Could this work to bypass the cap?

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by Gary
A team could have a very legit chance at a cup every 3 years if they used this system. Just imagine-Boston for example (Cause I know more of them then other teams) signed Thornton for $10 mill and 2 more seasons at $1 mill. Then they signed Samsonov for $6 mill and 2 more seasons at $1 mill. Boynton $6 mill and 2 more at $1 mill, Rayzor at $6 mill and 2 more seasons at $1 mill...that's 28 million in 4 players, and use kids for the rest. Next year sign another 4 star players the same way and by year 3 you'd have 8 star players making $8 million and you could afford to have a dynasty-type team for 1 season. Interesting post fisher.

Your numbers aren't really good though.

First, your 4 players for 28 million leave about 7 million for the other 20 players (average of $350k each). This means you pay the rest of your team the league minimum, which is not possible in real life. As well, on the 4th year, you're going to run into major problems since you're probably not going to have room to do the same thing over again (since with your acquisitions, your average salary for the other players won't be $350k each). Add to this if you do that you can't trade those players (otherwise you have paid the bulk of the contract for nothing). Plus, you don't form a "dynasty-type" team over 1 season. Adding a ton of talent in 1 year is a recipe for disaster.

Another problem with these type of schemes - getting the players to go along. If you're Joe Thornton would you risk playing on what would effectively be an AHL team for a risky improved chance for a cup, when the downside is that at the end of it you're an RFA with a $1M QO instead of a $3M one.

Yes there will be some front loading and back loading of contracts, but both come with extreme risks - front load and have a major injury in year 2, back load and risk having to blow up your team to fit it in or face an impossible QO after the fact.

A lot of salary cap roulette goes on in the NFL - deferred bonus money going to dead cap space, a dependence on ever increasing revenues and cap limits to fit in back loaded contracts, etc.

There are fewer cap machinations in the NBA because of all the exceptions - get under the cap for the first year and you can get 12% raises every year even if over the cap, Larry Bird exceptions, etc.

If you want to gamble and go for it in one year (and live with the consequences later) there are less risky plays than your Joe Thornton and an AHL team scheme - backload contracts and worry about the consequences later or sign a UFA to a multi year deal with the intention of buying him out after a year (you get a star cheap for one year and pay his buyout against the cap over 2x his contract duration), etc.

There are many ways to play with a salary cap, and many ways to get burned - just ask the 9ers.

 

[Mess]

Once again, no money needs to be exchanged for accounting entries to be written down. It's the value that's important. Whatever privilege is given has a monetary value, which means whatever privilege received also has a monetary value.

If I was your accountant, I would register all the transactions you've written about. They affect the value, the profits of the business.

I agree that this is a mostly recent change, but accounting is now about market value of privilege or service rendered rather than monetary compensation given.

As well, in modern accounting, you record the "essence" of a transaction. You need to verify the purpose of a transaction. For example, why was this privilege given? What did the company receive from it? What the company received will be put with a market value in the books, regardless of any money really transfered.

The idea is to keep it out of the books not in them ..

How would you record exclusive rights to sell Molson product in the Arena or Coke a Cola etc .. ??

This item has Zero monetary value ..

You are not going to print a detailed GL for the year and send it to the NHL at Year end ..

Not sure what you are trying to say here .. when the pupose is to avoid a paper trail ..

Do you honestly believe that an owner walks into the Accounting Department each day and lets the accountant know of all handshake deals he made, or the personal conversations he had with sponsors or other business associates.

 

[GSC2k2*]

The NFL CBA defines affiliate as " (d)"Club Affiliate" or "Team Affiliate" means any entity or person owned by (wholly or partly), controlled by, affiliated with, or related to a Club or any owner of a Club."

You may be right, but I'm taking the terms "affiliated with" or "related to" to include business partners and other interests that have a fiduciary interest in the franchise.

Well, legally that is an incorrect interpretation.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Another twist to his idea (which I think has pretty good merit) is this.

You have team X, player Y, and sports sponsors Z (Non NHL sponsor)

Team owner X wants player Y, but doesn’t have enough headroom in a cap system (above a certain amount). Lets say they only have $3M available but player/agent wants $4M, they settle at $3.5M
Calls upon Sponsor Z and gives them a $1 ad space each year in the arena for the duration of a contract agreement, in turn asking sponsor Z to hire player Y as a business consultant to sponsor Z business. (lets say honorary position) paying player Y 500K as the sponsors consultant. Perfectly legal, and what’s there to hide if it is not apart of operating rules set forth by the NHL

Well, that would be an excellent scheme but for the fact that it is in fact illegal. That sponsor would be making entries in its fiancial records which are fraudulent, which would get the executives of the sponsor in trouble for certifying incorrect books. Plus, as another poster noted, it would be denying the union revenue in respect of which it is entitled to 54%.

 

[GSC2k2*]

The idea is to keep it out of the books not in them ..

How would you record exclusive rights to sell Molson product in the Arena or Coke a Cola etc .. ??

This item has Zero monetary value ..

You are not going to print a detailed GL for the year and send it to the NHL at Year end ..

Not sure what you are trying to say here .. when the pupose is to avoid a paper trail ..

Do you honestly believe that an owner walks into the Accounting Department each day and lets the accountant know of all handshake deals he made, or the personal conversations he had with sponsors or other business associates.

Yikes.

If you really are an accountant, and you render advice to your clients in the manner you proposed, you might consider retaining counsel.

Exclusive rights to sell a product in an arena most certainly does have a monetary value. As soon as the CFO determines that this arrangemtn is in place, he is hauling a** to determine a value and entering it as a transaction. When his accountants audit the financial records at year end, this is (as you must surely know IF you have any accounting training) a giant red flag.

IF you are an accountant, stop trolling with this nonsense. If you are NOT, stop talking about fictional scenarios on which you have no basis of knowledge to opine.

 

[SuperUnknown]

The idea is to keep it out of the books not in them ..

How would you record exclusive rights to sell Molson product in the Arena or Coke a Cola etc .. ??

This item has Zero monetary value ..

You are not going to print a detailed GL for the year and send it to the NHL at Year end ..

Not sure what you are trying to say here .. when the pupose is to avoid a paper trail ..

Do you honestly believe that an owner walks into the Accounting Department each day and lets the accountant know of all handshake deals he made, or the personal conversations he had with sponsors or other business associates.

You certainly don't know much about accounting... If I'm doing a verification job, you better tell me how come Molson has exclusive rights in the rink (and no, I'm not gullible, you'll have to come forward with documents about how it was attributed). Everything has a monetary value. You can compare with similar exclusive deals (universities, etc) and get a value for it.

You all seem to think it's easy to "hide" revenues (or anything else), but really it's a lot tougher than you think, especially since the accounting norms are cracking down heavily on the methods that were used in the past.

For example, if you're a company and you give out options, you're most likely going to have to write it down as salary in your books, even though you didn't give a paycheck. If instead of receiving sponsorship an employee of the company is giving a "job", it should be written down as a revenue and a salary being paid, even though no money moved within the company. That's what is called accounting (as in being accountable), it's not merely tracking down money going in and out.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Well, legally that is an incorrect interpretation.

In contracts though, can't the two parties define the terms as they see fit? (Ie: couldn't the NFL and NFLPA determine that for the contract, an affiliate is "insert their own definition")

 

[GSC2k2*]

In contracts though, can't the two parties define the terms as they see fit? (Ie: couldn't the NFL and NFLPA determine that for the contract, an affiliate is "insert their own definition")

Yes, that is true, they can; however, "affiliate" is given its regular meaning unless the agreement otherwise expressly so states. "Affiliate" is a term that is actually used statutorily in just about every jurisdiction's incorporation statutes (i.e., the OBCA in Ontario). It is universally centred around control.

 

[me2]

This is going to only be used for the multi million dollar type players, not the 4 liners. As soon as they realize they are getting the ass end of this deal and not the stars then the better off they will be. I'm just saying that a team like the Leafs, Avs, Rangers etc would be able to still shop for the star players. Where it blows up is if that star gets injured and you have to think they are going to allow injury exceptions to the cap

Or the star gets injured and goes from Lindros 1996 to Lindros 2003. Or blows his knees out and goes from 60 goals a year to 20 goals a year. It is their 10 year contract and 10 year risk. If the player maintains health and form then they come out ahead, if not they could be in lottery pick territory for a long time.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

Face it. The bigger markets will still have an edge, a slight edge. But in the scheme of things the new NHL will be about your front office and how good a job that it does, as well as a bit of luck thrown in. Those advantages that the big markets still have are really hamstrung in a league where no team can outspend another by more than 50%. The lowest aggregate salaried team in the entire league will still have 2/3 of the salary of the highest. No, in this environment the big markets will be very very hard pressed to compete without a good dose of smarts, the smallest markets can easily win any given year. Face it, those are the facts.

Do you work in the new NHL or are you just ASSUMING?



3 Million to play for the former Murder Capital Capitals
1.5 Million to play for the Toronto Maple Leafs

Average Canadian hockey player who grew up watching hockey night in Canada will take the smaller dough to be near their family just about everytime. Add to it an original 6 team and NOW with the bonus of a top notch scouting and coaching staff where hockey is number 1 and hockey endorsements actually happen.

Hell I could even go further and say if players now get to choose where they play at 28 or whatever, markets like Washington and Buffalo will be in BIG trouble. Because seriously, who would really want to live there out of choice?

On the other hand cities like Tampa Bay and L.A. will even be more attractive, not to mention any of the 6 Canadian cities.

The change is instead of going where the money is, since players will now be limited in thier overall pay, they will go to somewhere that is attractive to them in some way. And unless there is a whole hell of alot of college kids playing in Maryland, I just don't see players lining up to play in Washington.

This is not the NFL or the NBA there are teams out there that will struggle to break even with a 25 million dollar payroll and there will be teams making 30 to 40 million dollars with a 36 million dollar payroll. Equality is a nice thought, but not realistic under any CBA in the NHL. The big market teams will stay big market desireable locals and the small markets will be exactly that small markets.

The only advantage to the smaller market teams is they might have a few extra seasons to build up a fanbase, because eventually the bigger market teams will get sick of supporting the weak sisters, especially the ones with a small fan base.

So as a Leaf fan I'm thrilled there is a salary cap, it won't hurt us getting players as over the past few seasons (and now in the off season) players have hinted they will play in Toronto for less. Not to mention instead of paying bums like Domi 2 million we can spend that money hiring NHL coaches for our farm team and improving the overall product on and off the ice.

In closing the Hard cap will help some teams remain afloat for a while, but it won't instantly turn teams into contenders as the UFA will be lowered which could cause some players in thier primes to leave. I'd be shocked under a hard cap if the Montreal Canadians don't have another dynasty considering 95% of french players would play there for peanuts if given the chance. So Carolina, Washington and Pittsburgh, you might not lose as much money....but if anything you are further away from being a contender

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

Another problem with these type of schemes - getting the players to go along. If you're Joe Thornton would you risk playing on what would effectively be an AHL team for a risky improved chance for a cup, when the downside is that at the end of it you're an RFA with a $1M QO instead of a $3M one.

Yes there will be some front loading and back loading of contracts, but both come with extreme risks - front load and have a major injury in year 2, back load and risk having to blow up your team to fit it in or face an impossible QO after the fact.

A lot of salary cap roulette goes on in the NFL - deferred bonus money going to dead cap space, a dependence on ever increasing revenues and cap limits to fit in back loaded contracts, etc.

There are fewer cap machinations in the NBA because of all the exceptions - get under the cap for the first year and you can get 12% raises every year even if over the cap, Larry Bird exceptions, etc.

If you want to gamble and go for it in one year (and live with the consequences later) there are less risky plays than your Joe Thornton and an AHL team scheme - backload contracts and worry about the consequences later or sign a UFA to a multi year deal with the intention of buying him out after a year (you get a star cheap for one year and pay his buyout against the cap over 2x his contract duration), etc.

There are many ways to play with a salary cap, and many ways to get burned - just ask the 9ers.

I think we will see alot of renegotiated contracts with players that want to stay in a city of choice. Add 1 or 2 years to a contract lowers the per year cap factor.

So say player A is making 4 million in 2005 and 5 million in 2006, renegotiate a 3 year 9 million dollar contract. Players usually want stability especially ones with young families and you have turned 4 and 5 million dollars into 3 against the cap. Sure you have to pay them for an extra year, but wouldn't the replacement generally cost 75% of the salary anyways?

 

[Brewleaguer]

Well, that would be an excellent scheme but for the fact that it is in fact illegal. That sponsor would be making entries in its fiancial records which are fraudulent, which would get the executives of the sponsor in trouble for certifying incorrect books. Plus, as another poster noted, it would be denying the union revenue in respect of which it is entitled to 54%.

How could that be illegal if the sponsor actually took the steps to hire the player as a consultant, file his paperwork, paid him as employee & paid his taxes. It's up to the sponsor to choose whether he actually did any work. Maybe the player could do some consulting, once a month, in the off season, if it would satisfy any federal laws then.
And the union is only entitled to 54% of league revenues, not revenues from a sole and separate entity.

Anyways, just a thought, if there is a will, there is a way.

 

[djhn579]

Do you work in the new NHL or are you just ASSUMING?



3 Million to play for the former Murder Capital Capitals
1.5 Million to play for the Toronto Maple Leafs

Average Canadian hockey player who grew up watching hockey night in Canada will take the smaller dough to be near their family just about everytime. Add to it an original 6 team and NOW with the bonus of a top notch scouting and coaching staff where hockey is number 1 and hockey endorsements actually happen.

Hell I could even go further and say if players now get to choose where they play at 28 or whatever, markets like Washington and Buffalo will be in BIG trouble. Because seriously, who would really want to live there out of choice?

On the other hand cities like Tampa Bay and L.A. will even be more attractive, not to mention any of the 6 Canadian cities.

The change is instead of going where the money is, since players will now be limited in thier overall pay, they will go to somewhere that is attractive to them in some way. And unless there is a whole hell of alot of college kids playing in Maryland, I just don't see players lining up to play in Washington.

This is not the NFL or the NBA there are teams out there that will struggle to break even with a 25 million dollar payroll and there will be teams making 30 to 40 million dollars with a 36 million dollar payroll. Equality is a nice thought, but not realistic under any CBA in the NHL. The big market teams will stay big market desireable locals and the small markets will be exactly that small markets.

The only advantage to the smaller market teams is they might have a few extra seasons to build up a fanbase, because eventually the bigger market teams will get sick of supporting the weak sisters, especially the ones with a small fan base.

So as a Leaf fan I'm thrilled there is a salary cap, it won't hurt us getting players as over the past few seasons (and now in the off season) players have hinted they will play in Toronto for less. Not to mention instead of paying bums like Domi 2 million we can spend that money hiring NHL coaches for our farm team and improving the overall product on and off the ice.

In closing the Hard cap will help some teams remain afloat for a while, but it won't instantly turn teams into contenders as the UFA will be lowered which could cause some players in thier primes to leave. I'd be shocked under a hard cap if the Montreal Canadians don't have another dynasty considering 95% of french players would play there for peanuts if given the chance. So Carolina, Washington and Pittsburgh, you might not lose as much money....but if anything you are further away from being a contender

Being from Buffalo, that's pretty harsh, but I can see your point. Who would want to live in Buffalo if they had a choice? Scotty Bowman has he lived ever since he coached here years ago in Amherst, NY. Peca wouldn't want to live here in Clarence, NY in the off season either. There are other former hockey players that have made their home here as well, but Bowman and Peca are the only ones I can remember off the top of my head.

I think your putting too much faith in thinking that players are going to be willing to accept less to play near their homes. That certainly doesn't happen very often in any other sport.

Some players will certainly want to play for their home town or an original six team, but most players once they get to be free agents will be looking for where they can make the most money and where they could get the most ice time.



But that is just my opinion...

 

[SuperUnknown]

How could that be illegal if the sponsor actually took the steps to hire the player as a consultant, file his paperwork, paid him as employee & paid his taxes. It's up to the sponsor to choose whether he actually did any work. Maybe the player could do some consulting, once a month, in the off season, if it would satisfy any federal laws then.
And the union is only entitled to 54% of league revenues, not revenues from a sole and separate entity.

Anyways, just a thought, if there is a will, there is a way.

What wouldn't work is the sponsorship wouldn't be sold at fair value (but at a reduction to pay the player).

 

[GSC2k2*]

How could that be illegal if the sponsor actually took the steps to hire the player as a consultant, file his paperwork, paid him as employee & paid his taxes. It's up to the sponsor to choose whether he actually did any work. Maybe the player could do some consulting, once a month, in the off season, if it would satisfy any federal laws then.
And the union is only entitled to 54% of league revenues, not revenues from a sole and separate entity.

Anyways, just a thought, if there is a will, there is a way.

Smail addresses this point in part above. When you acquire a service, you must record the essence of the transaction in the books. You cannot simply ascribe whatever value to it that you wish if you are entering into simultaneous transaction with a party under accounting rules. In recent years, legislation has been enacted making it a federal offence for company executives to sign off on company books which contain fraudulent entries of the type you mention.

You obviously misunderstand the revenue aspect I was tryig to explain. If a sponsor pays a player directly instead of payig the team who then pays the player, it reduces league revenue by the amount funnelled directly to the player.

 

[Brewleaguer]

What wouldn't work is the sponsorship wouldn't be sold at fair value (but at a reduction to pay the player).

But is that a crime, who sets the ads fair value, the league, owner, Government?

 

[Mess]

But is that a crime, who sets the ads fair value, the league, owner, Government?

There is no set price for sponsorship .. and every sponsor could invest more in the NHL depending on what it expects to receive for it in return .. That just can't police that ..

I predict that endorsment deals are going to be one way that teams near the cap and thinking they are in Cup contention might do it ..

You are going to see all sorts of creative stuff first ..front load .. back loaded .. contracts with deferred money that will cost a team in the future but not today.

Their is a rumour that injured players count towards the cap ... I was thinking Cap room permitting if you lost a Big Star to a season long injury and he was not replaceable via UFA talent available .. you could restructure some of your other players under contract so the they would now get more money in this current year and that would save even more money for Cap room in the next season. Basically writing off the current year in for the good of next season..

 

[Brewleaguer]

Smail addresses this point in part above. When you acquire a service, you must record the essence of the transaction in the books. You cannot simply ascribe whatever value to it that you wish if you are entering into simultaneous transaction with a party under accounting rules. In recent years, legislation has been enacted making it a federal offence for company executives to sign off on company books which contain fraudulent entries of the type you mention.

You obviously misunderstand the revenue aspect I was tryig to explain. If a sponsor pays a player directly instead of payig the team who then pays the player, it reduces league revenue by the amount funnelled directly to the player.

OK with regards to recording the essence of the transaction in the books.
Record the ad fee as a cost for advertisement. Record the salary of the player (as a sole-entrepreneur) as cost of labor or services rendered.
It doesn't have to be a simultaneous transaction…. IMO. If I am wrong, OK, I'll come up with something else.
But that’s why I said 'hire the player as a consultant, file his paperwork, paid him as employee & paid his taxes.' why can't you show on the books that there is no correlation between the Ad fee and hiring a player (once again) as a sole- entrepreneur.
I get the revenue reduction point you are making now. So you spread the cost that normally the Sponsor would have to pay for the ad across the board of those sponsors who wish not to work their ad dollars in that manner.

 

[NYR469]

Just wondering. Whenever the CBA is signed, teams will be looking at any loophole they can to gain an advantage over the other teams.

Could this example work? Detroit is in huge cap trouble and Yzerman is a UFA and has expressed an interest in coming back for one more year. So the Wings sign him for one year at the league minimum ($300,000 right?). They also have an agreement that when he retires and joins management in say scouting they will pay him $3 million for that year to be a scout.

Anyone have any other ideas on how teams might get around the cap?

first off no one can determine what might or might not be ok without knowing the details of the cap and how contracts are counted. are they going by average salary or can you backload and make it count less in the 1st year?? what about signing bonuses?? what about defered $$?? what about incentives?? all factors that we don't officially know yet...

odds are there will be some unknown loophole that teams will eventually find but who knows what that might be.

as for your example, i don't see how the cap could prevent something like that unless it was written into the player contract that he would be a scout. after yzerman retires the wings could hire him to do any job they want and pay him anything they want and its no longer a player salary. i don't see how hiring him as a scout could be viewed any different than hiring any other scout as far as the cap goes.

now if the contract said he gets $500k for the season and then an additional $3 mil upon retirement then it might be an issue and they might use the average salary to say thats a $3.5 mil contract because he wouldn't be doing anything to earn that additional $$.

 

[Mess]

You certainly don't know much about accounting... If I'm doing a verification job, you better tell me how come Molson has exclusive rights in the rink (and no, I'm not gullible, you'll have to come forward with documents about how it was attributed). Everything has a monetary value. You can compare with similar exclusive deals (universities, etc) and get a value for it..

So you're suggesting that the accountant employed by the team is responsible for policing the Owners and everything they do .. ??

How long do you believe you will be employed if you think you have the right to all the Owners personal info .. ?? If you are the CFO you might be privy to a bit more but a pencil pusher .. Please there is the door don't let it hit you on the way out.

So you think the accountants that Bill Wirtz hires keeps the owner honest.. He likely has is cousin Guido doing the books. His son doing the A/R collections (if you know what I mean). His wife is in charge of the paper shredder and the whole family refers to him affectionately as "The God Father" of the Hawks .

I don't think that these end-arounds with be "HIDING REVENUE" issues as much as Hard Cap manipulations attempts ..

Hiding revenue would be something the NHLPA would be concerned over as it effects the league wide CAP for all players .. However Hard Cap end-arounds that do not effect revenue figures are in FAVOUR of the NHLPA .. SO why are they going to ask for the league to investigate .. This would have to come from another owner perhaps and then we are not sure if the CBA will have anything in it as to the route another team can take..

HYPOTHETICAL .. The Owner comes to the accountant and shows the accountant that the BOG have approved a $2 mil increase in his Salary for the coming year and provides you with the paper work to prove it. The owner then in the off season finds a convenient way to get that money into the hands of a UFA to lure him to your team (lets call it a relocating bonus) while his Salary and player contract that is filed with the league would never show that payment.

The league is not going to or be allowed to audit the owners personal income tax return .. No hiding Revenue here and the league has no right to question how an owner spends his money outside of Hockey ..

 

[Brewleaguer]

There is no set price for sponsorship .. and every sponsor could invest more in the NHL depending on what it expects to receive for it in return .. That just can't police that ..

I predict that endorsment deals are going to be one way that teams near the cap and thinking they are in Cup contention might do it ..

You are going to see all sorts of creative stuff first ..front load .. back loaded .. contracts with deferred money that will cost a team in the future but not today.

Their is a rumour that injured players count towards the cap ... I was thinking Cap room permitting if you lost a Big Star to a season long injury and he was not replaceable via UFA talent available .. you could restructure some of your other players under contract so the they would now get more money in this current year and that would save even more money for Cap room in the next season. Basically writing off the current year in for the good of next season..

Yeah this should be interesting to see how this all can be accomplished.

As for the injured players $ counting towards the cap. I would think that in a contract, if you are injured, you get a reduced set amount of your $'s, the remaining should be able to go to picking up a replacement player.
I guess we'll have to see how that really comes out in the agreement.

 

[GSC2k2*]

But is that a crime, who sets the ads fair value, the league, owner, Government?

Witohut getting much more into the technicalities of it, because I am not here to give extended lectures on the law for free, the short answer to "is that a crime" is "yes".

AS to who sets fair value, that is determined on a routine basis in the course of audits.

Keep in mind that, as you get further along into these hypotheticals, ask yourself "Why in God's name would a sponsor even wish to get involved in this?" You mention in another post about a sponsor wanting to structure his deal like this. A sponsor has zero interest in "structuring" his deal. THere is nothing in it for him. WEighed against the legal and accounting consequences, it is a no-go.

 

[SuperUnknown]

But is that a crime, who sets the ads fair value, the league, owner, Government?

Well if they agree on revenue sharing (% going to players) which includes sponsorship, then deriving money to reduce revenues could be a crime.

Other than that, doing a transaction which is not at fair value in the business world is a big no no. For tax purposes if they audit you they could file fraud charges against you. (btw I'm talking about writing down the transaction in the books at fair value)

As to who sets the fair value, well it's possible to find a pretty narrow ballpark about pretty much everything as to their fair value. There is methodology to find the fair value of a transaction.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Their is a rumour that injured players count towards the cap ... I was thinking Cap room permitting if you lost a Big Star to a season long injury and he was not replaceable via UFA talent available .. you could restructure some of your other players under contract so the they would now get more money in this current year and that would save even more money for Cap room in the next season. Basically writing off the current year in for the good of next season..

Then again, maybe there's a provision that the player you call up isn't counted in the salary cap?

 

[Brewleaguer]

Well if they agree on revenue sharing (% going to players) which includes sponsorship, then deriving money to reduce revenues could be a crime.

OK maybe I am not getting my point across. As stated in my original post this would be a non-NHL sponsor... what I meant by this is a local or regional company wishing to invest their local ad dollars in another manner.