Clubs still In trouble

[three dog night]

OHL still struggling with financial disparity Two years after the 2017 article not much has changed

Click to read more...

 

[NorthernVoice]

OHL still struggling with financial disparity Two years after the 2017 article not much has changed

I'm not a big Don Barrie fan, but this seems like a good point that could be easily addressed - I'm not sure his solution is necessarily the best one.

"One of the most serious financial obligations facing OHL teams, especially those with smaller rinks and fan bases, is the cost of paying for education packages for their players not going on to professional hockey.

The OHL education policy mandates that all education costs be paid for all players while playing in the OHL. Upon leaving the team, if the player does not sign a professional hockey contract, he is eligible for a scholarship covering tuition, books and compulsory fees, at an approved higher education institute near his home; a year for each year he played.

In the 2016-17 season the 20 OHL teams were paying for 301 graduates attending 57 different educational institutes for a total cost of $3.17 million. Averaged out that means each team had 10 former players they were paying $10,500 each to attend a university.

That obligation increases each year and unfortunately it is not equably spread across the 20 teams. It seems the teams that can most afford it pay the least. The teams with smaller arenas seem to attract fewer of the top professional prospects and thereby end up obligated to pay for more education packages.

This inequity must be addressed by the OHL. One suggestion is that the obligations for education packages be based on teams' attendance figures. Each year the total cost of all the education packages paid out by all the teams would be divided by the OHL attendance totals across the league. That result would be a surcharge each team pays the OHL education fund for each ticket sold in their next season."

 

[OMG67]

It is very possible I am wrong BUT does’t each team fund the education fund equally? Then the teams each pay their upgraded packages separately?

I don’t think each team pays for their own players. I think each team pays into the fund and the league pays the tuition and books etc.

Then if one of their players they give the GOLD package to ends up using it, the team itself pays that additional cost themselves.

Can anyone confirm this?

 

[OHL4Life]

It is very possible I am wrong BUT does’t each team fund the education fund equally? Then the teams each pay their upgraded packages separately?

I don’t think each team pays for their own players. I think each team pays into the fund and the league pays the tuition and books etc.

Then if one of their players they give the GOLD package to ends up using it, the team itself pays that additional cost themselves.

Can anyone confirm this?

from what i understand you pay what you commit too. the league manages the process to make sure everyone gets paid fairly, however they bill the teams afterwords. there is some inequity with it as some teams can afford to commit more then others, there's probably 20 kids in london that have higher cost packages with frills vs 3/4 in peterborough or owen sound. i cant see them trying to equalize education costs, but thats me.

 

[OMG67]

from what i understand you pay what you commit too. the league manages the process to make sure everyone gets paid fairly, however they bill the teams afterwords. there is some inequity with it as some teams can afford to commit more then others, there's probably 20 kids in london that have higher cost packages with frills vs 3/4 in peterborough or owen sound. i cant see them trying to equalize education costs, but thats me.

A team can carry only 7 enhanced packages.

To me, the answer should be the league bills back each team individually a fair portion of that year's commitment plus whatever the team has to pay for enhancements and current roster players.

The irony is a team like London produces more pro players so they may end up spending less on education yearly than the weaker teams that cannot compete to sign the higher level players.

 

[OHL4Life]

A team can carry only 7 enhanced packages.

To me, the answer should be the league bills back each team individually a fair portion of that year's commitment plus whatever the team has to pay for enhancements and current roster players.

The irony is a team like London produces more pro players so they may end up spending less on education yearly than the weaker teams that cannot compete to sign the higher level players.

i understand the 7 'gold' package rule, but its more then that. as an example, every non gold education package can include room and board and has some flexibility with what school they use. a team like london can use the all the financial flexibility to maximize the package vs peterborough who cant do that. london can give more to a 6/7th round pick then peterborough can. london can pay american packages much easier then peterborough can. i'm not sure what the difference is but if a team cant include the perks in the non gold packages that london/kitchener can, it creates some inequity. im not sure what you do to fix it or if its even a big enough deal to fix, but there are some issues.

 

[BadgerBruce]

A team can carry only 7 enhanced packages.

I’ve always believed this to be the case too, but published details about the Niagara sanctions cast some doubt:
Court papers shed light on IceDogs’ legal battle

“The problem for the IceDogs is Wilkie needed a full ride or he wouldn't sign . . . The team didn't have any of its seven left. They had already given out full-ride deals to Hayden McCool, Luke Mercer, Jesse Graham, Brendan Perlini, Aaron Haydon, Brook Hiddink and Anthony Difruscia. In addition, the IceDogs had to assume Jordan Maletta's full ride after he was acquired in a trade.”

So the team already had 8 Gold package players on the team when they entered into the side deal with Wilkie. Maybe the hard cap of 7 gold packages isn’t so hard??

 

[ohloutsider]

I’ve always believed this to be the case too, but published details about the Niagara sanctions cast some doubt:
Court papers shed light on IceDogs’ legal battle

“The problem for the IceDogs is Wilkie needed a full ride or he wouldn't sign . . . The team didn't have any of its seven left. They had already given out full-ride deals to Hayden McCool, Luke Mercer, Jesse Graham, Brendan Perlini, Aaron Haydon, Brook Hiddink and Anthony Difruscia. In addition, the IceDogs had to assume Jordan Maletta's full ride after he was acquired in a trade.”

So the team already had 8 Gold package players on the team when they entered into the side deal with Wilkie. Maybe the hard cap of 7 gold packages isn’t so hard??

I may have the years wrong but they may have already know or had a deal in place that saw McCool heading to Windsor so league would be ok knowing one was on the way out. This would have all transpired before camp opened that year.

 

[BadgerBruce]

I may have the years wrong but they may have already know or had a deal in place that saw McCool heading to Windsor so league would be ok knowing one was on the way out. This would have all transpired before camp opened that year.

I think your years are wrong — McCool was the team’s first round pick in 2013 and did not get moved until 17 games into the 14-15 season.

Unless I’m missing something, all 8 (includes Maletta) gold package players were on the club during the 13-14 season.

 

[NorthernVoice]

i understand the 7 'gold' package rule, but its more then that. as an example, every non gold education package can include room and board and has some flexibility with what school they use.

Huh? Isn't that exactly what Niagara is getting in trouble for? For promising room and board beyond the allowed gold packages?

 

[BadgerBruce]

i understand the 7 'gold' package rule, but its more then that. as an example, every non gold education package can include room and board and has some flexibility with what school they use. a team like london can use the all the financial flexibility to maximize the package vs peterborough who cant do that. london can give more to a 6/7th round pick then peterborough can. london can pay american packages much easier then peterborough can. i'm not sure what the difference is but if a team cant include the perks in the non gold packages that london/kitchener can, it creates some inequity. im not sure what you do to fix it or if its even a big enough deal to fix, but there are some issues.

According to an affidavit submitted by Dave Branch in the class action lawsuit, enhancements to the minimum scholarship (covers tuition, textbooks, compulsory fees) are negotiable and may include the following:

A) 3 years of scholarship for 2 years played,

B) 1 year of scholarship guaranteed upon playing 1 exhibition or regular season game in each season of eligibility,

C) guaranteed benefits in the event of injury,

D) guaranteed benefits even though the player fails, in the opinion of the team, to demonstrate sufficient skill and ability to deserve a position on the team.

The only permitted change to a Full Ride scholarship is:

E) enhancement of a Full Ride scholarship with the addition of a tuition escalation clause based on the forecasted percentage tuition rate increase as published by the relevant university.

In essence, enhancing a standard scholarship to the level of a Full Ride/Gold, which includes room and board, is not permitted.

First round picks must be offered the Full Ride/Gold package.

You can find all of the above information on page 13 of Branch’s affidavit, available here: http://assets.chl.ca.s3.amazonaws.c...6/07/20162844/Affidavit-of-David-E-Branch.pdf

 

[MisterDB]

Page 14 para 59 is interesting, this appears to be a reaction to the Brody Todd case. Plus the Todd lawsuit also addressed the $50 weekly stipend,


Former Hound continues battle against OHL over education - SooToday.com

 

[HockeyPops]

With regards to exceeding the hard cap of 7 gold packages, I imagine they make an exception if you exceed the number as a result of a trade. Similar to the cap on the number of 16 year olds on your roster (I believe it is 4, but if you trade for a 16 year old, you are allowed to carry them even if it exceeds 4).

Gold packages are used to entice players to play in the OHL. When you trade for a player who has already been enticed, you aren't exceeding the cap in order to recruit more - the player was already recruited by another team.

 

[Buttsy]

The irony is a team like London produces more pro players so they may end up spending less on education yearly than the weaker teams that cannot compete to sign the higher level players.

So you don’t think Mitch is going to use his school money within 1.5 years of signing his ELC? Lol, I saw this part and laughed because you are quite right I bet you London promises the most but by no means actually pays the most. Those with money tend to keep their money....... always been that way?

 

[barclayplager]

.. am sure not all players go to university..my son went into the trades...nothing..and what is considered pro..the E..the Chl..

 

[Hammer9001]

I think it's a pretty easy fix. Engage in revenue sharing. Now that said, I can see how some orgs don't want to see their money just shipped off to an owner who could potentially try to pinch pennies and walk away with easy cash, so I propose, the have teams put money into a bank account that the league runs and they make purchases on the behalf of the have not owners. Things like marketing and education funds that these owners can't easily liquidate.

 

[NorthernVoice]

So you don’t think Mitch is going to use his school money within 1.5 years of signing his ELC? Lol, I saw this part and laughed because you are quite right I bet you London promises the most but by no means actually pays the most. Those with money tend to keep their money....... always been that way?

Teams like London not having to pay out is literally the point of the original post. They should make it more equitable so the trans making the least revenue aren't facing the highest education expenses.

 

[jamemcca]

Teams like London not having to pay out is literally the point of the original post. They should make it more equitable so the trans making the least revenue aren't facing the highest education expenses.

That makes no sense. If their players actually amounted to anything there would t be the need for high education expense

 

[digiblader]

Now the Hamilton Bulldogs are threatening relocation as the city drags its feet on a new arena:

The owner of the Hamilton Bulldogs is looking at relocation. - Bill Kelly Show - Omny.fm

 

[AttackSound]

Now the Hamilton Bulldogs are threatening relocation as the city drags its feet on a new arena:

The owner of the Hamilton Bulldogs is looking at relocation. - Bill Kelly Show - Omny.fm

Same old story just a different city in the mix compared to many others in this league over the years.

Let me be the first to say that the Bulldogs aren't going anywhere anytime soon. For this simple reason where are they going to go to that has a facility or city that could feasibly be able to host an OHL club. This debate has been going on for decades around the league about cities.

And out of the very few that could maybe be home to an OHL club in the future they either don't have the facilities to be home to an OHL club or the financial backing to renovate or build a new facility in replace of an already existing center that would need massive renovations and/or upgrades that cities just can't afford to put money into.

 

[OHLFan90]

Same old story just a different city in the mix compared to many others in this league over the years.

Let me be the first to say that the Bulldogs aren't going anywhere anytime soon. For this simple reason where are they going to go to that has a facility or city that could feasibly be able to host an OHL club. This debate has been going on for decades around the league about cities.

And out of the very few that could maybe be home to an OHL club in the future they either don't have the facilities to be home to an OHL club or the financial backing to renovate or build a new facility in replace of an already existing center that would need massive renovations and/or upgrades that cities just can't afford to put money into.

It really isn't the same old story.

It's no secret that F.O.C needs a lot of work done. 27 million dollars worth.

The lines under neat the ice are leaking, a new genrator and a new roof.

City council is in fact being difficult in Hamilton. Hamilton was an awesome time in the playoffs last year, but city council there doesn't care about junior.

If Andlaurer is responsible for those fixes, you can bet you behind that Hamilton is gone. Would be better to look into relocation and fix a smaller arena such as a Cornwall or a Brantford to make it into a better long term solution then to be overpaying for an oversized arena that needs that much work done.

If North bay can be upgraded for $12 million, then arenas in Brantford and Cornwall and I've been in and played in both can be upgraded for around the same price.

Now on the other hand, he likely wont get backing for a new arena no matter what, so if its a deal breaker for him then he might as well just try to find another buyer to keep them in Hamilton.


Downtown hockey arena needs millions in repairs: is it worth it?

 

[BadgerBruce]

I'm not a big Don Barrie fan, but this seems like a good point that could be easily addressed - I'm not sure his solution is necessarily the best one.

"One of the most serious financial obligations facing OHL teams, especially those with smaller rinks and fan bases, is the cost of paying for education packages for their players not going on to professional hockey.

The OHL education policy mandates that all education costs be paid for all players while playing in the OHL. Upon leaving the team, if the player does not sign a professional hockey contract, he is eligible for a scholarship covering tuition, books and compulsory fees, at an approved higher education institute near his home; a year for each year he played.

In the 2016-17 season the 20 OHL teams were paying for 301 graduates attending 57 different educational institutes for a total cost of $3.17 million. Averaged out that means each team had 10 former players they were paying $10,500 each to attend a university.

That obligation increases each year and unfortunately it is not equably spread across the 20 teams. It seems the teams that can most afford it pay the least. The teams with smaller arenas seem to attract fewer of the top professional prospects and thereby end up obligated to pay for more education packages.

This inequity must be addressed by the OHL. One suggestion is that the obligations for education packages be based on teams' attendance figures. Each year the total cost of all the education packages paid out by all the teams would be divided by the OHL attendance totals across the league. That result would be a surcharge each team pays the OHL education fund for each ticket sold in their next season."

To be fair, the section of Don Barrie’s article you quoted is contextualized by the section you did not quote, which is:

The Ontario Hockey League as part of the Canadian Hockey League is arguably one of the better run and progressive hockey leagues anywhere.

It led the way in helmet use, throat protection, anti-hazing, educational packages and player safety. That being said, there are two areas that still need addressing.

Now, I may not be an expert on the history of hockey, but helmet use took a massive step forward after the 1968 death of Minnesota North Stars player Bill Masterton, and the IIHF led the way by making helmets mandatory in 1970. The OHL did not yet even exist as a corporate entity.

Throat protection? In Canada , this was an amateur hockey mandate from Hockey Canada (which does not govern Major Junior Hockey).
The OHL had nothing to do with the nearly universal mandatory neck guard rules at the amateur level — the league didn’t mandate them until 2008, after the Florida Panthers Richard Zednik suffered a horrible laceration that nearly killed him. Hockey Canada had mandated them years before that, though USA Hockey dragged its arse on the issue.

Anti-Hazing? Good Lord, the OHL didn’t even enter the modern world and create a decent policy until 2006, months after the 2005 news about the absurd treatment of Akim Aliu became public knowledge and the Windsor staff got hammered by the league. Damn lucky Aliu refused to sue, which his mother wanted him to do.

I could go on and on — my point is that Barrie totally loses me with the bizarre claims he makes in the opening paragraph, and my inclination to buy everything else he tries to sell is not very strong. Start with ignorance and I’m not expecting accuracy to follow.

For instance, Barrie tells us this:

It seems the teams that can most afford it pay the least. The teams with smaller arenas seem to attract fewer of the top professional prospects and thereby end up obligated to pay for more education packages.

How does he know this? Is there a report somewhere that I’m not aware of that correlates OHL arena size with post-secondary education costs? Is that what he means by “It seems”? Do the Hamilton Bulldogs (largest arena) have the lowest post secondary expenses and the Owen Sound Attack (smallest arena) the highest? Really?

According to Ronald Smith from Smith Forensics, in 2016 the Owen Sound Attack had $182,000 in Booster Club revenue. Smith surmises that the Attack, like a large number of WHL clubs, use this external revenue to fund the team’s scholarship obligations. Similarly, the Peterborough Petes — another “smaller arena” team — use a separate organization, Petes Education Fund Inc. Smith writes: “We do not have any financial statements for this organization and do not know to what extent future scholarship funding obligations have been provided for.”

In other words, in my view Don Barrie is blowing smoke out of his arse and offers no support for his views. He does not even hint that he has reviewed any financial documents.

I need a bit more than this.

 

[EvenSteven]

To be fair, the section of Don Barrie’s article you quoted is contextualized by the section you did not quote, which is:

The Ontario Hockey League as part of the Canadian Hockey League is arguably one of the better run and progressive hockey leagues anywhere.

It led the way in helmet use, throat protection, anti-hazing, educational packages and player safety. That being said, there are two areas that still need addressing.

Now, I may not be an expert on the history of hockey, but helmet use took a massive step forward after the 1968 death of Minnesota North Stars player Bill Masterton, and the IIHF led the way by making helmets mandatory in 1970. The OHL did not yet even exist as a corporate entity.

Throat protection? In Canada , this was an amateur hockey mandate from Hockey Canada (which does not govern Major Junior Hockey).
The OHL had nothing to do with the nearly universal mandatory neck guard rules at the amateur level — the league didn’t mandate them until 2008, after the Florida Panthers Richard Zednik suffered a horrible laceration that nearly killed him. Hockey Canada had mandated them years before that, though USA Hockey dragged its arse on the issue.

Anti-Hazing? Good Lord, the OHL didn’t even enter the modern world and create a decent policy until 2006, months after the 2005 news about the absurd treatment of Akim Aliu became public knowledge and the Windsor staff got hammered by the league. Damn lucky Aliu refused to sue, which his mother wanted him to do.

I could go on and on — my point is that Barrie totally loses me with the bizarre claims he makes in the opening paragraph, and my inclination to buy everything else he tries to sell is not very strong. Start with ignorance and I’m not expecting accuracy to follow.

For instance, Barrie tells us this:

It seems the teams that can most afford it pay the least. The teams with smaller arenas seem to attract fewer of the top professional prospects and thereby end up obligated to pay for more education packages.

How does he know this? Is there a report somewhere that I’m not aware of that correlates OHL arena size with post-secondary education costs? Is that what he means by “It seems”? Do the Hamilton Bulldogs (largest arena) have the lowest post secondary expenses and the Owen Sound Attack (smallest arena) the highest? Really?

According to Ronald Smith from Smith Forensics, in 2016 the Owen Sound Attack had $182,000 in Booster Club revenue. Smith surmises that the Attack, like a large number of WHL clubs, use this external revenue to fund the team’s scholarship obligations. Similarly, the Peterborough Petes — another “smaller arena” team — use a separate organization, Petes Education Fund Inc. Smith writes: “We do not have any financial statements for this organization and do not know to what extent future scholarship funding obligations have been provided for.”

In other words, in my view Don Barrie is blowing smoke out of his arse and offers no support for his views. He does not even hint that he has reviewed any financial documents.

I need a bit more than this.

Further on anti hazing:

The recent hazing incidents in Sarnia that came to light happened a couple years BEFORE the Downie/Aliu stuff in Windsor.

This stuff was brought to Branch's attention and much of the hazing was allowed to go on. The league did virtually nothing regarding this incident.

The Windsor hazing issues likely gets the same treatment that the Sarnia incidents did had it not been publicized. If that practice video of Downie crosschecking Aliu in the teeth isn't televised, it would have been hidden just like in Sarnia.

No black eyes to see here.