Could this work to bypass the cap?

Status
Not open for further replies.

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
Brewleaguer said:
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.

Then again, as you involve more and more people, the chance for the word to get out gets astronomous.

What if the player leaves your team and then starts yapping about what you did? What if one person out of everyone involved says something that puts the spotlight on your team? Not only could you be liable for fraud, but the punishment will be very harsh for your franchise. Think about the whole backlash.

If you want to elaborate conspiracy theories, why not think about the USA taking over the planet? ;)
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
Brewleaguer said:
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.

Basically, for the non-NHL sponsor to have any interest in doing this, they'll have to receive something from the other party. Otherwise, you're just talking about regular endorsement deals, which I do not think will be prohibited.

The tricky part is that if they receive something from the other party (the owner, the team, etc), then there is a transaction that should be written down in the books, otherwise we come back to this whole discussion.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
The Messenger said:
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 ..

Financial statements have to be audited by independant firms. That's not really the team's accountant. But anyway, yes, any good accountant should be writing down all the transactions, that's his job, even if he's the team's accountant.

Anyway, all the schemes you are talking about are madness. Do you really think that nobody will know? Somehow someone will find out, or a rumor will spread out, be it from the player's girlfriend, friends, other players, etc.

And you're really putting yourself in trouble if you go for that, because you're going to be tied and bound to the player. Next negociations he can ask for $20M and you're forced to give him. Why? Otherwise he'll tell how you did circumvent the CBA and you'll have a hefty fine and penalty in the form of lost rights and draft picks (NBA like hopefully).

And how do you exactly lure players with shady contracts? Don't you think one of the players would say he was approached that way and then the little trick and the owner would be done with?

Anyone that really think mallets full of cash will "lure" players and that it's going to be a way to operate needs to have their head checks.
 

Brewleaguer

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
260
0
Smail said:
Basically, for the non-NHL sponsor to have any interest in doing this, they'll have to receive something from the other party.

Henceforth $1 ad on the dasher board, to be seen on TV 41 times a season. (that’s IF your team owner allows broadcasting of any and all home games..... That leaves Blackhawks out of that scenario. From what I understand Wertz won't televise any home games.

Great for Mike Illish, all Wings games are on the tube.
 

Brewleaguer

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
260
0
Smail said:
Then again, as you involve more and more people, the chance for the word to get out gets astronomous.

What if the player leaves your team and then starts yapping about what you did? What if one person out of everyone involved says something that puts the spotlight on your team? Not only could you be liable for fraud, but the punishment will be very harsh for your franchise. Think about the whole backlash.

If you want to elaborate conspiracy theories, why not think about the USA taking over the planet? ;)

OK just trying to come up with a scenario to beat the cap. If it is illegal to do so then NO.
Back to the drawing board. :)
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
Brewleaguer said:
Henceforth $1 ad on the dasher board, to be seen on TV 41 times a season. (that’s IF your team owner allows broadcasting of any and all home games..... That leaves Blackhawks out of that scenario. From what I understand Wertz won't televise any home games.

Great for Mike Illish, all Wings games are on the tube.

Then though the deal is not at fair value, as I'm sure another would gladly pay more than that for the ad. Even if the monetary transaction is $1, in the books you'd have to write down the fair value and put the spending elsewhere. In essence, this transaction should be recorded as Ad revenues and since the other part is salary to the player, then it should also be recorded as such. Unless you want to fraudulously want to declare something which is not the "true" transaction.

Edit: Basically, if the league is vigilant and if the penalty for going over the cap is really harsh, there won't be no one trying to go over. Similar occurence have been attempted in the NFL and NBA, and were caught and dealt with. It's like playing around with your tax filings. Sure, you can do it, but if they audit you, they'll catch you, there's no ifs. ;)
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Smail said:
Financial statements have to be audited by independant firms. That's not really the team's accountant. But anyway, yes, any good accountant should be writing down all the transactions, that's his job, even if he's the team's accountant.

Anyway, all the schemes you are talking about are madness. Do you really think that nobody will know? Somehow someone will find out, or a rumor will spread out, be it from the player's girlfriend, friends, other players, etc.

And you're really putting yourself in trouble if you go for that, because you're going to be tied and bound to the player. Next negociations he can ask for $20M and you're forced to give him. Why? Otherwise he'll tell how you did circumvent the CBA and you'll have a hefty fine and penalty in the form of lost rights and draft picks (NBA like hopefully).

And how do you exactly lure players with shady contracts? Don't you think one of the players would say he was approached that way and then the little trick and the owner would be done with?

Anyone that really think mallets full of cash will "lure" players and that it's going to be a way to operate needs to have their head checks.
Non Disclosure Agreement .. !!!!!!!!!!!

Why do you see these as shady contracts ??

The likely route is for the team to try to find an endorsement deal for the player in addition to his NHL contract to lure him to the team ?

They are legal .. I was only trying to give examples how big business men have influence in the community to be able to arrange something .. All above board .. its not a crime to let Molson use the owners personal boat to entertain clients as a perk that might persuade.. Some teams own both a NBA and NHL team in the big markets. You could offer a perk to your basketball team that wouldn't show up on your hockey books ..

I thought my perfect example was that the owner agreed that the arena during events would only supply Molson products .. For that Molson gives an endorsement deal to a UFA to get him to come to town. He would also appear at a few Molson events and sign autographs .. There is really nothing wrong with this .. Basically letting your big market influence give you a advantage .. No Cap manipulation no Revenue hiding .. Simply using your power and influence to assist your franchises.

I think people will have to accept these kinds of things will exist.

Heck if I was a small market team I would attempt the same thing to get a UFA to come to town by trying to arrange legally that someone gives him a endorsement deal .. NCAA recruit type strategy to sell the city to the player to want to come here . Creative smaller markets that don't have the money to pay the Star player the big $$$ can get community assistance to lure him there and only have to pay the contract part .. The other company gains as well in advertsing if it can promote him as well.

It doesn't always have to viewed as illegal by all here but good business ..
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
The Messenger said:
Non Disclosure Agreement .. !!!!!!!!!!!

Ahem. When you are conspiring to commit illicit and illegal acts, generally non-disclosure agreements are of little utility to conceal those acts. There is a reason why people involved in criminal conspiracies don't stop while they are planning and say "Whoops!! Has everyone signed off on their NDA??"

Why do you see these as shady contracts ??

Not shady. Illegal. Contracts that will get people sent to jail, instead of mere losses of draft choices or NHL fines ...

The likely route is for the team to try to find an endorsement deal for the player in addition to his NHL contract to lure him to the team ?
That is not what you have been talking about, genius.

They are legal .. I was only trying to give examples how big business men have influence in the community to be able to arrange something .. All above board ..
Son, I would be willing to bet that you do not know, nor have you ever dealt with, anyone of any influence even in the hotbed of commerce known as Kelowna. In my own experience, what you suggest does not happen.

its not a crime to let Molson use the owners personal boat to entertain clients as a perk that might persuade.. Some teams own both a NBA and NHL team in the big markets. You could offer a perk to your basketball team that wouldn't show up on your hockey books ..

Again, you are not talking about that. You have been talking about splitting salaries. The perks you are referencing are of no influence whatsoever to players making millions of dollars. What's more, every NHL owner is pretty flush, and can match what the other guys are offering.

I thought my perfect example was that the owner agreed that the arena during events would only supply Molson products .. For that Molson gives an endorsement deal to a UFA to get him to come to town. He would also appear at a few Molson events and sign autographs .. There is really nothing wrong with this .. Basically letting your big market influence give you a advantage .. No Cap manipulation no Revenue hiding .. Simply using your power and influence to assist your franchises
.

Again, this creates a situation for Molsons where if they record those transactions in the manner suggested, they go to jail.

As well, and read closely - THIS RIPS OFF THE PA!!!!!!!!!

It doesn't always have to viewed as illegal by all here but good business ..
Son I honestly believe you need to get off this kick. It is misleading, illogical and of no value to the discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NYR469

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
5,785
0
Visit site
Jaded-Fan said:
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.

lets be realistic though, the inability to convince guys to sign by throwing piles of $$ at them will only effect big market teams when they are awful (see the rangers) but equal $$ or not, players are still going to sign with the avs, wings, devils, flyers, etc over the caps, pens, canes because those teams give them a better chance to win. the small market teams that are good like tb and calgary will benefit from this big time because they can now offer comparable $$ and a comparable chance to win. and the bad small market teams will still benefit because now the big market teams will only be signing 1 or 2 guys instead of 4-5 which means more guys are available for other teams. but lets not try to make it sound like all of a sudden the top free agents are going to start running to bad teams.

and i also laugh at the idea that those big market teams will all struggle if they have to actually do things smart. lets get real here, besides the rangers who have done everything that could be done wrong wrong, some of the big spenders are the best run organizations, have the best drafts despite picking late in the 1st round, etc.

the payrolls for teams like nj, det and col didn't go up because they went crazy in the free agent market. their payrolls went up because brodeur, stevens, niedermayer, elias, yzerman, fedorov, lidstrom, sakic, foote, etc all earn raises and they had to raise the payroll to keep the team together. well now they won't have to bump niedermayer up to $7 mil to keep him because he won't get that on the market anymore. and who knows if the cap had been around maybe nj would still have holik, arnott and sykora...is that punishing them??

look at the drafts of some of those teams and forcing them to keep those young players isn't exact punishing them, and in some cases those teams would be BETTER had they been forced to build from within the last several years.

and IMO eliminating the pressure from media and fans to go for the quick fix and sign the big names will make life easier for some gms not harder because it'll allow a team like philly to go with kids like carter and pitkanen instead of being pressure to throw a ton of $$ at someone like modano allowing them to do the right thing instead of the 'big splash' move.

yes they won't be able to sign as many guys and yes that gives the other teams a better chance to sign guys, but these teams still can draft and trade as good as any team as well as get first dibs on key guys...if you think that under the new cba suddenly the big market teams will be bad because they can't throw $$ around then you are mistaken.
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
The cap works not only for determining where UFA's will sign, but it will also work to help teams keep their own players. So, even if Nashville still isn't a very viable UFA option for some (debatable), they will have a better chance of keeping what they've started to build in a Predators uniform (i.e. Vokoun, Timonen, etc.). That helps every team.

Sooner or later, players will have to make decisions: Do I stay with my current team because they are contenders (or because I love playing here), or do I seek out the market to see if I can get what I think I deserve somewhere else. That mechanism seems to be better for the league overall than the RFA qualifying offer effect, which ONLY seemed to move salaries up up and away.
 

NYR469

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
5,785
0
Visit site
Jag68Vlady27 said:
The cap works not only for determining where UFA's will sign, but it will also work to help teams keep their own players. So, even if Nashville still isn't a very viable UFA option for some (debatable), they will have a better chance of keeping what they've started to build in a Predators uniform (i.e. Vokoun, Timonen, etc.). That helps every team.

Sooner or later, players will have to make decisions: Do I stay with my current team because they are contenders (or because I love playing here), or do I seek out the market to see if I can get what I think I deserve somewhere else. That mechanism seems to be better for the league overall than the RFA qualifying offer effect, which ONLY seemed to move salaries up up and away.

actually a cap works against keeping teams together...you might be able to delay it a bit longer because salaries won't increase as quickly but eventually you'll hit the limit and will have to get rid of guys...

in a few years when ottawa has to give raises to havlat, hossa, spezza, etc good luck fitting them under the cap...same with tb with lecavalier, richards, st louis, etc.

thats why a dynasty like the patriots is such an impressive feat in the nfl because under the cap you can't keep teams together, you have to let certain guys go for cap reasons.
 

GirardIsStupid

Registered User
Dec 15, 2002
4,518
377
Visit site
NYR469 said:
actually a cap works against keeping teams together...you might be able to delay it a bit longer because salaries won't increase as quickly but eventually you'll hit the limit and will have to get rid of guys...

in a few years when ottawa has to give raises to havlat, hossa, spezza, etc good luck fitting them under the cap...same with tb with lecavalier, richards, st louis, etc.

thats why a dynasty like the patriots is such an impressive feat in the nfl because under the cap you can't keep teams together, you have to let certain guys go for cap reasons.

Wrong! The reasons why the NFL features tremendous player movement is because of the significant revenue sharing that creates an equal playing field. It allows every team to spend up to the cap limit. Small market teams won't be able to do this if they're only getting money from the playoffs and luxury tax. Thus, the large market teams can be capable of keeping their very best talents and attract other star players because this is where the money will be. I would also assume that these large market teams can also afford these players a better opportunity for endorsements, competing for the cup, and more luxuries.

In the long run a cap probably helps the large market teams moreso than the smaller revenue clubs because a cap allows the large market clubs to make 40-50 M (which in turn can be used to buy the greatest minds of the game to coach the team (i.e. Paul Maurice being hired to coach the Leafs minor league team), develop the players, scout around the world etc...). The cap forces the large market teams to become smarter. The only thing a cap does for the small market clubs is that it allows them a better chance to keep their core players and make some money at the same time. The new rumoured CBA decreases the burden on these clubs. But it greatly enhances the ability of the large market teams to produce a winner every year.
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
You are making a lot of assumptions re: revenue sharing before all the details come out, or before the two sides even sign the deal. Under a cap system, teams will still have to get rid of players, but they will more likely have the choice of whom they want to keep and whom they want to dump. The ball is in their court a lot more than before.

And I'd hardly call Paul Maurice one of the "greatest minds in the game". He had a decent run in Carolina, and was fired. Now, he's going to rebuild his reputation in the AHL. It happens all the time. I don't see the correlation between big-market advantages and hiring a Paul Maurice as coach of the AHL Marlies. If he was so sought-after, teams had time to hire him before the lockout launch.

The gap will close with a cap, especially because you can't always change a leopard's spots. Teams that used to rely on free agency will still go that route, whether they improve their scouting and development or not. Money and an open market weren't the only reasons why certain teams spent like drunken sailors. It's because of expectations in certain markets. That won't change. However, now teams that build from within will have a better chance of keeping the core intact...and they can decide which players will be made available to those clubs that like to build through FA. Naturally, teams still have to be smart and let go the right players (and KEEP the right talent), but that will never change no matter the system.
 

Brewleaguer

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
260
0
jericholic19 said:
Wrong! The reasons why the NFL features tremendous player movement is because of the significant revenue sharing that creates an equal playing field. It allows every team to spend up to the cap limit. Small market teams won't be able to do this if they're only getting money from the playoffs and luxury tax. Thus, the large market teams can be capable of keeping their very best talents and attract other star players because this is where the money will be. I would also assume that these large market teams can also afford these players a better opportunity for endorsements, competing for the cup, and more luxuries.

In the long run a cap probably helps the large market teams moreso than the smaller revenue clubs because a cap allows the large market clubs to make 40-50 M (which in turn can be used to buy the greatest minds of the game to coach the team..... .

IMO the NFL cap systems as only shifted the playing field, what has happened to the 49er's, Cowboys, Redskins, Broncos? Those were big strong teams and the cap dramatically weaken those teams and shifted it to other markets. Yes helping other franchises, weakening others and keeping most at the same level.
You will see this in the NHL.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Brewleaguer said:
IMO the NFL cap systems as only shifted the playing field, what has happened to the 49er's, Cowboys, Redskins, Broncos? Those were big strong teams and the cap dramatically weaken those teams and shifted it to other markets. Yes helping other franchises, weakening others and keeping most at the same level.
You will see this in the NHL.

But some of those cap wounds were self inflicted - the Cowboys and especially the 49ers. They tried to game the system, huge signing bonuses and backloaded contracts to make final grasps for glory. As a result they ended up with huge amounts of dead cap space (monies being paid to players no longer on the team, but still counted under the cap) and became pretty bad teams. They give a pretty good object lesson of what NOT to do under a cap system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->