WalterSobchak
Blues Trololol
Mr Sakich said:New York has 10?? major league teams and all have a higher profile than the rags.
Bigger than the Isles?
Mr Sakich said:New York has 10?? major league teams and all have a higher profile than the rags.
CarlRacki said:On the other hand, irregardless of money, a player living in Ottawa or Edmonton is never going to have the same lifestyle as a player living in New York and LA. Some players may, in fact, prefer the smaller town. But if nightlife, culture and entertainment is a priority, then those bigger cities have a big advantage. Also, keep in mind some sponsors will pay more to a player who works in a larger market because of the added exposure, That helps make the cost-of-living gap less significant.
CarlRacki said:On the other hand, irregardless of money, a player living in Ottawa or Edmonton is never going to have the same lifestyle as a player living in New York and LA. Some players may, in fact, prefer the smaller town. But if nightlife, culture and entertainment is a priority, then those bigger cities have a big advantage. Also, keep in mind some sponsors will pay more to a player who works in a larger market because of the added exposure, That helps make the cost-of-living gap less significant.
Mr Sakich said:if this was the nba, then I would agree with you. Most hockey players are not studio 54, silk suite wearing rap stars. Most prefer the smaller cities or the anonymety of playing in Tampa or LA.
CarlRacki said:Like I said, some players will prefer the smaller towns. But if you don't think Gretzky loved LA or that Messier liked nothing more than whooping it up in the Big Apple or that Chicago wasn't Jeremy Roenick's kind of town, you're very mistaken.
jericholic19 said:Correction: the bigger markets will have huge advantages despite there being a cap.
CarlRacki said:Like I said, some players will prefer the smaller towns. But if you don't think Gretzky loved LA or that Messier liked nothing more than whooping it up in the Big Apple or that Chicago wasn't Jeremy Roenick's kind of town, you're very mistaken.
fisher said:One pretty easy way to work around the cap would be to frontload contracts when you know you can afford to, in order to open up cap space later. It's not really circumventing the cap, though, it's just clever management, but I bet we will be seeing frontloaded contracts a lot more in the future.
For the sake of example, I'll use the Ottawa Senators and we'll pretend there's a cap of $38 million. Let's say they've signed all of their players except for Spezza, and their total payroll at that point is $32 million. Let's say (for example) Spezza wants a salary of $3 million for 3 years (for a total of $9 million). So if they signed Spezza to his desired contract, the Senators would sit at $35 million, $3 million under the cap. Instead of letting unused cap space just sit there (assuming paying the luxury tax is not an issue for the owner), why not frontload Spezza's contract so you can open up some capspace for the next couple years? What I mean is, instead of signing Spezza for $3m for 3 years, sign him to a frontloaded contract of $6m in the first year (thus making the Sens' total salary for that year $38m), $1.5m in the second year, and $1.5m in the final year.
So instead of committing $3m of cap space to Spezza for 3 years, the Sens just paid him the majority of his contract in the first year (when they had the extra cap space to do it), and ended up clearing up $1.5m of cap space for the next two years, which would allow them to give other players their raises or even sign a free agent. Spezza still got his $9m, and the Sens just utilized what would have probably been unused cap space in order to make extra cap room in the future.
This strategy should be used only if you're real close to winning it all. If it blows up in your face, it gets really ugly, ie dismantling an entire team.shakes said:Thats going to happen a lot.. big market teams will always continue to spend the maximum and ensure players get their money. What's the difference if you play for 8.4 million one year and then 300k the following two? You still get 9 million. then you sign another star player at 300k the first year or two and then give them their bigtime cash at the end when there is more cap room. Why do you think they want to limit the length of contracts? For this reason. You'd get teams offering 10 year contracts to people for even more maneuvering.
PecaFan said:Yup. They'll still be able to afford better coaches, better trainers, better and more scouts, better perks in the locker rooms, etc. It's a total myth that the current big teams are going to be devastated in the future, (which is why I'll be choked when some great team gets a top five pick this draft).
The cap will help things, but in the end, it just wouldn't matter because all the really good looking girls would STILL go out with the guys from big market teams because they've got all the money!
WVpens said:This strategy should be used only if you're real close to winning it all. If it blows up in your face, it gets really ugly, ie dismantling an entire team.
shakes said:Thats going to happen a lot.. big market teams will always continue to spend the maximum and ensure players get their money. What's the difference if you play for 8.4 million one year and then 300k the following two? You still get 9 million. then you sign another star player at 300k the first year or two and then give them their bigtime cash at the end when there is more cap room. Why do you think they want to limit the length of contracts? For this reason. You'd get teams offering 10 year contracts to people for even more maneuvering.
Smail said:Regardless of how the contract is structured, the paid amount will be included in the yearly cap amount. Sure, teams might play with numbers depending on their yearly salary mass, but why should it concern us overly? All teams will potentially be able to do that.
shakes said:Of course all teams will... like teams that could barely afford 20 million before are going to take their salaries up to 38 million plus luxury taxes... Say the Leafs want to sign Forsberg and Pronger and keep Sundin.. not only could they afford and gladly pay the luxury tax every year for these types of players but they would be able to work it so that everyone gets their money under the cap. can't very well sign them each to 6 million dollar contracts and put it all in the same cap year.
Jaded-Fan said:But to think that you will be able to buy your way out of mistakes as you could in the past is really whistling past the graveyard.
shakes said:That wasn't my point, but if you think teams in the big markets are not going to be at the maximum cap level year after year you are kidding yourself. A 10 million dollar difference in the new world order will get you a lot thats 2-3 highly skilled players. But I do agree that the this will only happen at a later date as teams have some big contracts to get rid of... unless in the first year buyouts don't count against the cap.
gscarpenter2002 said:Boy, you just keep on flogging this dead horse, trying to engage the newer members of the Board and trying to foist this garbage on the unsuspecting despite having been proven to be incorrect time and time again.
1. In the annual audit, a free luxury suite will come up. One thing would lead to another and the entire scheme is exposed.
2. If I am counsel for the sponsor, I want absolutely nothing to do with this in negotiating the deal. It is allocating monies in respect of what is not a bona fide transaction. If you actually were an accountant (which I continue to doubt), you would also know that what you are proposing would be contrary to GAAP and put the sponsor potentially afoul of Sarbanes-Oxley and in for some jail time.
3. If you could somehow convince the sponsor to go along with this when there is nothing in it for them, they would demand that it be a condition precedent of the sponsor contract that the player enter into the other agreement on the terms you have prescribed. It comes out in the audit when the sponsor contracts are reviewed by the auditors (and I guarantee they would be audited, as they are "material" sources of revenue).
4. When the player signs for less than his apparent market value, alarm bells would go off around the league and in PA headquarters.
I realize you probably have people like me and Iconoclast and a bunch of others on ignore because we slice and dice your posts to dust, but come on.
shakes said:Of course all teams will... like teams that could barely afford 20 million before are going to take their salaries up to 38 million plus luxury taxes... Say the Leafs want to sign Forsberg and Pronger and keep Sundin.. not only could they afford and gladly pay the luxury tax every year for these types of players but they would be able to work it so that everyone gets their money under the cap. can't very well sign them each to 6 million dollar contracts and put it all in the same cap year.
Brewleaguer said:Another twist to his idea (which I think has pretty good merit) is this.
You have team X, player Y, and sports sponsors Z (Non NHL sponsor)
Team owner X wants player Y, but doesn’t have enough headroom in a cap system (above a certain amount). Lets say they only have $3M available but player/agent wants $4M, they settle at $3.5M
Calls upon Sponsor Z and gives them a $1 ad space each year in the arena for the duration of a contract agreement, in turn asking sponsor Z to hire player Y as a business consultant to sponsor Z business. (lets say honorary position) paying player Y 500K as the sponsors consultant. Perfectly legal, and what’s there to hide if it is not apart of operating rules set forth by the NHL
Lots of perks handed out that don't show up on accounting books for a Hockey team ..Smail said:While it seems to most people around here real easy to mess up the numbers, if the accounting rules are followed, it's not. As an accountant, you need to record the "real transaction", not the apparent one. Which might mean two sets of books (internal one where the real transactions are recorded vs the one for the government where you depending on fiscal rules you may be able to show the apparent one to save on taxation). Bottomline though is that if the NHLPA and the NHL have an ounce of brains, those situations won't happen.
The Messenger said:Lots of perks handed out that don't show up on accounting books for a Hockey team ..
In my example above I used the use of a Luxury suite . As long as the suite is recorded in Total Revenue the money could come from the owner to cover that and then he can let anyone he chooses use it..
I could have said that the owner allows the sponsor the right to use his personal yacht/boat to entertain their clients ..
As my Molson sponsor example he could give the them exclusive rights to be the only company to sell product at the Arena.
Often the exchange of services is used as currency and money never exchanged ..like you could have joint ventures or events with sponsors and provide all, some or none of the financing for the event for an endorsement deal in the future.
Most of this stuff is not accounting related or if it is would be recorded as such and would not require any creative accounting.
The Messenger said:Often the exchange of services is used as currency and money never exchanged ..like you could have joint ventures or events with sponsors and provide all, some or none of the financing for the event for an endorsement deal in the future.
Most of this stuff is not accounting related or if it is would be recorded as such and would not require any creative accounting.
fisher said:One pretty easy way to work around the cap would be to frontload contracts when you know you can afford to, in order to open up cap space later. It's not really circumventing the cap, though, it's just clever management, but I bet we will be seeing frontloaded contracts a lot more in the future.
For the sake of example, I'll use the Ottawa Senators and we'll pretend there's a cap of $38 million. Let's say they've signed all of their players except for Spezza, and their total payroll at that point is $32 million. Let's say (for example) Spezza wants a salary of $3 million for 3 years (for a total of $9 million). So if they signed Spezza to his desired contract, the Senators would sit at $35 million, $3 million under the cap. Instead of letting unused cap space just sit there (assuming paying the luxury tax is not an issue for the owner), why not frontload Spezza's contract so you can open up some capspace for the next couple years? What I mean is, instead of signing Spezza for $3m for 3 years, sign him to a frontloaded contract of $6m in the first year (thus making the Sens' total salary for that year $38m), $1.5m in the second year, and $1.5m in the final year.
So instead of committing $3m of cap space to Spezza for 3 years, the Sens just paid him the majority of his contract in the first year (when they had the extra cap space to do it), and ended up clearing up $1.5m of cap space for the next two years, which would allow them to give other players their raises or even sign a free agent. Spezza still got his $9m, and the Sens just utilized what would have probably been unused cap space in order to make extra cap room in the future.
Gary said:A team could have a very legit chance at a cup every 3 years if they used this system. Just imagine-Boston for example (Cause I know more of them then other teams) signed Thornton for $10 mill and 2 more seasons at $1 mill. Then they signed Samsonov for $6 mill and 2 more seasons at $1 mill. Boynton $6 mill and 2 more at $1 mill, Rayzor at $6 mill and 2 more seasons at $1 mill...that's 28 million in 4 players, and use kids for the rest. Next year sign another 4 star players the same way and by year 3 you'd have 8 star players making $8 million and you could afford to have a dynasty-type team for 1 season. Interesting post fisher.
jericholic19 said:Realistically, the sponsorship deal would be added incentive for the player who is being courted by a team that's offering a salary comparable to what others are willing to give. In this instance, however, a sponsorship deal could also be negated if the player is already being subsidized by a competitor. Yet, sponsors that generally support teams (rather than players) likely wouldn't be a competitor and
may not be opposed to help a team court a star player (especially if the sponsor(s) is/are are locally based). It's a plausible scenario I would think.