Low UFA vs. PR ?

[Phanuthier*]

Now, I have to say that this deal could be a pretty good thing for the players if they market themselves and the game properly. Which leads me to the topic at hand, the fanplayer interaction.

Essentially, lowering the UFA age gives players the freedom to move where they want and market themselves. True. However, from a PA standpoint (whoever leads the union now, Mike Gartner?) you'd have to think that PA officials are advicing their players to try and stay with their teams, create a strong community relationship and help market the game. Which would seemingly defeat the purpose of lowering the UFA.

Take for example the Flames, my team. If Iginla bolts off to New York or Philly or "whereever he was ment to be" what kind of hindrance would that have from not only a Flames standpoint, but a Canadian standpoint where many (but note not all) have grown attachment to the Flames? Or if Ryan Smyth bolts from Edmonton? I can honestly see superstars like Rick Nash and Ilya Kovalchuk, who are the ones primed to market themselves freely (up to the cap restrictions) stay put for the betterment of the NHL and in turn, the PA/

If anything, I would guess you would see far less movement, not more (sans this off season). With limitations of the cap imposing teams to deal contracts almost exactly dollar for dollar, it will be hard to make transactions and fit under the cap, both self imposed or forced. Off season will likely give way to the most player movement as contracts will be released at the same time as they are signed, but as above, community connections may prevail over going for that extra $300k to play in Toronto.

Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[blitzkriegs]

The NHL will have similar offseasons to what MLB has currently, just in 2008.

BTW - It's not the players marketing themselves, it's the interest generated by having 'x' number of high level players in the marketplace during their 'prime years' and how 'x' player(s) can affect a team in terms of success.

 

[Phanuthier*]

The point you are trying to argue, marketing the product regionally vs. marketing the product nationally, has failed. IMO with the attempt to "force" markets upon cities that just weren't fit was where the NHL failed in their marketing attempts last time. What the NHL has to get back into is the community feel, as above, or how you might put it, marketing the product regionally. Letting the fans connect to the players.

IMO, if you achieve taht, a more national marketing will come. The base need to be there before you start building the structure, and that base is regional marketing.

 

[GKJ]

Did people think the players were going to get nothing?



I told people about a month or two ago to be prepared for the UFA to be as low as 24 or 25 and was told that could never happen. Well, it's happening. The NHL is trying to bridge the gap back to the other 3 top sports and this is one way they have to do it.



Anyone who is going to come around here sour because of this can consider the alternative: another lost season.

 

[WalterSobchak]

Well to take the most insignifigant part of your post and focus on it, Iginla is an RFA and the Flames are in as good, if not better position, as the rest of the league to sign Iginla to a "Cap Responsible" Contract. Iginla is only going to be able to sign for $4 Million tops in the new NHL. That right there is already, what, 10% of the maximum cap this year.

Luckily the Flames have a good # of players locked up cheap so they could probably do that. It is going to be a short contract(I would think), 2-3 with marginal jumps (possibly based on the Salary Caps movement)


The Contracts are going to be very interesting and there may be players who don't like how much teams are going to have to grind down yearly salaries and go "elsewhere" to play.

 

[Phanuthier*]

If your referring to me, no, this lowering UFA should be no surprise.

 

[kdb209]

Did people think the players were going to get nothing?



I told people about a month or two ago to be prepared for the UFA to be as low as 24 or 25 and was told that could never happen. Well, it's happening. The NHL is trying to bridge the gap back to the other 3 top sports and this is one way they have to do it.



Anyone who is going to come around here sour because of this can consider the alternative: another lost season.

And remember, from the point of view of the owners, they got what they wanted - cost certainty. The lowered UFA age isn't really going to cost them. No matter the UFA system, the total player costs will be 54% - no more, no less. Some players may get more money a year or two earlier, and there may become a wider separation in salaries between the few stars who will command the high UFA salaries and everyone else, but it won't matter one bit to the bottom line.

 

[PecaFan]

And remember, from the point of view of the owners, they got what they wanted - cost certainty. The lowered UFA age isn't really going to cost them. No matter the UFA system, the total player costs will be 54% - no more, no less.

Yes, but it can hurt *revenues*, which does end up hurting them in the end. The CFL is a good example of a league where too much player movement hurts their bottom line, as fans lose favourite players all the time, and it leads to reduced interest.

That said, I'm really up in the air as to how all this is going to work out. Players will have greater mobility, but how will it play out? I think lots of guys might sign with their old teams because they like the situation, the area, etc. But then, they might all try and get on the best teams just like in the past.

 

[DINO22CICCARELLI]

You people don't see or understand what is going to happen and when it becomes apparent to you all you will not like it.

Big market teams give a siging bonus and a long term contract they buy out when he can no longer play. Also, they will arrange for a third party to play the player so it does not appear on their books. The small market and all the teams in canada will not have the resources to use this and will lose all their best players. Once that happens the will lose their fan base and be driven out of the league.

Hope ypur teams has an owner with deep pockets or you had better find another team to root for.

Oh just in case you wonder, I love hockey but not small market teams.

 

[GKJ]

You people don't see or understand what is going to happen and when it becomes apparent to you all you will not like it.

Big market teams give a siging bonus and a long term contract they buy out when he can no longer play. Also, they will arrange for a third party to play the player so it does not appear on their books. The small market and all the teams in canada will not have the resources to use this and will lose all their best players. Once that happens the will lose their fan base and be driven out of the league.

Hope ypur teams has an owner with deep pockets or you had better find another team to root for.

Oh just in case you wonder, I love hockey but not small market teams.

If that were to happen, everyone would find out soon enough. Those 3rd parties wouldn't do it for free.

 

[LaLaLaprise]

The players have a TONNE more rights!! This deal isnt such a huge win for the owners, if I was a player id be happy! I would become a UFA at 27, id have better arbitration, better qualifying offers, my pension is TRIPLE and the Min. salary almost doubled.

 

[ej_pens]

Big market teams give a siging bonus and a long term contract they buy out when he can no longer play. Also, they will arrange for a third party to play the player so it does not appear on their books.

And they get caught and fined and, hopefully, lose draft picks. Just like the other leagues with salary caps do.

If those teams want to run the risk of cheating, go right ahead. Just as long as the penalties are steep enough that when you get caught, you suffer.

 

[ej_pens]

The players have a TONNE more rights!! This deal isnt such a huge win for the owners, if I was a player id be happy! I would become a UFA at 27, id have better arbitration, better qualifying offers, my pension is TRIPLE and the Min. salary almost doubled.

Yet, of course, there are tons of other UFA players out there and your value goes down because there are 10 other players on the market with the same skill set as you.

 

[LaLaLaprise]

Yet, of course, there are tons of other UFA players out there and your value goes down because there are 10 other players on the market with the same skill set as you.

Whether you become a UFA at 27 or 31 i dont see a huge difference in the amount of players. The players turning 27 would be turning 31 as well, just 4 years later.

 

[me2]

The players have a TONNE more rights!! This deal isnt such a huge win for the owners

Assuming the rumoured components are true then the owners beat the NHLPA into submission. They got cost certainty. They got a cap. They got linkage. That looks like a pretty decent sort of win. In fact it looks like a way, way big than I expected Bettman would ever get.

if I was a player id be happy!

I hope the players are happy to, we need them to approve the deal.

I would become a UFA at 27

A win for the players for sure. A big win? Probably not, but freedom to choose is good even if there is no longer a such as large bucket of money at the end of the rainbow.

id have better arbitration, better qualifying offers,

They had pretty good arbitration rights before. It looks like the owners now have arbitration rights to drop a players pay. Win to the owners here.

my pension is TRIPLE

They took a 24% paycut and linkage. Think I'd rather have the extra 24% myself. To top it off, the pension is likely to included in the linkage/escrow since its a player expense. More pension could just mean less money back from escrow. Give with one hand and take with the other.

Min. salary almost doubled.

Very few players were anywhere near $400K anyway. Most of those spent big chunks in the minors during the year. It was also an NHL not NHLPA initiative. Why, because as mention it won't have a big effect. And the small effect it will have just gets escrowed back off someone else's salary anyway if the players are making too much cash.

 

[Phanuthier*]

I think alot of people missed the point of my post.

It wasn't so much the usual post-CBA banter. It was supposed to be the effectiveness of the lowered UFA because of PR.

 

[I in the Eye]

Essentially, lowering the UFA age gives players the freedom to move where they want and market themselves. True. However, from a PA standpoint (whoever leads the union now, Mike Gartner?) you'd have to think that PA officials are advicing their players to try and stay with their teams, create a strong community relationship and help market the game. Which would seemingly defeat the purpose of lowering the UFA.

IMO, from a PA standpoint, if the goal is to increase revenue as much as possible (so that salaries can be maximized as high as possible), I'd think the PA would be pushing for the best players to be playing in the US markets where the potential for the most money overall for the league is to be made... New York, etc...

The only way for the chance that huge $ US TV deals will come is with greater hockey interest in the US... This is best achieved, IMO, through fan excitment around most (if not all) US teams resulting from great team success and competitive, heated rivalries amongst these teams...This is best achieved, IMO, through having the league's best players on these teams... If the PA's goal is to maximize salaries for the membership, I would think that they would push to have their best players in markets that will potentially help pave the way for huge USD TV...

I think that this is something both the players and the owners can agree on - to push and try to influence this from happening - for the greatest revenue potential possible... It's better for the owners... It's better for the players... It just sucks for the fans of the small market Canadian teams... and this, IMO, supports the purpose of lowering the UFA age...

As research supports that when given a choice of where to play (via free agency), a player is much more likely to go to a big market team than visa versa - as tested in various professional sports leagues, in various types of economic environments... (I read a study somewhere on professional sports free agency... I could try and dig it up if someone wants me to back my claim)... Granted, this study simply backs my logical argument... If someone disagrees with my logical argument, and supports a logical argument that players will stay with the small markets, they'll just argue how the study is flawed, so whatever

 

[Phanuthier*]

IMO, from a PA standpoint, if the goal is to increase revenue as much as possible (so that salaries can be maximized as high as possible), I'd think the PA would be pushing for the best players to be playing in the US markets where the potential for the most money overall for the league is to be made... New York, etc...

The only way for the chance that huge $ US TV deals will come is with greater hockey interest in the US... This is best achieved, IMO, through fan excitment around most (if not all) US teams resulting from great team success and competitive, heated rivalries amongst these teams...This is best achieved, IMO, through having the league's best players on these teams... If the PA's goal is to maximize salaries for the membership, I would think that they would push to have their best players in markets that will potentially help pave the way for huge USD TV...

I think that this is something both the players and the owners can agree on - to push and try to influence this from happening - for the greatest revenue potential possible... It's better for the owners... It's better for the players... It just sucks for the fans of the small market Canadian teams... and this, IMO, supports the purpose of lowering the UFA age...

As research supports that when given a choice of where to play (via free agency), a player is much more likely to go to a big market team than visa versa - as tested in various professional sports leagues, in various types of economic environments... (I read a study somewhere on professional sports free agency... I could try and dig it up if someone wants me to back my claim)... Granted, this study simply backs my logical argument... If someone disagrees with my logical argument, and supports a logical argument that players will stay with the small markets, they'll just argue how the study is flawed, so whatever

That argument goes back once again to national covereage vs. regional coverage. Didn't the NHL already try that idea of putting the biggest names in teh biggest markets? Jagr, Modano, Lindros, Yzerman, Chelios ect... and since 1994, fan interest has dwindled, not risen. National covereage just doesn't work if you can't relate to the players IMO. As I said above, I think you need strong regional interests to get new fans into the game before they are willing to tune into a hockey game between two teams that have no relation to them.

As for your research... I think I would be interested in seeing it. Its funny that the player with the marketing capital is from Calgary, isn't it?