Bassin confirms a side deal was made with an Otters player

[OMG67]

Clearly things need to change. The players are no longer Student Athletes.

The CHL needs to clearly define the role of the player from the perspective of being a student. For example, if the player is in high school or enrolled in College or University paid for by their CHL club, they are considered student athletes and are given a weekly stipend, room and board, transportation, training, insurance, and equipment.

If the player is not attending school, they are no longer a student athlete and are then deemed "professional." They are compensated based on a negotiated player contract with minimum and maximum yearly salaries. The player is then not afforded room and board. They receive a salary that should allow them to find their own accommodations.

When they leave their CHL club the 18 month period to pursue a professional career is reasonable. IT allows the player one full hockey season to decide if pro hockey is better for their future than education. It is no different than a graduating high school student taking a year off to work before deciding to go to College or University.

IF the teams were to do this, it would negate any reason to hand out significant money to recruits. They would get their salaries in their 3rd and 4th seasons if they choose to stop school.

If a team doesn't feel the player is worth the money they are requesting going into year 3, they can trade or release the player to sign elsewhere and receive compensation based on the level of salary ochre end similar to the RFA poaching compensation in the NHL.

This is obviously way too progressive but it would help clarify the role of the student athlete and compensate the non student athlete.

 

[OHLTG]

Re-created on the Erie Otters letterhead, Sherry Bassin signature and everything????

Also the fact that it's entered into evidence also means the judge has to judge the authenticity of the document. Do you understand what you're actually saying?

I'm not saying THIS document is fake. No reason for it to be. I'm saying the idea that a document like this COULD be faked isn't out of the question.

Getting back to the topic at hand...

This whole thing strikes me as scratching the surface of what could happen over the next few seasons. We saw it a bit with the Windsor sanctions, it cooled down, and now this. It does make me wonder if players will come forward more, or teams will be that much more careful in how they pursue options.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

Props to BruceBadger on the Business of Hockey board for illustrating Bassin's hilarious hypocrisy:

Sherry Bassin's Erie Otters "side deal" contract with Jeremy Gottzmann in 2009 really does make me roll my eyes.

For one thing, Bassin was the Chair of the OHL Board of Governors at the time he negotiated and signed the deal with Gottzmann.

Secondly, as the OHL Board Chair in 2009 he was a driving force behind the creation of a new staff position in the league, the Enforcement Officer and Director of Security (a position filled by retired OPP commander Ken Miller, just a few months later).

On June 19, 2009, the Toronto Star reported the following:

"Sherry Bassin, chair of the OHL board of governors, said no one has been caught tampering with the draft or for providing excess benefits. But every year the rumours grow - especially against the top-level teams who have more to offer - but no one has yet produced the hard proof required to convict.

"There's always finger pointing," said Bassin, who's also GM and part-owner of the Erie Otters. "But that's pretty easy, it's not a tough thing to do ..... but when you ask if they have specific proof it's always, 'he said, she said, they said.' "

https://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2009/06/19/ohl_plans_crackdown_on_teams_breaking_rules.html

Yet, according to the affidavit provided by Gottzmann, he signed his Standard Player Agreement and the "side deal" with Bassin on June 22, 2009 -- just 3 days after Bassin spoke to the Star as the OHL board chair about improper player benefits and the need to hire a permanent enforcement officer!

Good Lord. I am at a complete loss for words. This hypocrisy defies description.

I'm not saying THIS document is fake. No reason for it to be. I'm saying the idea that a document like this COULD be faked isn't out of the question.

Getting back to the topic at hand...

This whole thing strikes me as scratching the surface of what could happen over the next few seasons. We saw it a bit with the Windsor sanctions, it cooled down, and now this. It does make me wonder if players will come forward more, or teams will be that much more careful in how they pursue options.

You would have to be a special form of idiot to fake a document like that and present to the court as evidence when the purported author is involved in the legal proceeding and could easily confirm/deny its authenticity.

Re-created on the Erie Otters letterhead, Sherry Bassin signature and everything????

Also the fact that it's entered into evidence also means the judge has to judge the authenticity of the document. Do you understand what you're actually saying?

The presiding judge doesn't typically judge a document's authenticity when it's entered into evidence re sworn affidavit unless someone actually challenges its authenticity.

Not trying to be a jerk, and I'm sure that particular document is authentic, but that would be soooooo easy to forge if they wanted. It's 2016. I have a family member who's an ex-felon for identity theft and he was doing way more intricate stuff than that 20 years ago. Signatures and all, no problem. Lying in court under oath happens all over this country everyday too.

The letter was entered into evidence into a proceeding where the author, as an owner of a team involved in the litigation is easily available to refute the document's authenticity. Claiming that someone suing the OHL could easily forge a document purported to be written by the owner of a team involved in the litigation is just stupid.

 

[RayzorIsDull]

Props to BruceBadger on the Business of Hockey board for illustrating Bassin's hilarious hypocrisy:




You would have to be a special form of idiot to fake a document like that and present to the court as evidence when the purported author is involved in the legal proceeding and could easily confirm/deny its authenticity.



The presiding judge doesn't typically judge a document's authenticity when it's entered into evidence re sworn affidavit unless someone actually challenges its authenticity.



The letter was entered into evidence into a proceeding where the author, as an owner of a team involved in the litigation is easily available to refute the document's authenticity. Claiming that someone suing the OHL could easily forge a document purported to be written by the owner of a team involved in the litigation is just stupid.

I have still run into judges/justices that would look over the document not for 30 minutes but for 30-45 seconds. I am stunned individuals would actually even question the authenticity and forging of a document. Maybe the people don't understand what could happen to a lawyer from either side if found forging a document, also what would happen to Gottzmann in this case.

 

[Savard18]

http://henryreport.com/blog/2016/03...t-dothan-lawyers-role-in-cover-up-of-torture/

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/lawy...ures-of-7-judges-on-over-100-court-documents/

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ee9b05a3-d530-4d72-99d2-74d7303857b8

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/f...irst-forge-get-out-jail-free-card-f8C11417560

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/ice-prosecutor-may-face-criminal-charges/

http://mobile.bergendispatch.com/de...ing-Documents-In-Court-Case-To-Avoid-Eviction

I wasn't saying THAT document WAS forged. I highly doubt it was. I was just pointing out it WOULD be easily forged and that forged items do get presented in court. Those examples took about 2 minutes to find. I'm sure I could pull another 50 examples. It happens, whether you wish to believe that or not. I do NOT think that item was forged, and yes, in this instance it would be stupid to try and use a forged document to further their case.What does surprise me is that Bassin/The Otters would write up a contract and sign it, knowing it was proof they were breaking the rules. And laws possibly? If they were brazen enough to do that, I wonder how much more is really going on.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

http://henryreport.com/blog/2016/03...t-dothan-lawyers-role-in-cover-up-of-torture/

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/lawy...ures-of-7-judges-on-over-100-court-documents/

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ee9b05a3-d530-4d72-99d2-74d7303857b8

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/f...irst-forge-get-out-jail-free-card-f8C11417560

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/ice-prosecutor-may-face-criminal-charges/

http://mobile.bergendispatch.com/de...ing-Documents-In-Court-Case-To-Avoid-Eviction

I wasn't saying THAT document WAS forged. I highly doubt it was. I was just pointing out it WOULD be easily forged and that forged items do get presented in court. Those examples took about 2 minutes to find. I'm sure I could pull another 50 examples. It happens, whether you wish to believe that or not. I do NOT think that item was forged, and yes, in this instance it would be stupid to try and use a forged document to further their case.What does surprise me is that Bassin/The Otters would write up a contract and sign it, knowing it was proof they were breaking the rules. And laws possibly? If they were brazen enough to do that, I wonder how much more is really going on.

Yes, of course it's possible for people to forge documents. My point is only someone who is extremely stupid would try to forge a document when the purported author is also involved in the legal proceeding.

The Otters/Bassin weren't breaking the law doing what they did. But it seems to breach the OHL's rules. And, as was pointed out elsewhere, it's hilarious that a couple of days before entering into the agreement Bassin was carrying on in the Toronto Star about rule breaking amongst the teams and the need to hire an enforcement officer.

 

[rangersblues]

When they leave their CHL club the 18 month period to pursue a professional career is reasonable. IT allows the player one full hockey season to decide if pro hockey is better for their future than education. It is no different than a graduating high school student taking a year off to work before deciding to go to College or University.

Sorry. Can't agree with the 18 months. I don't think it's anywhere near long enough to let go of the dream. The period has to be substantially longer - 3 years anyway. I would say that once a player reaches a certain level of earnings as a pro hockey player, he should have to forego his scholarship though.

 

[GBFP]

It's worth noting that all of the players named in the article except Subban haven't played a pro game according to hockey db. So maybe they are just looking for the pay day they thought they had coming from them and didn't end up earning.

Meaningless that they didn't play pro. Pro's are "part of the brotherhood" still and making millions, so they don't pay no mind to what happened in juniors and sure they're not going to admit to taking extra money - what do they gain from it? Sully their name and it would just hurt their former team and lessen chance to go back or maybe have number retired etc.

Guys who didn't make pro have nothing to lose - and they're on the other end now looking for the supposed and promised benefits of the education package and the like and seeing it's not all it was cracked up to be or promised. They know of side deals as kids brag and might have has looser lips of their side deals when out drinking together. It's leverage.

 

[OMG67]

Sorry. Can't agree with the 18 months. I don't think it's anywhere near long enough to let go of the dream. The period has to be substantially longer - 3 years anyway. I would say that once a player reaches a certain level of earnings as a pro hockey player, he should have to forego his scholarship though.

Three years is not reasonable in my opinion. The scholarship is set up so that a player is incentivized to go to school. The longer you are out of the school system, the less likely they will go. They are already going to school two years after their peers if they don't play an overage year and three years if they play their overage year then another year if they play one pro season.

There are also loads of players that go to school (CIS), graduate, and then play professional for a whole career in the AHL and Europe.

This is not an unreasonable trade off. Think of all the amateur athletes that have to pay for all their coaching and travel expenses. These kids are given quite a sweet deal. Hell, it cost them $10k per year from the age of 10 years old to get to the CHL. Then they get to the CHL and get high level coaching and development, room and board (even the parents are given the room and board money if they are living at home), all transportation costs, off ice training, all equipment costs, insurance for injuries, and quite a few teams enroll their players in private schools.

I agree that $60 per week is silly. Give them what a normal kid working 15 hours a week would earn, say $175 or $200 for spending money. This shouldn't be considered professional where they make $35k-$70k regardless of the revenues generated by the teams.

 

[OMG67]

Meaningless that they didn't play pro. Pro's are "part of the brotherhood" still and making millions, so they don't pay no mind to what happened in juniors and sure they're not going to admit to taking extra money - what do they gain from it? Sully their name and it would just hurt their former team and lessen chance to go back or maybe have number retired etc.

Guys who didn't make pro have nothing to lose - and they're on the other end now looking for the supposed and promised benefits of the education package and the like and seeing it's not all it was cracked up to be or promised. They know of side deals as kids brag and might have has looser lips of their side deals when out drinking together. It's leverage.

Try going to NCAA And see what their scholarships are like. In many cases, the players need to maintain their roster spot to maintain their scholarship. I've heard of stories where players go to the training camp and get cut prior to the start of their first season and their scholarships are nul and void.

Not too many players get full ride deals that are 100% guaranteed.

At least in the OHL their scholarships are guaranteed with one year per year played. That's $6-7k now just for tuition let alone any other school expenses. How many kids work for a year while in high school and manage to save enough money to pay a year's worth of tuition?

 

[rangersblues]

Three years is not reasonable in my opinion. The scholarship is set up so that a player is incentivized to go to school. The longer you are out of the school system, the less likely they will go. They are already going to school two years after their peers if they don't play an overage year and three years if they play their overage year then another year if they play one pro season.

There are also loads of players that go to school (CIS), graduate, and then play professional for a whole career in the AHL and Europe.

This is not an unreasonable trade off. Think of all the amateur athletes that have to pay for all their coaching and travel expenses. These kids are given quite a sweet deal. Hell, it cost them $10k per year from the age of 10 years old to get to the CHL. Then they get to the CHL and get high level coaching and development, room and board (even the parents are given the room and board money if they are living at home), all transportation costs, off ice training, all equipment costs, insurance for injuries, and quite a few teams enroll their players in private schools.

I agree that $60 per week is silly. Give them what a normal kid working 15 hours a week would earn, say $175 or $200 for spending money. This shouldn't be considered professional where they make $35k-$70k regardless of the revenues generated by the teams.

I would say the scholarship is set up so fewer players qualify when it expires so soon. If the CHL teams truly cared about the players education, the scholarships would not expire so soon. It's a money saver pure and simple imo.

 

[OMG67]

I would say the scholarship is set up so fewer players qualify when it expires so soon. If the CHL teams truly cared about the players education, the scholarships would not expire so soon. It's a money saver pure and simple imo.

Everything is perspective. Loads of kids decide to play NCAA and get their education first and chase their dream second. CHL players tend to chase their dream first and education second.

In my opinion, if you don't sign an NHL contract out of Major Junior, the odds are stacked against you of playing in the NHL. I don't know what the numbers are but how many players (other than the old school goons), signed minor pro deals and worked their way to an extended NHL career? Now, how many NEED a 2nd year to try to earn an NHL contract? Most should know after season #1 in the Minor Pro leagues whether they are legitimate NHL potential players

Now, how many players go CIS after the CHL and then play pro hockey after tucking their Degree in their back pocket? I'd suggest there are so many more players that play pro after graduation than the former.

Everything comes down to choices. Not many people get to have their cake and eat it too. Neither do hockey players. Make a choice and stick with it.

I agree that players deserve a little better based on the revenues generated now by CHL teams; however, asking for a 35-40 hour per week paycheque because they are riding a bus to a game is silly to me.

 

[Savard18]

I would definetly like to see the time allotted to use scholarships extended. 36-48-60 months doesn't seem ridiculous to me. Preferably 60. There's a lot of guys who developed into NHL caliber players after 21-22. How BS is it if a AHL/ECHL kid suffers a career ender 19-24 months after the CHL? I also don't think there's a lot of us who wouldn't trade our current careers for a lengthy run in the AHL or Europe/AHL with some ECHL mixed in even. Give the kids a little more chance to decide and maybe let them live the dream a little longer. I wish the NCAA would quit viewing CHL kids as professionals but if not, the CHL could throw a little more $ around a tilt the recruiting battle decidedly in their favor. Unfortunately, that's a stretch financially for a number of teams.

 

[youngblood10]

The time line and dictating that the player has to use the monies towards education is a loop hole to get out of giving those funds to the players.
Yes, education is very important & good pr, but not every individual is academic. If these funds could go towards a down payment on a home it could be better suited for some. Or invested in mutual funds etc...

Teams choose how to use the revenue the players generate. The players should also have at least a few choices on how to best use the funds they have accumulated after graduating from the league. After all by that time they are over the age of majority.

 

[CharlieGirl]

I don't think there's any problem in giving a player 18-24 months to see if he can make it playing pro hockey. As a parent, I wouldn't want my kid to have longer than that to decide to go to school. I'd prefer that he be forced to make that decision while he's still close to university age and not far removed from being in a school state of mind. Any longer than that and the player likely wouldn't be able to play CIS hockey either.

 

[fishfan51]

I'm not saying THIS document is fake. No reason for it to be. I'm saying the idea that a document like this COULD be faked isn't out of the question.

Getting back to the topic at hand...

This whole thing strikes me as scratching the surface of what could happen over the next few seasons. We saw it a bit with the Windsor sanctions, it cooled down, and now this. It does make me wonder if players will come forward more, or teams will be that much more careful in how they pursue options.

My point was, Bassin did nothing that deserved your appreciation. Do you think for a second if the document hadn't been produced and the player hadn't come forward that Bassin still would have? That snake oil salesman got caught and that's the only reason he admited to anything.

 

[Cams]

I'm not just saying this as a Windsor fan, and former season ticket holder. But, to think that there are not any other teams (in the CHL) or instances that had "cooked" deals is laughable.

I'm not as much in the loop on the "inside" anymore, but I have heard of some very interesting things from either players, billets, others on the "inside".

Now - I will say this - coaching/ownership/results/arena/facilities/location/proximity to schools - all play a very big role in player recruiting. But to think a little bit "extra" doesn't take place, or didn't take place previously........I can't see it NOT happening.

 

[OMG67]

I don't think there's any problem in giving a player 18-24 months to see if he can make it playing pro hockey. As a parent, I wouldn't want my kid to have longer than that to decide to go to school. I'd prefer that he be forced to make that decision while he's still close to university age and not far removed from being in a school state of mind. Any longer than that and the player likely wouldn't be able to play CIS hockey either.

I think I remember reading a few years back that it was parents that wanted the shorter window for this specific reason.

If you think that a kid that plays an Overage year and 5 years in the ECHL is going back to school for four years at the age of 25 with potentially a wife and kid, you are dreaming.

If they lengthened the window to 5 years, the teams would save money because less kids would go to school, not more. And maybe they would hack it out for one year and then go work which is just as bad.

 

[MisterDB]

This is old news but extremely relevant in this lawsuit.

Anybody remember Brody Todd?

This is a good read plus the past psrt of the article sure sounds like this lawsuit.

http://www.whlfans.ca/showthread.php?9587-OHL-being-sued

 

[Ward Cornell]

I think I remember reading a few years back that it was parents that wanted the shorter window for this specific reason.

If you think that a kid that plays an Overage year and 5 years in the ECHL is going back to school for four years at the age of 25 with potentially a wife and kid, you are dreaming.

If they lengthened the window to 5 years, the teams would save money because less kids would go to school, not more. And maybe they would hack it out for one year and then go work which is just as bad.

Keep it at maybe 2 yrs?...but increase the education money amount.
I wonder since the OHL has taken of the education pkgs if these nightmare stories are almost down the nil?

 

[BadgerBruce]

Perhaps the leagues should consider following Canadian federal RESP (Registered Education Savings Plan) guidelines, which allow for contributions until the recipient is 31 years of age. There is a mechanism to receive an extension on this, too.

Why 31? In part because much of the world lives in a constantly evolving job market, one where retraining is the norm.

Hypothetically, a player could age - out of junior hockey, play some lower level pro and suffer career-ending injuries at age 28. The scholarship program could be a lifesaver at this point. After all, there but for the grace of God ...you know the rest. Professional athletes live in constant fear of injuries and the list of careers cut short is long. The scholarship program is supposed to be a security blanket for players and I don't see any reason to declare a man ineligible when he needs it the most.

Consider, too, an aged-out player who goes to work in a well-paying factory job and seems to be doing well. The plant closes when he is 27 and he would like to attend college to become a mechanic or a welder or a higher-tech photonics specialist. Or perhaps the plant does not close but his particular job is phased out and the only way to remain employed is to undertake college certification in a particular field of study required by the company. Should this player have access to the scholarship funding?

When we try to alter the scholarship program to meet our perception of how society "should work" (eg, go to school ASAP and work for 40 years in your field), we ignore how much the world has changed in the last 30 years. Former junior hockey players are no exception here.

 

[CharlieGirl]

Perhaps the leagues should consider following Canadian federal RESP (Registered Education Savings Plan) guidelines, which allow for contributions until the recipient is 31 years of age. There is a mechanism to receive an extension on this, too.

Why 31? In part because much of the world lives in a constantly evolving job market, one where retraining is the norm.

Hypothetically, a player could age - out of junior hockey, play some lower level pro and suffer career-ending injuries at age 28. The scholarship program could be a lifesaver at this point. After all, there but for the grace of God ...you know the rest. Professional athletes live in constant fear of injuries and the list of careers cut short is long. The scholarship program is supposed to be a security blanket for players and I don't see any reason to declare a man ineligible when he needs it the most.

Consider, too, an aged-out player who goes to work in a well-paying factory job and seems to be doing well. The plant closes when he is 27 and he would like to attend college to become a mechanic or a welder or a higher-tech photonics specialist. Or perhaps the plant does not close but his particular job is phased out and the only way to remain employed is to undertake college certification in a particular field of study required by the company. Should this player have access to the scholarship funding?

When we try to alter the scholarship program to meet our perception of how society "should work" (eg, go to school ASAP and work for 40 years in your field), we ignore how much the world has changed in the last 30 years. Former junior hockey players are no exception here.

In the situations where retraining would be required, the government has programs that cover those costs in a lot of cases.

Should a player who played in the NHL for 8 years then retires, have his education paid for by his CHL team?

In my mind, that defeats the intention of the education package. As it operates now, it provides a player who does not become a full-time pro hockey player with another option for his career.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

Perhaps the leagues should consider following Canadian federal RESP (Registered Education Savings Plan) guidelines, which allow for contributions until the recipient is 31 years of age. There is a mechanism to receive an extension on this, too.

Why 31? In part because much of the world lives in a constantly evolving job market, one where retraining is the norm.

Hypothetically, a player could age - out of junior hockey, play some lower level pro and suffer career-ending injuries at age 28. The scholarship program could be a lifesaver at this point. After all, there but for the grace of God ...you know the rest. Professional athletes live in constant fear of injuries and the list of careers cut short is long. The scholarship program is supposed to be a security blanket for players and I don't see any reason to declare a man ineligible when he needs it the most.

Consider, too, an aged-out player who goes to work in a well-paying factory job and seems to be doing well. The plant closes when he is 27 and he would like to attend college to become a mechanic or a welder or a higher-tech photonics specialist. Or perhaps the plant does not close but his particular job is phased out and the only way to remain employed is to undertake college certification in a particular field of study required by the company. Should this player have access to the scholarship funding?

When we try to alter the scholarship program to meet our perception of how society "should work" (eg, go to school ASAP and work for 40 years in your field), we ignore how much the world has changed in the last 30 years. Former junior hockey players are no exception here.

I think this would be a good idea. However, I don't see the CHL voluntarily making changes that could increase their financial obligations. The program is structure in a way so as to minimize the teams' obligations.

 

[Savard18]

In the situations where retraining would be required, the government has programs that cover those costs in a lot of cases.

Should a player who played in the NHL for 8 years then retires, have his education paid for by his CHL team?

In my mind, that defeats the intention of the education package. As it operates now, it provides a player who does not become a full-time pro hockey player with another option for his career.

If they sign an NHL contract, isn't the scholarship is null and void? I don't have a problem with that. I also know a lot of people who went to college and received a degree long after they were 20 years old. Making them use the scholarship 18 months after their OHL career is purely a money saver. If the league is really trying to attract American talent, that $7,000 isn't much either. I know Canadian university's are fine institutions with realistic costs (I'm pushing my kids to consider a few of them) but top American university's are gonna cost $20-$60k a year nowadays. $7,000 isn't going real far. I just think considering all the sacrifices these kids make for what in many cases are profitable organizations, that the league could up the scholarship packages A LITTLE and extend the timeframe to use them A LITTLE.

 

[OMG67]

If they sign an NHL contract, isn't the scholarship is null and void? I don't have a problem with that. I also know a lot of people who went to college and received a degree long after they were 20 years old. Making them use the scholarship 18 months after their OHL career is purely a money saver. If the league is really trying to attract American talent, that $7,000 isn't much either. I know Canadian university's are fine institutions with realistic costs (I'm pushing my kids to consider a few of them) but top American university's are gonna cost $20-$60k a year nowadays. $7,000 isn't going real far. I just think considering all the sacrifices these kids make for what in many cases are profitable organizations, that the league could up the scholarship packages A LITTLE and extend the timeframe to use them A LITTLE.

What is wrong with not signing an NHL Contract, going to school for four years, play CIS hockey and then turn pro after your education?

Why is the ones on the CHL to bend over backwards to give players everything they want on their time frame?

We have become so much of a "me" society it is sickening.

How about hockey players make the same sacrifices as other people? If they were slightly less talented and played in Junior "A" they would get nothing!

Why are the rules never good enough? Why do we always feel the need to push for more?

How about looking at what they DO GET? They get an education while playing hockey. They can attend classes if they wish. They get high level coaching and development. They get all of their sport expenses paid. They get all of their living expenses paid. They get all of their transportation expenses covered. They get insurance for career ending injuries.

Ask any parent how much it costs for one year of high level hockey in Bantam and Peewee. The hockey and equipment expenses alone is well over $10,000 per year.

A young man gets an opportunity of a lifetime to play their sport at a high level and not have to cover any up front costs and that is not enough? It is ridiculous.

If they went NCAA on a full ride scholarship, they actually get LESS than a CHL player.

How much money does the Olympics generate? How much money do athletes get? ZERO. How much money is spent developing that athlete? Hundreds of Thousands of dollars in many cases.

Hockey players should be happy that they are playing a sport where their high level development is free.