Fair response. I think that a reasonably set cash compensation system would also be beneficial as well. The numbers I threw up originally perhaps are not enough compensation but I think there is a happy medium to be had there. Maybe a hybrid system of cash and picks? Perhaps one first round pick and 5-8 million cash for a top end RFA? A team could still match the offer and the compensation would be moot, but if the team did not match they would get a top pick and a nice sack of cash for their troubles. It would at least maybe help mitigate some costs of lost merchandise or ticket sales from losing the said player and just the general costs of player development the team had put in. It would also be a form of revenue sharing.
2012 CBA - what will it have?
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
Fair response. I think that a reasonably set cash compensation system would also be beneficial as well. The numbers I threw up originally perhaps are not enough compensation but I think there is a happy medium to be had there. Maybe a hybrid system of cash and picks? Perhaps one first round pick and 5-8 million cash for a top end RFA? A team could still match the offer and the compensation would be moot, but if the team did not match they would get a top pick and a nice sack of cash for their troubles. It would at least maybe help mitigate some costs of lost merchandise or ticket sales from losing the said player and just the general costs of player development the team had put in. It would also be a form of revenue sharing.
I don't disagree with what you have to say, i just have an issue with the amounts proposed. This data is a little hard to find but this link has some basic financial info for the Calgary Flames from the 2003, 04, 06 and 07 seasons:
http://www.privco.com/private-company/calgary-flames
You can see that in 2007 the Flames had Revenues of 77 million, with a payroll of 45 million yet still lost 1 million dollars, in 2003 with revenues of 51 million and a 32 million dollar payroll they lost 6 million dollars. Based on operating revenue for those 4 seasons the Flames actually lost 3 million dollars, hopefully they managed to invest some of their money wisely so that they were able to offset that loss but I don't have that data. My issue with this is that there is nowhere for that 5-8 million dollar compensation payment to come from.
conversely here is the data for the Toronto Maple Leafs, a "big market team":
http://www.privco.com/private-company/toronto-maple-leafs
You can see that over those four seasons the Maple leafs had an operating income of 123 million dollars, and before the 05 lockout (pre salary cap) their payroll was nearly double what the Flames was.
What I am saying is that in simple terms the Maple Leafs as a big market team have 123 million dollars floating around (for the purpose of this argument, i know that this money isn't just "floating around", its in the Ontario teachers pension fund or wherever it goes) to go out and spend 5-8 million dollars in compensation to sign as many RFA's as they want, while the Flames as a small market team with an operating loss could only sign those RFA's by financing through somebody.
I think you have a great idea about how to amend the system, and picks but cash is a great way to do it, but for it to work the cash would have to be in the hundreds of thousands rather than the millions. It seems like you and I want the same thing, a system that is fair to all parties, a system that is fair to the team losing the player and the team gaining one. Unfortunately professional sports is a world of haves and have nots, and it's really tough to structure things in a way that gives a level playing field for all concerned.
My suggestion for compensation for a top RFA would be one first round pick from one of the next 3 seasons, one second round pick from one of the next three seasons, plus $500,000 in cash. This way the small market teams could still compete for RFA's, and an Alberta boy who wants nothing more to play for his hometown team could sign with the Oilers or Flames just as easily as he could sign with the Maple Leafs or Rangers.
After writing this one thing is really clear, the current system needs to be amended.
Last edited:
Fourier
Registered User
To be honest I am not at all sure that the lack of OS's shows that the system is broken, though I guess it depends on which side you are on. From the team's perspective it does provide more roster stability. It is easy to argue that this is what they might have wanted.
[I]What I am saying is that in simple terms the Maple Leafs as a big market team have 123 million dollars floating around (for the purpose of this argument, i know that this money isn't just "floating around", its in the Ontario teachers pension fund or wherever it goes) to go out and spend 5-8 million dollars in compensation to sign as many RFA's as they want, while the Flames as a small market team with an operating loss could only sign those RFA's by financing through somebody.
I think you have a great idea about how to amend the system, and picks but cash is a great way to do it, but for it to work the cash would have to be in the hundreds of thousands rather than the millions. It seems like you and I want the same thing, a system that is fair to all parties, a system that is fair to the team losing the player and the team gaining one. Unfortunately professional sports is a world of haves and have nots, and it's really tough to structure things in a way that gives a level playing field for all concerned.
My suggestion for compensation for a top RFA would be one first round pick from one of the next 3 seasons, one second round pick from one of the next three seasons, plus $500,000 in cash. This way the small market teams could still compete for RFA's, and an Alberta boy who wants nothing more to play for his hometown team could sign with the Oilers or Flames just as easily as he could sign with the Maple Leafs or Rangers.
After writing this one thing is really clear, the current system needs to be amended.[/QUOTE][/I]
Hmm, I do see what you are saying. I think idealistically one would argue that all teams should be on close to the same playing field as one another. Realistically though, it seems that the teams that would be doing the OS, at least as history has shown, would be the big revenue teams, no? Some may point at Edmonton and their OS to Vanek and Penner to disprove this, but I believe they were a top 10 revenue team at the time anyways. Small revenue teams are not going to be going out of their way to throw big money to sign players to OS reguardless I don't think. That said, with a more of a balanced marketplace for RFA's to be signed to OS I think it is safe to say that larger revenue teams may be more inclined to do it more often. $500,000 in compensation I do not believe would cause a big revenue team to blink under any circumstances, heck, maybe even $5-10 million would not depending on the player.
My line of thinking is, if you create a more balanced marketplace for RFA's in fairness to the players, it is obvious more will be signed. Instead of only receiving $500,000 for example as compensation along with draft pick(s) at least the team that is targeted gets a nice chunk of change for their troubles if they feel it is not in their interest to match the OS.
I definitely agree that things should be changed though, certainly an interesting discussion going forward .
I think you have a great idea about how to amend the system, and picks but cash is a great way to do it, but for it to work the cash would have to be in the hundreds of thousands rather than the millions. It seems like you and I want the same thing, a system that is fair to all parties, a system that is fair to the team losing the player and the team gaining one. Unfortunately professional sports is a world of haves and have nots, and it's really tough to structure things in a way that gives a level playing field for all concerned.
My suggestion for compensation for a top RFA would be one first round pick from one of the next 3 seasons, one second round pick from one of the next three seasons, plus $500,000 in cash. This way the small market teams could still compete for RFA's, and an Alberta boy who wants nothing more to play for his hometown team could sign with the Oilers or Flames just as easily as he could sign with the Maple Leafs or Rangers.
After writing this one thing is really clear, the current system needs to be amended.[/QUOTE][/I]
Hmm, I do see what you are saying. I think idealistically one would argue that all teams should be on close to the same playing field as one another. Realistically though, it seems that the teams that would be doing the OS, at least as history has shown, would be the big revenue teams, no? Some may point at Edmonton and their OS to Vanek and Penner to disprove this, but I believe they were a top 10 revenue team at the time anyways. Small revenue teams are not going to be going out of their way to throw big money to sign players to OS reguardless I don't think. That said, with a more of a balanced marketplace for RFA's to be signed to OS I think it is safe to say that larger revenue teams may be more inclined to do it more often. $500,000 in compensation I do not believe would cause a big revenue team to blink under any circumstances, heck, maybe even $5-10 million would not depending on the player.
My line of thinking is, if you create a more balanced marketplace for RFA's in fairness to the players, it is obvious more will be signed. Instead of only receiving $500,000 for example as compensation along with draft pick(s) at least the team that is targeted gets a nice chunk of change for their troubles if they feel it is not in their interest to match the OS.
I definitely agree that things should be changed though, certainly an interesting discussion going forward .
iamaranger
Registered User
id like to see the ufa eligibility go to 25 or 5 years pro. you cant have one league with two objectives. its either A) we want to ice the best team possible to try and win the stanley cup or B) we want to develop our young players for the future. think of rfa as lag time before a franchise is competitive.
2 the cap floor should be represented in actual dollars. if the max cap is 64 mil then the floor of ten percent less should be 57.6. salary parity is essential to parity
2 the cap floor should be represented in actual dollars. if the max cap is 64 mil then the floor of ten percent less should be 57.6. salary parity is essential to parity
The only way you could do that is through huge amounts of revenue sharing, which the richer teams are against. Equal ability to spend money does not necessarily equal any type of parity anyways.
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,085
- 531
no you make the teams without adequate cash on hand borrow to make the jump and pin the cap while devoting revenue growth to elevating the floor. no more existing revenue would be shared but the impetus to grow the game and increase revenues would be mainly on the smaller market teams as it should be. its a short term "catch up" mechanism. the fast runners have all agreed to run the mile in ten minutes now its time to make the slow guys sweat.
Ad
Latest posts
-
F Danila Yurov - Metallurg Magnitogorsk, KHL (2022, 24th, MIN)- Latest: Saga of the Elk
-
Upcoming events
-
GAME 7 - Lausanne @ Zurich Lions - Series tied 3-3Wagers: 6Staked: $1,325.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-