Cost certainty can be guaranteed by

[QQQ]

giving players a percentage of ownership. For example Pronger makes 10 mil a year.
Offer him 4 or 5 mil and the balance as a percentage of the team he plays for. If the value of his team is $163 million (an average cost per team mentioned on another thread) then 5 mil could be used towards purchase of a share of the team.
This offer to the player would only be offered for some sort of cap in exchange as negotiated between the player and the team.

Click to read more...

 

[Johnnybegood13]

giving players a percentage of ownership. For example Pronger makes 10 mil a year.
Offer him 4 or 5 mil and the balance as a percentage of the team he plays for. If the value of his team is $163 million (an average cost per team mentioned on another thread) then 5 mil could be used towards purchase of a share of the team.
This offer to the player would only be offered for some sort of cap in exchange as negotiated between the player and the team.

One question...would that work where you work?

nuff said!!

 

[BLONG7]

If the players were to become owners, only then would they truly understand the "business" side of the game...but that is why very few ever want to be involved in ownership, they realize that writing cheques instead of cashing them is not nearly as much fun!

 

[thinkwild]

giving players a percentage of ownership. For example Pronger makes 10 mil a year.
Offer him 4 or 5 mil and the balance as a percentage of the team he plays for. If the value of his team is $163 million (an average cost per team mentioned on another thread) then 5 mil could be used towards purchase of a share of the team.
This offer to the player would only be offered for some sort of cap in exchange as negotiated between the player and the team.

Like being paid in stock options? I've worked for a company that did that. It seemd to work well. If the NHL did this, pretty soon, the players could own all the shares. Or even sell them publicly. Maybe not a bad plan. Doubt the owners would agree though.

Another way to get cost certainty is to never give players raises. They start in the league at one salary and stay there for the rest of their career.

Bonuses would have to disappear to get cost certainty, how could you know what bonuses they would reach?

Injuries would have to be prevented to have cost certainty, how could you be certain of your costs if you had to keep replacing injured players. Maybe they could just not pay players if they get injured and give the salary to the replacement.

Another question could be, why should the owners of hockey be allowed to have cost certainty? If you google "Cost Certainty", what are all the other places that have cost certainty saying about it. There are none? Hmm.

 

[Gary]

Another way to get cost certainty is to never give players raises. They start in the league at one salary and stay there for the rest of their career.

Interesting point...While I'm on the side of the owners in one way (The game quality and popularity is plunging fast and something drastic needs to happen to repair it), It's also true that the owners could start the season up tomorrow under the EXACT CBA, and rectify the situation themselves over time by simply refusing to play the big $$ the players are commanding...If the owners got together to talk and had a poll asking 'What is the highest amount that YOU personally think any ONE hockey player is worth'? (INCLUDING bonuses and incentives) FOR THE LEAGUE TO FLOURISH and put that on a ballet ...collect all the papers, take a average, let everyone know what the number is and leave it at that-NO MORE DISCUSSION...In the meantime the owners would 'KNOW' that okay...none of us are going to go over that. Without actually STATING that or DISCUSSING that as a top number it would not be collusion would it? simply a poll to see what everyone thinks? ;-) And...IF 3 or 4 owners still decide to overpay...The other owners could get together and say 'Look-All of us figured XXX number would be best for the game not to be hurt and you're hurting the league.' Then turn around and punish (tax) the owner/s doing that because of principal, not based on the #'s of player contracts. Would this work???

 

[SuperUnknown]

I don't see it, the players are making more money playing and being paid than being an owner.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I don't see it, the players are making more money playing and being paid than being an owner.

Yeah? How much did John McCaw make last year as CEO of Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment? What salary was he paid? Did he get any bonuses?

How do you know?

Tom

 

[Riddarn]

The workers shall own the means of production!

 

[SuperUnknown]

Yeah? How much did John McCaw make last year as CEO of Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment? What salary was he paid? Did he get any bonuses?

How do you know?

Tom

CEO and shareholders are two different things... An owner is a shareholder. A CEO is an employee. Owners can place themselves as CEOs, but that's a totally different debate...

Overall though, if players were part of the ownership, with an average loss of $3M, most of them would see their salary reduced. :lol

Why would they want that?

 

[hockeytown9321]

Another way to get cost certainty is to never give players raises. They start in the league at one salary and stay there for the rest of their career.

Interesting point...While I'm on the side of the owners in one way (The game quality and popularity is plunging fast and something drastic needs to happen to repair it), It's also true that the owners could start the season up tomorrow under the EXACT CBA, and rectify the situation themselves over time by simply refusing to play the big $$ the players are commanding...If the owners got together to talk and had a poll asking 'What is the highest amount that YOU personally think any ONE hockey player is worth'? (INCLUDING bonuses and incentives) FOR THE LEAGUE TO FLOURISH and put that on a ballet ...collect all the papers, take a average, let everyone know what the number is and leave it at that-NO MORE DISCUSSION...In the meantime the owners would 'KNOW' that okay...none of us are going to go over that. Without actually STATING that or DISCUSSING that as a top number it would not be collusion would it? simply a poll to see what everyone thinks? ;-) And...IF 3 or 4 owners still decide to overpay...The other owners could get together and say 'Look-All of us figured XXX number would be best for the game not to be hurt and you're hurting the league.' Then turn around and punish (tax) the owner/s doing that because of principal, not based on the #'s of player contracts. Would this work???

I agree that game quality and popularity is plunging fast. I jsut don't think thats solved by scrapping an entire season and bringing in replacement players.

The rest of what you said is collusion.

 

[Gary]

what i was wondering 9321...i'm far from being legal savvy-was just wondering if there was a way without the word 'collusion' involved that the owners could fix the problem themselves under the current CBA? is it possible? if so...how might it be done?

 

[hockeytown9321]

what i was wondering 9321...i'm far from being legal savvy-was just wondering if there was a way without the word 'collusion' involved that the owners could fix the problem themselves under the current CBA? is it possible? if so...how might it be done?

I'm not a lawyer either, but I think anything they do to control costs that isn't outlined in the CBA is collusion.