The HFBoards CBA (Let's make one)

[nyrmessier011]

I think it would be fun if we made our own CBA where we can discuss and come to a consensus on different issues instead of wasting our time pondering over if good news will break when we're on here.

When a Moderator feels we have all come to a consensus that's how that certain issue will be settled in our CBA.

If most people think this is lame we can delete it, but I figured it would be cool if we could all join together to try and make one that makes sense. Kind of like how the other boards on HF have drafts.

We should discuss the linkage numbers, tax percentages and at what thresholds (if nec.), revenue sharing, QO's, UFAgency, etc. Also, let's talk about some major rule changes that should be incorporated in the CBA.

If this is a good idea and people are interested maybe we can sticky this and when we're finished make a final draft to post.


These are my suggestions to start from:

linkage - floor 25, SOFT ceiling 42.5
100% tax at 37 - 200% tax at 42.5
UFA at 28 yrs old or 600 games played

goalie pads limited to 10 in.
Shootout (altho I'm traditional, let's give it a shot)

Click to read more...

 

[Malo]

i think for this to work you would have to gets some guy's to be pro-players and some pro-owners or else we won't get a fair deal. cause most of us are pro-owners.

 

[futurcorerock]

This has already been done earlier this year

 

[NYR1724]

Very nice idea Messier.

Here are the numbers I'd want to work at.

Linkage deal

Bottom: 28
Top: 43

While I'm at it I dont think it matters much on a bottom and top it is more regarding the gap between the bottom and top. Players want $20 million gap, owners want $10 millon dollars, decided to go with a $15 million dollar gap.


I agree with your tax rates.

UFA age at 27
Qualifying offers at 80 percent

Arbitration- use the baseball high/low system

Entry Level contracts at $800K but set a cap on the amount in bonus money because that was a loophole exploited in the last CBA.

Revenue Sharing- I think they need to find an aggressive revenue sharing concept that adequatley spreads money from high revenue generators to low one's.

Rule changes
I read about the "Bowman" line and I'm very interested to see how that will work.
Tag up off sides
Smaller goalie equip
bring out the shootout and get the players to take off the helmets. Players faces need to be recgonized and marketed. Shootouts must only be used during regular season though, having my team lose in the playoffs over a shootout is too much of a price to pay to bring in new fans.

I think the NHL needs mostly to develop better marketing skills and a level playing field to truly become the national sport it desires to be.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Ya this was done before, about 12 of us got together (half PA, half Owners) Players side (my side) came out with a favorable CBA.

 

[nyrmessier011]

Ya this was done before, about 12 of us got together (half PA, half Owners) Players side (my side) came out with a favorable CBA.

nice...what are some of the details...this was done before i was around so that means there hasnt been one made since cancellation of the season...any changes to be made since the last one u guys made?

 

[two out of three*]

nice...what are some of the details...this was done before i was around so that means there hasnt been one made since cancellation of the season...any changes to be made since the last one u guys made?

http://www.angelfire.com/ultra2/hfproposal/CBA

Yeah, but keep in mind this was done when the $49M cap was being talked about. It was done a while ago.. I still like it actually.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

I think it would be fun if we made our own CBA where we can discuss and come to a consensus on different issues instead of wasting our time pondering over if good news will break when we're on here.

When a Moderator feels we have all come to a consensus that's how that certain issue will be settled in our CBA.

If most people think this is lame we can delete it, but I figured it would be cool if we could all join together to try and make one that makes sense. Kind of like how the other boards on HF have drafts.

We should discuss the linkage numbers, tax percentages and at what thresholds (if nec.), revenue sharing, QO's, UFAgency, etc. Also, let's talk about some major rule changes that should be incorporated in the CBA.

If this is a good idea and people are interested maybe we can sticky this and when we're finished make a final draft to post.


These are my suggestions to start from:

linkage - floor 25, SOFT ceiling 42.5
100% tax at 37 - 200% tax at 42.5
UFA at 28 yrs old or 600 games played

goalie pads limited to 10 in.
Shootout (altho I'm traditional, let's give it a shot)

where do I sign?

 

[me2]

These are my suggestions to start from:

linkage - floor 25, SOFT ceiling 42.5
100% tax at 37 - 200% tax at 42.5
UFA at 28 yrs old or 600 games played

$22.5m floor
$37.5m softcap
NO HARD CAP
Penalties for exceeding the soft cap are
100% luxury tax $37.5 to infinity
2nd round pick at $2.5m over cap, then 1 first round pick at $5m. Penalty repeats, and accumulates, every $5m
2nd rnd pick at $40m
1 rnd pick at $42.5m
1x 2nd + 1x1st at $45m
2 1sts at $47.5m
2x1sts + 1x2nd at $50m
3 1sts at 52.5m


So if a team wants to buy a $9.999m dollar advantage (a substantial 26.6% spending advantage) its only going to cost them their 1st and 2nd rounder.

goalie pads limited to 10 in.
Shootout (altho I'm traditional, let's give it a shot)

I don't think this level of stuff needs to be in the CBA. But implementing more player-fan input would be good.

Joint committee between 4-5 NHLPA player reps, NHL/owners (4-5 reps) and non-affliated experts/fans (4-5 reps) to look at rule changes. Non-affliated to be appointed by vote 75% of the NHLPA+NHL reps (so nobody can stack the committee). Non-affliated hockey people might be people like retired players, retired GMs, media people, etc. NHL head office would have a right to veto a rule change but not a right to force a change without majority comittee approval.

This would get a better say over ideas.

 

[Kimi]

I don't think the idea of costing teh draft picks would work too good. Teams could trade their pick for playing in the off season and then sign a few free agents and then go over the soft cap limmet with out being able to be taxed their picks. The Leauge couldn't take the pick of the other teams as it would not be fair.

 

[me2]

I don't think the idea of costing teh draft picks would work too good. Teams could trade their pick for playing in the off season and then sign a few free agents and then go over the soft cap limmet with out being able to be taxed their picks. The Leauge couldn't take the pick of the other teams as it would not be fair.

But they could take future picks (up to 6 years into the future). If they don't have the picks to up the NHL then makes them trade back under the cap or lose 1 point per game played until they are under, or refuses to accept contracts and releases that teams players as UFAs. Plenty of options.

 

[GKJ]

http://www.angelfire.com/ultra2/hfproposal/CBA

Yeah, but keep in mind this was done when the $49M cap was being talked about. It was done a while ago.. I still like it actually.

I do too.


If anyone wants to do it again, I'm up for it. I had discussed it with Ties before that we could possibly do more things with it other than a CBA (i.e. marketing strategies, rule changes, improvements and well being of the game and it's franchises) a while back when the season got canceled

 

[WC Handy*]

Soft Cap at 50% of Revenues
Player's cap hits would reduce as their tenure with an organization increased. A player in his first three years with a franchise would have his entire salary count against the cap. A player in his 4th, 5th, or 6th years with a team would have 90% of his salary count against the cap. A player with 7 or more years with an organization would have an 80% cap hit. One note about this is that a player's first year with a franchise would be the first season in which he is property of a team, so players in the juniors are accumlating seasons after they have been drafted. Unlike the NBA, tenure is not traded along with a player.

Salary Floor at 40%
No cap hits come into play here. Teams must actually pay out that much in salaries.

Revenue Sharing
All money in the revenue sharing pot is divided equally among the 30 NHL teams.
- 50% of Local TV Revenue
- 40% of Gate Revenue
- 40% of Concessions

Unrestricted Free Agency
600 actual games played in the NHL or at 31 years old, whichever comes first.

Arbitration
Can only be used once by a player. No team arbitration rights

Qualifying offers
1 year at 100% or 2 years at 90%

Contract Buyouts
First year of contract is always guaranteed so it must be bought out at 100% and all other years must be bought out at 25%. This amount would NOT count against the cap (which means more money for players).

Entry Level Salaries
Salary plus bonuses cannot exceed 150% of the average NHL salary at the time the player was drafted

 

[kimzey59]

Allow me to play Devils(or players as you like to call them) advocate:

Linkage deal, 10 year term(players renewal option after 7 years):
-All player costs will be Capped at a range between 40% and 70%(15 % leeway off of a 55% average) of total hockey related revenues(equates to a 28 mil to 49 mil Cap range based on the estimated 2.1 bil of revenues)
--player costs include:
Players salaries and insurance policies for a 23 man roster

-LT starting at the 40 mil mark:
$1 for $1 from 40-42.5 mil
$2 for $1 from 42.5-45 mil
$3 for $1 from 45-47.5 mil
$4 for $1 from 47.5-49 mil
-Teams going over the Cap will have their overage deducted from the next years cap and will forfeit all Draft picks for the year of the infraction in addition to paying the nessisary fines(fines for teams spending over the Cap will be determined by the Joint Audting Committee)
--All picks siezed will be distributed to the Divison of the team of the infraction
---Last place team in Division-1st round pick and 6th round pick
---4th place in division-2nd round pick and 7th round pick
---3rd place in Division-3rd round pick and 8th round pick
---2nd place in division-4th round pick and 9th round pick
---1st place in division-5th round pick

-All LT money will be put into an Escrow account and be redistributed to the 10 teams with the lowest Revenue income

-"Hockey related revenue" sources are the same, in principle, to the NFL's

- All teams are allowed a 30 man "protected players" roster
--Players with 2-way contracts are not subject to waivers
--2 IR lists: 15 day and 70 day
---players on the 15 day IR count 100% of their contract against the Cap
---players on the 70 day IR count 20% of their contract against the cap

- a Joint Auditing Committee will be formed to regulate the League's finances
--The first issue for them to discuss is increased marketing for all 30 teams including the developement of an Escrow account to be used solely for markteing purposes

- 30% of all incoming Revenue will be placed in an Escrow account and be re-distributed to the bottom Revenue 10 Teams
--All money from Shared Revenue sources must be used on player costs

-UFA age at 27 or 6 years of Pro experience
-No contracts longer than 5 years in length may be signed

-3 year entry level system
--entry level Cap at 1 mil including bonuses
--QO's at 90% of previous contract
--Contract Buyout's at 75%

Arbitration
--Players that have completed the entry level contracts but are not eligible to file for UFA status have the right to take the Owners to Arbitration 1 time
-- By the same token, Owners have the right to take a player who has completed his entry level contract to arbitration 1 time
---Arbitrators will select either the owners asking rate or the players asking rate, not an arbitrary amount in the middle.

- Players have the option of carrying over their contract from last season
-- Owners have the right to block 1 player per team from doing so
--All Contracts signed after July 1, 2004 are not subject to rollback if the player wishes to carry it over


-Implementation of the rule changes that resulted from the Shannahan Convention
--formation of an Oversight Committee to ensure that all rules are called properly
-- Refs are allowed to reverse called penalties if there was no penalty on the play
---If a ref reverses a call the faceoff will take place at the nearest faceoff circle from where the puck was frozen
---All Refs will be evaluated at least 3 times over the course of the season
---Refs who fail their evaluations will be fined

Steriod and Substance Abuse Policy-same as it was under previous CBA

 

[GKJ]

Steriod and Substance Abuse Policy-same as it was under previous CBA

I don't think this is a big deal in hockey, but there has to be more strict guidelines here. If the players really don't have steroid problems then they'll be ok with it.

 

[kimzey59]

I don't think this is a big deal in hockey, but there has to be more strict guidelines here. If the players really don't have steroid problems then they'll be ok with it.

IMO the penalties themselves are strict enough(if I remember correctly the 1st offense is something like a 30 day suspension plus fine), maybe just increase the amount of testing throughout the year. I agree it isn't a major issue in Hockey but it is an overlooked issue that needs to be included in the new CBA.

PS. How would you change it? It may only be a minor issue but it is a negotiating point to be resolved.

 

[WC Handy*]

Soft Cap at 50% of Revenues
Player's cap hits would reduce as their tenure with an organization increased. A player in his first three years with a franchise would have his entire salary count against the cap. A player in his 4th, 5th, or 6th years with a team would have 90% of his salary count against the cap. A player with 7 or more years with an organization would have an 80% cap hit. One note about this is that a player's first year with a franchise would be the first season in which he is property of a team, so players in the juniors are accumlating seasons after they have been drafted. Unlike the NBA, tenure is not traded along with a player.

Salary Floor at 40%
No cap hits come into play here. Teams must actually pay out that much in salaries.

Revenue Sharing
All money in the revenue sharing pot is divided equally among the 30 NHL teams.
- 50% of Local TV Revenue
- 40% of Gate Revenue
- 40% of Concessions

Unrestricted Free Agency
600 actual games played in the NHL or at 31 years old, whichever comes first.

Arbitration
Can only be used once by a player. No team arbitration rights

Qualifying offers
1 year at 100% or 2 years at 90%

Contract Buyouts
First year of contract is always guaranteed so it must be bought out at 100% and all other years must be bought out at 25%. This amount would NOT count against the cap (which means more money for players).

Entry Level Salaries
Salary plus bonuses cannot exceed 150% of the average NHL salary at the time the player was drafted

I went ahead and figured out the cap numbers for the Blues using the cap hits I outlined above. I used the 20 players that the NHLPA says the Blues currently have under contract.

The total payroll works out to $44.4M with a cap hit of $39.1M. Assuming revenues of $2.1B the cap would be $35M even meaning the Blues would be a little over $4M over the cap.

Most teams would have more home grown talent than the Blues and would benefit more from the reduced cap hits.

[b]Player             Salary                   Cap%      Cap Hit[/b]
Backman         $1,000,000.00        0.8         $800,000.00 
Boguniecki      $600,000.00           0.9         $540,000.00 
Cajanek          $1,000,000.00        0.9         $900,000.00 
Divis              $400,000.00           0.9         $360,000.00 
Drake             $1,400,000.00        0.9         $1,260,000.00 
Jackman          $1,200,000.00        0.9         $1,080,000.00 
Johnson          $700,000.00           1.0        $700,000.00 
Khavanov        $1,700,000.00         0.9        $1,530,000.00 
Lalime            $2,900,000.00        1.0         $2,900,000.00 
Low               $750,000.00           0.8        $600,000.00 
Mayers            $880,000.00           0.8        $704,000.00 
Pollock            $450,000.00           0.8        $360,000.00 
Pronger          $10,000,000.00       0.8        $8,000,000.00 
Rycroft           $500,000.00           0.8	   $400,000.00 
Salvador         $1,400,000.00        0.8        $1,120,000.00 
Sillinger          $1,350,000.00        1.0        $1,350,000.00 
Tkachuk          $9,000,000.00        0.9        $8,100,000.00 
Walker             $450,000.00          0.8        $360,000.00 
Weight            $7,000,000.00        0.9        $6,300,000.00 
Weinrich          $1,750,000.00        1.0        $1,750,000.00

 

[codswallop]

I do too.


If anyone wants to do it again, I'm up for it. I had discussed it with Ties before that we could possibly do more things with it other than a CBA (i.e. marketing strategies, rule changes, improvements and well being of the game and it's franchises) a while back when the season got canceled

I was only in that previous CBA discussion for a short time (scheduling problems), but securing funds expressly for the purposes of marketing was something that I tried to push for.

Because of the time constraints I never thought beyond that, as in marketing strategies and other improvements like you mention, but it is a good area to explore. Not directly items that you would include in a CBA, but they would no doubt have an impact on how well the agreement may or may not work.

 

[kimzey59]

I went ahead and figured out the cap numbers for the Blues using the cap hits I outlined above. I used the 20 players that the NHLPA says the Blues currently have under contract.

The total payroll works out to $44.4M with a cap hit of $39.1M. Assuming revenues of $2.1B the cap would be $35M even meaning the Blues would be a little over $4M over the cap.

Most teams would have more home grown talent than the Blues and would benefit more from the reduced cap hits.

[b]Player             Salary                   Cap%      Cap Hit[/b]
Backman         $1,000,000.00        0.8         $800,000.00 
Boguniecki      $600,000.00           0.9         $540,000.00 
Cajanek          $1,000,000.00        0.9         $900,000.00 
Divis              $400,000.00           0.9         $360,000.00 
Drake             $1,400,000.00        0.9         $1,260,000.00 
Jackman          $1,200,000.00        0.9         $1,080,000.00 
Johnson          $700,000.00           1.0        $700,000.00 
Khavanov        $1,700,000.00         0.9        $1,530,000.00 
Lalime            $2,900,000.00        1.0         $2,900,000.00 
Low               $750,000.00           0.8        $600,000.00 
Mayers            $880,000.00           0.8        $704,000.00 
Pollock            $450,000.00           0.8        $360,000.00 
Pronger          $10,000,000.00       0.8        $8,000,000.00 
Rycroft           $500,000.00           0.8	   $400,000.00 
Salvador         $1,400,000.00        0.8        $1,120,000.00 
Sillinger          $1,350,000.00        1.0        $1,350,000.00 
Tkachuk          $9,000,000.00        0.9        $8,100,000.00 
Walker             $450,000.00          0.8        $360,000.00 
Weight            $7,000,000.00        0.9        $6,300,000.00 
Weinrich          $1,750,000.00        1.0        $1,750,000.00

True, but you aren't factoring in 1 important issue: Pronger, Drake, Khavanov, Lalime and some of the younger players are FA's. Just between Drake Pronger and Khavanov that is 12.2 mil you can chop off the Cap hit. Yes, we'd have to add some players to fill out the roster but we can easliy do that and stay Cap friendly.

Regardless, I don't think it's a good idea. I think it would be a better idea to make the CBA as straight forward as possible: All contracts count 100% against the cap unless they are out for the full season. A system like this would have too many implications on FA and Arbitration for either side to truely accept it.

 

[WC Handy*]

True, but you aren't factoring in 1 important issue: Pronger, Drake, Khavanov, Lalime and some of the younger players are FA's. Just between Drake Pronger and Khavanov that is 12.2 mil you can chop off the Cap hit. Yes, we'd have to add some players to fill out the roster but we can easliy do that and stay Cap friendly.

The point wasn't to discuss the Blues cap situation. The point was to show what kind of impact the cap hits would have on a team.

Regardless, I don't think it's a good idea. I think it would be a better idea to make the CBA as straight forward as possible: All contracts count 100% against the cap unless they are out for the full season. A system like this would have too many implications on FA and Arbitration for either side to truely accept it.

So the NBA can handle it but the NHL can't?

 

[Dave is a killer]

congress has already stuck its nose in the "4 major sports" and is going to create a sports-drug czar

 

[GSC2k2*]

Soft Cap at 50% of Revenues
Player's cap hits would reduce as their tenure with an organization increased. A player in his first three years with a franchise would have his entire salary count against the cap. A player in his 4th, 5th, or 6th years with a team would have 90% of his salary count against the cap. A player with 7 or more years with an organization would have an 80% cap hit. One note about this is that a player's first year with a franchise would be the first season in which he is property of a team, so players in the juniors are accumlating seasons after they have been drafted. Unlike the NBA, tenure is not traded along with a player.

Exactly what policy objective does a staggering of "cap hit" serve? What is the point of it? Why shouldn't full salaries count against a cap?

 

[GSC2k2*]

THe only arbitration system that should be in play at all should be a system whereby the only players eligible as comparables are players from franchises with revenues within a certain percentage of the team being taken to arbitration. This avoids the scenario where small market teams are compelled to pay what a large market team pays its players.

To any arbitration system I would also add a performance bond requirement from the players such that, if a player holds out the team can collect on the performance bond (not unlike performance bonds in th econstruction industry).

Also, I assume the 24% pay cut is still valid for all these proposals?

 

[GKJ]

IMO the penalties themselves are strict enough(if I remember correctly the 1st offense is something like a 30 day suspension plus fine), maybe just increase the amount of testing throughout the year. I agree it isn't a major issue in Hockey but it is an overlooked issue that needs to be included in the new CBA.

PS. How would you change it? It may only be a minor issue but it is a negotiating point to be resolved.

There right now is just about no penalties other than voluntary admissions to substance abuse programs, and any penalties come after that program is violated. All tests are voluntary they don't even have to take them, at least in the NHL, the IIHF is different because they use the grounds that the WADA use.

 

[WC Handy*]

Exactly what policy objective does a staggering of "cap hit" serve? What is the point of it? Why shouldn't full salaries count against a cap?

The main complaints about a cap are that there is too much player movement and it's hard to keep a team together. This effect would be lessened with the cap hit reducing as a player's tenure lengthens.