the salary limit. The teams below that $44 million payroll would benefit, and I believe that to be a good thing.

I think that when it comes to free agency that all teams should more or less be created equal. I think teams should be rewarded by their drafting abilities and development. Neither scenario is active right now.

Guest is offline  
Old
04-21-2004, 12:56 PM
  #13
The Kitner Boy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by free0717
The owners for years were very irresponsible by letting in new teams in Markets that had no buisness having an NHL team. Also they let owners come in who were almost 100% leveraged and have large debt to pay. The owners just wanted that 75 million dollar franchise fee and anyone who could raise 75 million dollars was given an NHL franchise. McDonalds not only checks out new prospective franchise owners to see if they are properly capitalized, they check out the location and make sure that the market will sustain the McDonalds franchise. I doubt the NHL did proper background checks and did proper research to see if these markets were viable. As a result of the owners irresponsibility, Revenue sharing is required. The only other way is too install a hard cap with a low limit so all teams can afford to pay upto the cap. Teams like the Red Wings, Rangers, Flyers, Maple Leafs would make tremendous profits at the expense of the players. Just remember the players are the product. I have never spent a dollar watching an owner play hockey.
2 quick points


How do you know the financial status of the NHL owners?


Does the NHL have a vested interest in teams being profitable?

The Kitner Boy is offline  
Old
04-21-2004, 07:49 PM
  #14
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR. X
2 quick points


How do you know the financial status of the NHL owners?


Does the NHL have a vested interest in teams being profitable?
Come on, if the big market teams can go to 80 million dollar payroll, what kind of gross profit will they make with a 31 million dollar hard cap.

The NHL is the owners. Does Mcdonalds Corp have a vested interest in the franchises? no, but for the good of the corporation McDonalds only wants healthy franchises. I know this sounds like an MBA discertation, but a Franchiser should Model there business plan like McDonalds. The NHL would give a Franchise to anyone that can raise 75 Million dollars ie Rod Bryden.

free0717 is offline  
Old
04-22-2004, 08:02 AM
  #15
The Kitner Boy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by free0717
Come on, if the big market teams can go to 80 million dollar payroll, what kind of gross profit will they make with a 31 million dollar hard cap.

The NHL is the owners. Does Mcdonalds Corp have a vested interest in the franchises? no, but for the good of the corporation McDonalds only wants healthy franchises. I know this sounds like an MBA discertation, but a Franchiser should Model there business plan like McDonalds. The NHL would give a Franchise to anyone that can raise 75 Million dollars ie Rod Bryden.
No, the NHL is an organization made up of the owners. The NHL as a body does not own any of the teams. What if the owners donít care about making money? The only reason to own a fast food franchise is to make money. Owning a big time sports franchise, in my opinion, is more about ego than anything else. It is like an exotic sports car, not everyone has one. There needs to be a salary cap and revenue sharing, not to insure that teams are profitable, but to have parity.

BTW
When you write your next dissertation you may want to consider spell check.

The Kitner Boy is offline  
Old
04-22-2004, 03:29 PM
  #16
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR. X
No, the NHL is an organization made up of the owners. The NHL as a body does not own any of the teams. What if the owners donít care about making money? The only reason to own a fast food franchise is to make money. Owning a big time sports franchise, in my opinion, is more about ego than anything else. It is like an exotic sports car, not everyone has one. There needs to be a salary cap and revenue sharing, not to insure that teams are profitable, but to have parity.

BTW
When you write your next dissertation you may want to consider spell check.
BTW No one wants to lose money

free0717 is offline  
Old
04-22-2004, 03:53 PM
  #17
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,570
vCash: 500
My idea.....

40 million dollar luxury tax. 40-50 million payroll would be subject to a 25% luxury tax. 50 to 60 million dollar payroll will be subject to a 50% luxury tax. 60+ dollar payroll would be subject to a 100% luxury tax.

75% of the luxury tax would be divided between the teams under the cap. 25% of the money would go to the Canadian teams under the salary cap number. This would help offset the difference between the American and Canadian dollar. Now if the dollars become equal that money would go into the general pool. The other 25% of the money would go towards NHL charities and youth hockey.

NHL teams would have a one year grace period to trim their payrolls if they wanted. So the tax wouldn't come into effect until the 2005-2006 season. But during that one year, no teams with a payroll over 40 million would be allowed to increase their budget by more than 10%.

Rookie Pool. No team can spend more than 3 million dollars a year on rookie, 1st year players. If teams go over that number it is subject to a 100% tax. All bonuses are included into that rookie pool.

Gate Revenue sharing. Home teams are awarded 75% of the ticket revenue, away teams receive 25% of ticket revenue. (suite sales are included)

Local TV & Radio revenue sharing. Home teams will receive 80% of the revenues fom local TV and Radio. The other 20% will be dispursed to the other 29 teams.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
04-22-2004, 03:55 PM
  #18
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,332
vCash: 500
In a perfect world...

Revenue sharing is a must. The health of the league as a whole is what allows some teams to be more profitable than others. If the league falls in various areas, no one is going to be making as much money.

Draft age is fun to play with, I'd like to hear some solid arguments for both keeping it at 18 or changing it to another age.

I'm a fan of the homegrown exemption style cap, I've gone into that before. I think for $30 million you could level the playing field.

Put a cap on the rookie contracts that don't let them balloon up into huge contracts, but limit their length so teams don't own these rookies at low salaries too long either. Two year contract at a set max.

CBA doesn't cover it, but realign the divisions to make more sense...take it back down to 4 divisions in the league and play division matchups in the playoffs. Rivalries make everyone money and can draw ratings. It's a more traditional atmosphere which also can appeal to fans who feel they are a part of something.

Guest is offline  
Old
04-22-2004, 05:50 PM
  #19
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
In a perfect world...

Revenue sharing is a must. The health of the league as a whole is what allows some teams to be more profitable than others. If the league falls in various areas, no one is going to be making as much money.

Draft age is fun to play with, I'd like to hear some solid arguments for both keeping it at 18 or changing it to another age.

I'm a fan of the homegrown exemption style cap, I've gone into that before. I think for $30 million you could level the playing field.

Put a cap on the rookie contracts that don't let them balloon up into huge contracts, but limit their length so teams don't own these rookies at low salaries too long either. Two year contract at a set max.

CBA doesn't cover it, but realign the divisions to make more sense...take it back down to 4 divisions in the league and play division matchups in the playoffs. Rivalries make everyone money and can draw ratings. It's a more traditional atmosphere which also can appeal to fans who feel they are a part of something.
agreed, some form of revenue sharing has to be put into place, just what kind would work... there's many different things going through my mind about that right now

draft age, i'd leave the draft age @ 18, however if you draft an 18 year old you've got to sign him to a manditory 3 year minor league contract, if you draft 21 + yr old he can be given a 1 or 2 way contract, however it cannot excede 1 million dollars/year including bonuses, and can be max 2 year length

i've delved into homegrown area before, and agree there shoudl be an exemption

i've got more to add later but i've got to run for now

garry1221 is offline  
Old
04-23-2004, 01:17 AM
  #20
Yammer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Republic of East Van
Posts: 2,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by free0717
Come on, if the big market teams can go to 80 million dollar payroll, what kind of gross profit will they make with a 31 million dollar hard cap.

The NHL is the owners. Does Mcdonalds Corp have a vested interest in the franchises? no, but for the good of the corporation McDonalds only wants healthy franchises. I know this sounds like an MBA discertation, but a Franchiser should Model there business plan like McDonalds. The NHL would give a Franchise to anyone that can raise 75 Million dollars ie Rod Bryden.
Very good point. Let us continue the analogy and see where it leads.

If McDonald's had a restaurant in a completely unprofitable area -- the moon, say -- what would it do? It would let the restaurant fold. After all, the only reason to own a fast food outlet is to make money*.

Are you willing to impose the same fate on unprofitable hockey teams? I think I am, but it's a big risk. What if half the teams are unprofitable (because of being in poorly researched situations, as outlined previously)? Should the NHL be cut in half?

It's an interesting idea. You'd have the current megapowers. In fact they would get much better with a huge concentration of skill players vying for the roster spots. The oversupply of players would also drop their market value.

In sum, a good deal -- unless you're a fan of an unprofitable team. Is it right to take away your home team?

Maybe.


*This could lead to an entire offtopic subdiscussion of the value of McDonald's franchises as real estate holdings, in addition to revenue generators.

Yammer is offline  
Old
04-23-2004, 07:19 AM
  #21
The Kitner Boy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by free0717
BTW No one wants to lose money
Probably not, but profitability is not the only way to measure the health of a franchise. The owner has to decide why he wants a team, does he want a trophy to put on the mantle or is it an investment?

The Kitner Boy is offline  
Old
04-23-2004, 09:43 AM
  #22
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yammer
Very good point. Let us continue the analogy and see where it leads.

If McDonald's had a restaurant in a completely unprofitable area -- the moon, say -- what would it do? It would let the restaurant fold. After all, the only reason to own a fast food outlet is to make money*.

Are you willing to impose the same fate on unprofitable hockey teams? I think I am, but it's a big risk. What if half the teams are unprofitable (because of being in poorly researched situations, as outlined previously)? Should the NHL be cut in half?

It's an interesting idea. You'd have the current megapowers. In fact they would get much better with a huge concentration of skill players vying for the roster spots. The oversupply of players would also drop their market value.

In sum, a good deal -- unless you're a fan of an unprofitable team. Is it right to take away your home team?

Maybe.


*This could lead to an entire offtopic subdiscussion of the value of McDonald's franchises as real estate holdings, in addition to revenue generators.
McDonalds is smarter than the NHL. Mcdonalds does the proper research of the Market before they allow a franchise to start. But in the "real business world", there would not be revenue sharing and that franchise would go bankrupt.

free0717 is offline  
Old
04-23-2004, 09:48 AM
  #23
Other Dave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New and improved in TO
Posts: 2,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
The NHL has played with draft ages ranging from 18-21 in the past, and I wonder why they went back down to 18.
WHA competition. When WHA teams started signing young players to contracts before they could be drafted by the NHL, the latter league dropped the draft age to 18.

Other Dave is offline  
Old
04-23-2004, 12:29 PM
  #24
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Other Dave
WHA competition. When WHA teams started signing young players to contracts before they could be drafted by the NHL, the latter league dropped the draft age to 18.
I misrepresented myself with that statement actually, I was more curious why the draft age flucuated. Obviously they thought there were benefits to each approach as well as cons, and I'm curious why the draft age was ever raised as well as how it would fit in todays system.

I knew about the WHA's relation to the NHL's draft age actually, that's what prompted me to question the wrong thing LOL

Guest is offline  
Old
04-25-2004, 10:04 AM
  #25
jol
Registered User
 
jol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Miami Beach, Florida
Posts: 1,642
vCash: 500
Cut rookie salaries, maybe 25-50%, no rookie bonuses and remove
automatic 10 % raise (if salary less than avg salary). This will take
care of teams' economical problems. Some teams might fold before
that.

Draft age, I think it was court decision which allowed 18 years old
to be drafted (right to work or something). I have been wondering
about free agency (restricted) and when will some player sue NHL
and get total free agency (after contract expires you will be
unrestricted free agent like in Europe).

jol 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 02:36 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.