three dog night
Registered User
- May 3, 2014
- 5,075
- 1,313
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.OHL still struggling with financial disparity Two years after the 2017 article not much has changed
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.
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’ve always believed this to be the case too, but published details about the Niagara sanctions cast some doubt:A team can carry only 7 enhanced packages.
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’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 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.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.
Huh? Isn't that exactly what Niagara is getting in trouble for? For promising room and board beyond the allowed gold packages?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.
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: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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.