A new approach ...

[The old geezer]

Alright there’s lots of complaints about revenue, again, and I’ve also started receiving the usual e-mails from GM’s concerned they're being held hostage, again, to unreasonable contract demands when. (Honestly guys I don't mind receiving them)

I ask that people, in particular our newly forming Admin team and player agents, to think about slightly non-traditional approaches. The following is my opinion, as a regular GM, on some possible ways you could look at the problem and potential solutions.

The main issue:
League revenue compared to a constantly increasing cap and associated player expenses

Contributing factors:
(i) SIM revenue model is very limited and does not effectively compensate for changing expense models
(ii) Balance between ensuring a reasonable level of talent actually enters the FA market vs. teams having little options in contract demands by players
(iii) Fool hardy contract offers by a few GM’s each year raising the bar for contract demands in subsequent negotiations.
(iv) Partial benchmarking of contract demands to NHL salaries

Possible options:
The common elements in both these proposals are not changing the cap (stays $44M permanently) or the revenue model aside from some potential tweaking of endorsements. Changing these elements every year does not address the underlying pressures which is in the contract negotiation element which is not solely a problem of the player agent process many GM’s had created their own problems b/c they can’t get over letting someone walk.

Option 1:
This option is not really what I would recommend but if we’re looking for KISS solutions I would simply suggest that when using NHL salaries to determine FMV (fair market value) we discount that rate by the difference of the NHL cap vs. the HFNHL cap when the NHL contract was signed.
Example – player X signed a contract for $5M per season when the NHL cap was $50M so the HFNHL equivalent FMV would be $4.4M.
The static salary cap should, to a degree, force teams to cut players and improve the FA market.

Option 2:
This option is much more comprehensive but involves a higher degree of administration. That said if Swingstein Enterprises is growing it may be feasible. This is a tweaked version of a model that I had proposed and was actually approved by the Admin team years ago (pre-Reggie actually) but was never implemented. You’ve likely seen a UFA randomizer spreadsheet Reggie uses from that proposal though it’s been used in a somewhat different context than originally intended.

The following model is intended to not only more effectively standardize the establishment of FMV but increases the random aspect for intangibles so that you don’t automatically get the player if you give a fixed price.

Cornerstone 1 is a FMV team. Ideally 3 individuals participate be they player agents and/or Admin members who once a week receive a list of FA’s (UFA or RFA) that teams are trying to resign. This would only happen once per player as once FMV is assigned the contract negotiations move to the next phase which does not require this team.
Each member would e-mail back their FMV assessment given the circumstances and the average becomes in fact the FMV.
This team would establish some general guidelines for how it would determine FMV but the idea is that after that it doesn’t become a debate and should not be subject to change based on who signed who for what (ie this does not increase ever year based on what some HFNHL GM does). While there may still be some variation in assessments in the short term, ideally, over time a list is kept for past assessments and the FMV process becomes more consistent.

Cornerstone Number 2 is intangibles and random factors. This is somewhat what that simple spreadsheet was about though it really could use an overhaul and be a bit more dynamic. Once FMV is established a percentage chance based on your offer amount and how much time you are making the offer in advance of the current contract expiring is established via the table. Ie if I’m making a bid I, the GM, do not know what the FMV is (and should never be told) I simply send an offer. The player agent then assesses where in the table your offer fits (ie it’s 10% above FMV and 5 months in advance of Jult therefore I have a 4/6 chance of the player accepting the offer).
This approach takes the emphasis off the player agent and eliminates any potential questioning of fairness.
Now like I say that model could really use some enhancements (I’d be willing to take a stab) that allows other intangibles to influence the chance of a player accepting like length of service with the team, linemates and playing time (could be a positive or negative impact), etc.
Other things that might want to be considered is length of contract as Reggie currently does for different circumsatances.

While this approach requires a fair amount of up front work in establishing the processes, teams, and models after that the ongoing effort should be low and the consistency high and will address all of the underlying issues identified.

I would suggest you consider radical change now and once an approach is agreed upon any UFA’s/RFA’s that have already been resigned be reevaluated.

Click to read more...

 

[The old geezer]

Hmmm 23 views and not one comment ... interesting.

Either you're thinking I'm crazy or what I'm proposing isn't understood other wise I'd see 'I agree' or 'I disagree' comments.

If anyone has a long term proposal for financial stability (ie not a bandaid give everyone more money type solution) step on up with option 3.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Some interesting ideas Drew. To be honest though, the main reason I see this coming about is that teams are frustrated that they are going to be unable to keep all of their players under contract, when this is simply what every NHL team has to deal with. That, and of course some teams are in financials troubles. But it is hard to justify repeatedly helping teams out in revenue, when there is no curbing of free agent spending.

One idea to consider is for the agents not to use HFNHL contracts from previous years (even if this does add an element of realism). Certainly the auto-sign rule will help teams, as it allows teams to sign quite a few players on their roster likely cheaper than otherwise (not to mention without negotiation). That said, it's a little frustrating to see some of the "interpretations" of the rule being included in some offers. Another option to extend this even further is to automatically apply the NHL salaries to HFNHL players, which would solve a lot of problems, albeit not to every GM's liking.

I don't see much advantage to avoiding the alignment with the NHL cap (even a year behind). It creates a number of problems, and simply applying a % to the NHL values just creates a lot more work for everyone. It's not like our revenue system is in line with the NHL's anyway, even at a lower cap.

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

The following is my opinion, as a regular GM, on some possible ways you could look at the problem and potential solutions.

I don't think any of us think of you as a regular GM Drew

Option 1:
This option is not really what I would recommend but if we’re looking for KISS solutions I would simply suggest that when using NHL salaries to determine FMV (fair market value) we discount that rate by the difference of the NHL cap vs. the HFNHL cap when the NHL contract was signed.
Example – player X signed a contract for $5M per season when the NHL cap was $50M so the HFNHL equivalent FMV would be $4.4M.
The static salary cap should, to a degree, force teams to cut players and improve the FA market.

This is not a bad option Drew and it a lot like the flip side of what Hasnain has been suggesting. Rather then Increase revenues, we decrease payrolls... it's a side to the equation I never thought of.

Option 2:
This option is much more comprehensive but involves a higher degree of administration. That said if Swingstein Enterprises is growing it may be feasible. This is a tweaked version of a model that I had proposed and was actually approved by the Admin team years ago (pre-Reggie actually) but was never implemented. You’ve likely seen a UFA randomizer spreadsheet Reggie uses from that proposal though it’s been used in a somewhat different context than originally intended.

I think the idea of decoupling UFA signings from the NHL in order to sustain the current salary cap is a very interesting idea... if we can get all the intagibles into the formula than this would add a bit more variablity in the league and improve UFA season. The risk though is that we'd be moving away from NHL salary parity and therefore FMV might become hard to judge. We could try and set FMV through the formula but that would be very complicated as well though a good challenge.

If you need help with this drew let me know, I'm pretty good with excel or matlab and I wouldn't mind contributing to this. Do you think we'd still need to factor in a set average league payroll in order to have the formula output salaries which will support the $44M cap limit and current revenue structure? There will be a very close coupling of FMV with total league payroll and therefore there will be a huge responsibilty on those determining FMV to not bankrupt the league. I'm worried this model could end up very complex, however I would love to give you a hand at taking a crack at this if the league wants to pursue this direction...

Another option to extend this even further is to automatically apply the NHL salaries to HFNHL players, which would solve a lot of problems, albeit not to every GM's liking.

This would simplify signings alot but we would then have to match the total NHL payroll with the leagues payroll given salary cap of the NHL is rising continuously... BTW, isn't this what's supposed to happen anyways? I mean, if you want to sign player XXX the first thing everyone looks at is NHL salary and then there's further hagling based on performance or RFA status... Either way, I think this is a good idea and should be considered.

I don't see much advantage to avoiding the alignment with the NHL cap (even a year behind). It creates a number of problems, and simply applying a % to the NHL values just creates a lot more work for everyone. It's not like our revenue system is in line with the NHL's anyway, even at a lower cap.

This brings the question, do we stick with NHL financial parity or move toward our own financial system... I think we're in agreement that thesim is not versatile enough to adapt to the new NHL financials (ie increasing the ticker to improve revenue)

 

[Brock]

Drew, I think your option 2 sounds like a really cool idea, as long as we could get dedicated individuals to go along with it.

 

[Wildman]

League revenue compared to a constantly increasing cap and associated player expenses

Contributing factors:
(i) SIM revenue model is very limited and does not effectively compensate for changing expense models I agree with you here Drew, that SIM is very limited as it pays out to teams with high end talent or low payroll - below $20M - No easy solution to compensate middle level teams who are close to making the playoffs
(ii) Balance between ensuring a reasonable level of talent actually enters the FA market vs. teams having little options in contract demands by players - Agreed, but it doesn't help teams that are close to bankruptcy and has no money to bid for players
(iii) Fool hardy contract offers by a few GM’s each year raising the bar for contract demands in subsequent negotiations.-I have to admit that I paid out Tkutchuk the big contract but sometimes you are forced to do that when you have paid out a lot to acquire such talent as Tkutchuk. I am sure you would have done the same if Lidstrom was close to UFA and demanding the max and is your franchise player
(iv) Partial benchmarking of contract demands to NHL salaries - I believe this would be very difficult to monitor plus teams with larger salary base will benefit more than teams with lower salary base.
Possible options:
The common elements in both these proposals are not changing the cap (stays $44M permanently) or the revenue model aside from some potential tweaking of endorsements. Changing these elements every year does not address the underlying pressures which is in the contract negotiation element which is not solely a problem of the player agent process many GM’s had created their own problems b/c they can’t get over letting someone walk. Agreed GM has created their own problems by paying out huge contract and you can blame GM like me whohave done that in the past. But how do expect the new GM of Atlanta compete when he has no talent and no cash to acquire any talent. Also teams like Atlanta may benefit if we increase the cap to $50M and pay out $10M to each teams since he can bank some of the cash for future use and at the time increase the minimum OV to 72 which would force all GM to spend some cash to acquire talent.
Option 1:
This option is not really what I would recommend but if we’re looking for KISS solutions I would simply suggest that when using NHL salaries to determine FMV (fair market value) we discount that rate by the difference of the NHL cap vs. the HFNHL cap when the NHL contract was signed.
Example – player X signed a contract for $5M per season when the NHL cap was $50M so the HFNHL equivalent FMV would be $4.4M.
The static salary cap should, to a degree, force teams to cut players and improve the FA market.
Option 2:
This option is much more comprehensive but involves a higher degree of administration. That said if Swingstein Enterprises is growing it may be feasible. This is a tweaked version of a model that I had proposed and was actually approved by the Admin team years ago (pre-Reggie actually) but was never implemented. You’ve likely seen a UFA randomizer spreadsheet Reggie uses from that proposal though it’s been used in a somewhat different context than originally intended.

The following model is intended to not only more effectively standardize the establishment of FMV but increases the random aspect for intangibles so that you don’t automatically get the player if you give a fixed price.

I know there some loyalty factor model that randomly picks a loyalty number. Rather than doing this, why not give 10% discount to a team that resigns their own drafted players and brought them up through their farm system. It shows loyalty for both the team and the player. So in your case, you get a 10% for drafting Lidstrom and keeping him in your team.

Cornerstone 1 is a FMV team. Ideally 3 individuals participate be they player agents and/or Admin members who once a week receive a list of FA’s (UFA or RFA) that teams are trying to resign. This would only happen once per player as once FMV is assigned the contract negotiations move to the next phase which does not require this team.
Each member would e-mail back their FMV assessment given the circumstances and the average becomes in fact the FMV.
This team would establish some general guidelines for how it would determine FMV but the idea is that after that it doesn’t become a debate and should not be subject to change based on who signed who for what (ie this does not increase ever year based on what some HFNHL GM does). While there may still be some variation in assessments in the short term, ideally, over time a list is kept for past assessments and the FMV process becomes more consistent.

Cornerstone Number 2 is intangibles and random factors. This is somewhat what that simple spreadsheet was about though it really could use an overhaul and be a bit more dynamic. Once FMV is established a percentage chance based on your offer amount and how much time you are making the offer in advance of the current contract expiring is established via the table. Ie if I’m making a bid I, the GM, do not know what the FMV is (and should never be told) I simply send an offer. The player agent then assesses where in the table your offer fits (ie it’s 10% above FMV and 5 months in advance of Jult therefore I have a 4/6 chance of the player accepting the offer).
This approach takes the emphasis off the player agent and eliminates any potential questioning of fairness.
Now like I say that model could really use some enhancements (I’d be willing to take a stab) that allows other intangibles to influence the chance of a player accepting like length of service with the team, linemates and playing time (could be a positive or negative impact), etc.
Other things that might want to be considered is length of contract as Reggie currently does for different circumsatances.

While this approach requires a fair amount of up front work in establishing the processes, teams, and models after that the ongoing effort should be low and the consistency high and will address all of the underlying issues identified.
I would suggest you consider radical change now and once an approach is agreed upon any UFA’s/RFA’s that have already been resigned be reevaluated.

For me, the best solution would be maintain an average of $900M and distribute the difference to all the teams. This way, the whole league stays float and teams will not over spend because they woudn't know what sort of money they will be getting until the season is over and all the endorsement payment has been made. Also, it would resolve the increasing NHL cap problem because the more the NHL/HFNHL cap the higher the payout would be (provided the revenue base stays the same). This also given teams who can afford $50M or higher cap (maybe in 2 or 3 years) to run for the the cup and if they fail than part of their expenses will be redistributed equally to the rest of the league.

 

[Brock]

[/B]
For me, the best solution would be maintain an average of $900M and distribute the difference to all the teams. This way, the whole league stays float and teams will not over spend because they woudn't know what sort of money they will be getting until the season is over and all the endorsement payment has been made. Also, it would resolve the increasing NHL cap problem because the more the NHL/HFNHL cap the higher the payout would be (provided the revenue base stays the same). This also given teams who can afford $50M or higher cap (maybe in 2 or 3 years) to run for the the cup and if they fail than part of their expenses will be redistributed equally to the rest of the league.

Doesn't that pretty much mean taking money away from the successful teams who've earned it by making multiple playoff births, in order to give money to struggling teams? If so, that seems kind of unfair to me.

 

[Wildman]

Doesn't that pretty much mean taking money away from the successful teams who've earned it by making multiple playoff births, in order to give money to struggling teams? If so, that seems kind of unfair to me.

Brock, I think you misunderstood what i am saying here. Let say that we start the season with $900M and teams like Detroit, St Loius will earn their usual revenues and will collect incentives and playoffs money and teams like mine will have less money based on ny talent level. At the end of the season, we add all 30 teams bank and if we come to $870M than we have $30M to distribute equally to each team, which would be $1M per team.

Now lets say that NHL cap goes up to $60M and there are couple of teams who feel they have real shot of winning it all and are willing to spend. However they end up spending $10M more than their revenue Stream. After the season we add total bank again and distribute and shortfall equally among 30 teams. Teams that overspent will be penalized and teams that are fiscally responsible will gain.

How would this help the current situation, I guess we have to take the begining of the year bank roll and bring the total back to $900M and distribute the difference equally among each team.

 

[Brock]

Brock, I think you misunderstood what i am saying here. Let say that we start the season with $900M and teams like Detroit, St Loius will earn their usual revenues and will collect incentives and playoffs money and teams like mine will have less money based on ny talent level. At the end of the season, we add all 30 teams bank and if we come to $870M than we have $30M to distribute equally to each team, which would be $1M per team.

Now lets say that NHL cap goes up to $60M and there are couple of teams who feel they have real shot of winning it all and are willing to spend. However they end up spending $10M more than their revenue Stream. After the season we add total bank again and distribute and shortfall equally among 30 teams. Teams that overspent will be penalized and teams that are fiscally responsible will gain.

How would this help the current situation, I guess we have to take the begining of the year bank roll and bring the total back to $900M and distribute the difference equally among each team.

Ah ok, gotcha. Definitely misunderstood. That sounds like a viable option.

 

[The old geezer]

Brock, I think you misunderstood what i am saying here. Let say that we start the season with $900M and teams like Detroit, St Loius will earn their usual revenues and will collect incentives and playoffs money and teams like mine will have less money based on ny talent level. At the end of the season, we add all 30 teams bank and if we come to $870M than we have $30M to distribute equally to each team, which would be $1M per team.

Now lets say that NHL cap goes up to $60M and there are couple of teams who feel they have real shot of winning it all and are willing to spend. However they end up spending $10M more than their revenue Stream. After the season we add total bank again and distribute and shortfall equally among 30 teams. Teams that overspent will be penalized and teams that are fiscally responsible will gain.

How would this help the current situation, I guess we have to take the begining of the year bank roll and bring the total back to $900M and distribute the difference equally among each team.

The challenge with this model is that it's only short term again. If the cap keeps going up and salaries go with it the pie just keeps shrinking. Remember it was less than a year ago we announced we were giving teams a collective $132M extra this year if the form of TV revenue and they spent it before it was in the bank.
Next thing we'll be talking about the collective league balance needing to be $1B instead of $900M.

Honestly I'm not trying to dump on this option I'm trying to highlight that we have keep our eye on the core issues and how policies influence behaviour. Lets be careful when making proposals that we're addressing the causes not the results and promoting behaviour that keeps the league strong.

It's never been the intent that the worst teams should be making money. In fact last year when determining what TV revenue should be we ran some calcs on average revenue including endorsements and playoff revenue to determine where a fair equilibrium would fall of teams that make money vs loose money based on a $44M cap and set the TV revenue accordingly. That's not to say it couldn't be tweaked but the intent is not for every team to make money every year.

We can’t keep having every argument for a change or against a change keeps focusing on the couple of teams in the worst shape. This is a 30 team league.

Even in your response to my original post your main comment was to point out it doesn't fully address teams that are already close to bankruptcy where there are 'exemption' options for one's that inherited the problem. If felt necessary a one time fix could be discussed separately for them even though I have some reservations about that.

The other challenge with propping up weak teams with cash is it takes the consequences away from whimsical rebuilding phases. This league is finally starting to show some level of parity after years of effort. Let's not take a step back. I really don't want to see this league go back to the days where we had 5 and 6 GM's trying to see who could assemble the best crop of prospects and the most amount of draft picks while totally neglecting their current team.

The biggest and most sought after prize in the HFNHL should be the Cup not the first overall pick and if we need the finances to encourage success over loosing than that’s a necessary evil.

I would encourage you to focus on an expense side solution even if it's not one of the one's I've suggested so that we're not "solving" this problem again next season when it was supposedly fixed last year and the year before that, etc. etc.

 

[The old geezer]

Drew, I think your option 2 sounds like a really cool idea, as long as we could get dedicated individuals to go along with it.

I'm actually hoping that after all the up front work is done it's relatively similar to the current work effort. It would also take away some of the confrontational aspects between the player agent and the GM's not to mention more consistent results.

 

[The old geezer]

This is not a bad option Drew and it a lot like the flip side of what Hasnain has been suggesting. Rather then Increase revenues, we decrease payrolls... it's a side to the equation I never thought of.

I think the idea of decoupling UFA signings from the NHL in order to sustain the current salary cap is a very interesting idea...

Thanks.

The breaking of links to NHL salaries always seems to be a psychological barrier that in the past divided the Admin team whenever discussing an expense side solution. I'm not surprised to see it happening a bit here as well.
I expect many to dig their heels in on this subject as I likely will as well after having personally caved to the revenue solution camp for years now.

 

[MatthewFlames]

Thanks.

The breaking of links to NHL salaries always seems to be a psychological barrier that in the past divided the Admin team whenever discussing an expense side solution. I'm not surprised to see it happening a bit here as well.

I expect many to dig their heels in on this subject as I likely will as well after having personally caved to the revenue solution camp for years now.

I think one of your main obstacles that you face Drew is that the "New Approach" doesn't have a concrete base of understanding at the moment. It's a bit.. esoteric .

Also I think it scares people to de-couple because of the fear that the sim will lose some of the 'reality' that makes it sacred.

But if we look at the problem in the most simple way - we have a revenue versus expenses problem - and Drew's suggestion that we tackle the expenses side of the equitation makes a lot of sense because we don't have a lot of flexibility over revenue except to just hand out money and as he says - too much revenue causes all of us to just increase expenses and we end up here every year.

I for one think that we should move forward with a test run, as well as continue to consider other options, including just continuing on as we have (since I certainly don't think the league is in trouble in any sense, because those teams struggling financially have good GM's attached.)

I think what we need to do is set the FMV system up (I see some volunteers already to help Drew... you're getting sucked back in ) and give a 'fantasy' test run in order to show GM's how the "New Approach" would work and how it would work with their players so that it can ease the fears.

I know that could be a lot of work for nothing if its not adopted - so is there a way to do it on a smaller scale to demonstrate?

I must encourage all of us to take an open mind here. I'm sure this discussion is frustrating for the long time GM's who have to go through it every year - and frustrating for GM's who really feel like a change is needed - but let's all just go through this process and discuss it and work with the admin team to find a suitable solution.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

The "top idea" of ensuring we are at the $900 million balance is an interesting one in that it would help balance what ever problem we have with the Sim.

An related question someone might have the answer to - what was the collective bank balance this season before Endorsements were applied? I would think we were close to $900 million, but perhaps a bit below...

 

[MatthewFlames]

The "top idea" of ensuring we are at the $900 million balance is an interesting one in that it would help balance what ever problem we have with the Sim.

An related question someone might have the answer to - what was the collective bank balance this season before Endorsements were applied? I would think we were close to $900 million, but perhaps a bit below...

I have all that data and will work it out a bit later this afternoon... The real key might be to combine both a revenue fix (such as the bank rebalance) and a new expenses fix like the ones pitched by Drew.

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

But if we look at the problem in the most simple way - we have a revenue versus expenses problem - and Drew's suggestion that we tackle the expenses side of the equitation makes a lot of sense because we don't have a lot of flexibility over revenue except to just hand out money and as he says - too much revenue causes all of us to just increase expenses and we end up here every year.

Just a thought regarding an option for the revenue side of the equation... maybe we should try restructuring the endorsement structure in order to promote more GM friendly activity... Here are some options regarding endorsements:

1) Provide a bonus for an increase in team performance from the pervious year. I know we have synergy, but that's a 20 point improvment, which is fairly large. I'm thinkng about 5, 10, 15, and 20 point benchmarks, all with a cumulative bonus associated to each level.

2) Provide a bonus based on drafting. I know there is the mountain dew endorsement, but I was thinking about maybe an endorsement that rewarded good drafting practices, which would encourage draft research. This would ensure that teams generally atleast tried to show up to the draft and additionally would reward teams that did not trade away all their draft picks.

3) Provide a bonus based on writing articles. Okay, this is pretty much a giveaway... but at least it would mean every team would be writing an article... and this would add to the overall fun of the league...

4) Provide a bonus based on meeting deadlines (ie. line submissions, draft submissions,etc...)... this again is a giveaway but would promote good GM behaviour

BTW, I don't think we should prevent GM's from overspending... if they overpsend then it's their fault. I'm just thinkng that if decide to stick with NHL-HFNHL salary parity then we have to increase revenues to meet NHL payrolls. If we decide to remove parity then that's another story...

 

[MatthewFlames]

The "top idea" of ensuring we are at the $900 million balance is an interesting one in that it would help balance what ever problem we have with the Sim.

An related question someone might have the answer to - what was the collective bank balance this season before Endorsements were applied? I would think we were close to $900 million, but perhaps a bit below...

Well, this shows how much revenue is created during the playoffs, through endorsements and with the additional TV revenue (the 4.4 million.)

The total cash in the bank accounts of all 30 HFNHL teams to start the season was ... drumroll please...

TOTAL: $813,978,434.
AVERAGE: $ 27 million per team.

If we did the top up it to $900 million it would have been: $2.86 Million per team. That is all.

* Reference Files can be found in Yahoo Groups - Files - Folder Named (08 Great Revenue Debate)...

 

[Wildman]

Well, this shows how much revenue is created during the playoffs, through endorsements and with the additional TV revenue (the 4.4 million.)

The total cash in the bank accounts of all 30 HFNHL teams to start the season was ... drumroll please...

TOTAL: $813,978,434.
AVERAGE: $ 27 million per team.

If we did the top up it to $900 million it would have been: $2.86 Million per team. That is all.

* Reference Files can be found in Yahoo Groups - Files - Folder Named (08 Great Revenue Debate)...

I really like this idea. It eliminates all the work of expense management and will take care of NHL cap issue. All we have to do is calculate at the beginign of the seaosn cash and make adjustment by topping it up. I know this would not eliminate the problem of trouble teams but we should give them an opportunity to restructure their team and allow them to deep below 70 OV for one season. However, this should only be allowed to new GM such as Atlanta.

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

If we did the top up it to $900 million it would have been: $2.86 Million per team.

so, if we had gone with this system the modifier would have been 2.86M+4.4M which is close to 7.25M... BTW, as UFA spending goes up, this number will go up as well but the cap and the fact that all teams can not afford the 50M salary cap will bring us closer to NHL-HFNHL parity.

Couple of things:
1) if we decide to use this method to adjust revenues then I suggest we award these revenues as good-behaviour endorsements as I suggested earlier... what do you guys think?

2) I would still like to work on Drews FA signing system, and maybe do a test run... in the long term Drew's solution might simplify things and it's worth exploring.

 

[The old geezer]

Just popping in to say I havn't forgotten this I just havn't had time to do anything about it. Case in point it's 5:00 on a Saturday and I'm writing this from work

Anyway I can (assuming someone changes the hours in a day to >24) put something together but there is a key consideration to this model that doesn't necessarily jive with a blending with the counter proposal. The expense side approach assumes the cap is not changing and the revenue side counter proposal assumes the cap keeps changing.

 

[SensGod]

Maybe I'm not "getting" it...but I was thinking the following.

Why don't we just keep the cap the same as the NHL and the associated limitations to maximum player salary and rookie cap.

Easy enough, no?

If you are having financial troubles it's because you're not being smart about your trades and your RFA and UFA signings.

Heck, we have a mechanism now where players will automagically re-sign for the same NHL salary they have now and wiggle room for more or less which is indicative of certain criteria.

I don't understand why people are having financial issues if they play it smart and don't do ridiculous things with their money. (*cough RFA offer sheets to 4th line players for ludicrous amounts of money...yes I'm still bitter about Schubert *)

Now...the only thing that I do have some issues with are possibly attendance at times. But that will introduce a whole mess if you really get into it. For example, the "real world Dallas Stars" draw really well regardless of who shoes up in their rink. They are a decent team in a strong market. But for example, in the "real world" a team like Florida just can't draw and I'm pretty sure that even if they had an all-star lineup people wouldn't show up for games.

I guess we just have to take the financial model regarding attendance in stride and accept it for what it is. However, maybe a more detailed explanation of how it works might be in order.

For example...I know that if you have a player who's OV is greater than 80 draws more people...but the question is...how many? What is the bang for your buck factor to signing a 78 player and an 80 player where the difference in salary might be 3 million a year.

To explain. I have Horcoff...a 78, making 3 million a year...doesn't have an impact on drawing additional fans. But if I spend 7 million...I can get a guy like St.Louis who's an 80 "something". Does he bring in the additional revenue to make up the 4 million in salary or am I better off saving my coin and signing two guys who are under 80 for the same money it takes to sign a superstar to make my team better.

I guess that analysis would need to be done by teams, but we (ok...I would REALLY like it) need to know how it all works to possibly plan my money better.

I shy away from the super salaries (greater than about 6-7 million) because I just don't know if it's worth it in the long run.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

i had some trouble following the issue to be frank .. but a couple comments

1) if the problem is teams cant afford the contract demands, DONT OFFER THE CONTRACT!. The problem in this league has been the stupid RFA shenangins. Why? Because money doesnt mean ANYTHING, its just a number in the sim, its not coming from someone's bank account and no one's job is on the line.

2) to ensure the end of stupid contracts, REDUCE the revenue, not increase it. make it even harder to sign big contracts and no one will offer it. let the guys asking for 6m rot. of course no one does it because of the threat of RFA, but if the revenue model didnt support the financial requirements to make the offer, then the players will have to ask for reasonable supported salaries.

3) stop benchmarking the HF player salaries to their NHL salaries. how is this even reasonable when we arent working with the same cap as the NHL teams. this must be addressed and i think someone above made a suggestion that was fair, to reduce in direct proportion the NHL salary by the same % of the cap difference.

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

Maybe I'm not "getting" it...but I was thinking the following.

Why don't we just keep the cap the same as the NHL and the associated limitations to maximum player salary and rookie cap.

Easy enough, no?

If you are having financial troubles it's because you're not being smart about your trades and your RFA and UFA signings.

I'm all for letting GM's sink or swim based on their financial decisions... I just feel that if we are expecting NHL-HFNHL salary parity to be that yard stick which GM's must follow to peg player value then the total NHL payroll must be equivalent to the HFNHL payroll. If the financial system currently supports the current payroll then naturally, as that payrolls increases the financial system would need to be subsidized to support that increase.

That being said, this is not a defined science and I would rather under-subsidize then over-susbsidize. The plan that Hasnain and Matt have been discusing seems to balance the numbers well as well and would support any payroll size.