Financial Health of the HFNHL; Revenue Generation by the numbers

[Canuck09]

But one idea I've been thinking is each team gets 1-3 discounts to apply each year to new deals in re-signing existing players against the auto-sign, similar to the loyalty factor we've applied for players. Something like one 15% discount and one 30% discount for a couple of guys as a consideration of using a franchise's good will, so you could get a deal or two at a discount each year, at the judgement of the GM. Something to consider.

I think Hasnain mentioned this idea in the chat and I don't think it will help. All it will do is allow people to spend more money on mediocre UFA's during FA. People will spend cap space if it's there to spend. Maybe not up to the cap ceiling, but up to their internal budgets. It might as well go to the players that deserve it rather than scrubs.

The issue is a revenue one, I don't think we need to stray too far away from that.

 

[kasper11]

I still think auto-sign is an absolute must from a logistical standpoint (agents) for many reasons, but having different rules in place to go along with this auto-sign deal might also help. People forget that auto-sign can also be a really GOOD thing, when an NHL team signs a player to a long-term deal BEFORE their play improves. Our autosign can also save you $3-6 million on rookie deals, as I've been paying Jordan Eberle for top line production for 3 years at $850k. Rookie deals in the NHL routinely pay top guys $3M-$4M with bonuses. But one idea I've been thinking is each team gets 1-3 discounts to apply each year to new deals in re-signing existing players against the auto-sign, similar to the loyalty factor we've applied for players. Something like one 15% discount and one 30% discount for a couple of guys as a consideration of using a franchise's good will, so you could get a deal or two at a discount each year, at the judgement of the GM. Something to consider.

I don't want to turn this into a debate on auto-sign (well, kinda, but not really), but my point about auto-sign wasn't that the deals are too expensive. It is the exact opposite, it is too easy to re-sign your players to below market-value deals, thus creating a free agent market that is completely devoid of talent.

To give two examples from my own team,
John Tavares signed a deal with the Isles before last season. At the time, he was coming off of a 67 point season. He had 81 points last season and is at a pace for about 90 this year. I think it is pretty safe to say his value has gone up. But, I still get to sign him for the same price the Isles did two years ago. True he would only be an RFA, but the same holds true for UFAs.

PA Parenteau signed with the Avs last year for $4.0M when nobody knew how he would play without Tavares. He is over a ppg this year. If he can repeat that next year, he would probably be a $6-7M player on the open market. BUT, he will never hit the market in our league because I can re-sign him for 2 additional years at $4.5M (his salary in our league).

________________________________________

Now, how I think this all impacts the discussion at hand....while salaries as a whole may not jump as a result of auto-signings, by taking a lot of the top talent off of the market, the have-nots are forced to pay exorbitant prices for mediocre talent if they want to improve their team through the UFA market. Either that, or be forced to give up top young talent.

Say Matt trades away all of his veteran talent and decides to completely rebuild the Flames. He gets a bunch of good young players, and three years from now thinks that his team is ready to compete with a couple of key additions. Now what? He can't get that talent through the free agent market, and can't afford to trade away his young, cheap talent without jeopardizing the finances of his team.

I think we have pretty much killed the free agent market the past few years. There are no Parise or Suters in our league. There is more activity in the undrafted FA market than the regular market.

Sorry, end rant.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I don't want to turn this into a debate on auto-sign (well, kinda, but not really), but my point about auto-sign wasn't that the deals are too expensive. It is the exact opposite, it is too easy to re-sign your players to below market-value deals, thus creating a free agent market that is completely devoid of talent.

To give two examples from my own team,
John Tavares signed a deal with the Isles before last season. At the time, he was coming off of a 67 point season. He had 81 points last season and is at a pace for about 90 this year. I think it is pretty safe to say his value has gone up. But, I still get to sign him for the same price the Isles did two years ago. True he would only be an RFA, but the same holds true for UFAs.

PA Parenteau signed with the Avs last year for $4.0M when nobody knew how he would play without Tavares. He is over a ppg this year. If he can repeat that next year, he would probably be a $6-7M player on the open market. BUT, he will never hit the market in our league because I can re-sign him for 2 additional years at $4.5M (his salary in our league).

________________________________________

Now, how I think this all impacts the discussion at hand....while salaries as a whole may not jump as a result of auto-signings, by taking a lot of the top talent off of the market, the have-nots are forced to pay exorbitant prices for mediocre talent if they want to improve their team through the UFA market. Either that, or be forced to give up top young talent.

Say Matt trades away all of his veteran talent and decides to completely rebuild the Flames. He gets a bunch of good young players, and three years from now thinks that his team is ready to compete with a couple of key additions. Now what? He can't get that talent through the free agent market, and can't afford to trade away his young, cheap talent without jeopardizing the finances of his team.

I think we have pretty much killed the free agent market the past few years. There are no Parise or Suters in our league. There is more activity in the undrafted FA market than the regular market.

Sorry, end rant.

I agree with you, but this is what GM's wanted. Many threaten every year to quit the entire league if they can't re-sign their players because of the demands of agents (despite the auto-sign rules meant to remove this animosity), and even the teams who are near broke, still use auto-sign to re-sign their expensive guys despite their financial situation. We are basically a league of GM's who refuse to let pretty much anyone walk for free, and the rules have moved more in this direction, rather than away from it. Teams would basically rather go broke, rather than let guys walk, as such, we have a bunch of teams going broke with no owners behind the GM to hold them accountable.

Sorry, end of my rant

 

[Canuck09]

I agree with you, but this is what GM's wanted. Many threaten every year to quit the entire league if they can't re-sign their players because of the demands of agents (despite the auto-sign rules meant to remove this animosity), and even the teams who are near broke, still use auto-sign to re-sign their expensive guys despite their financial situation. We are basically a league of GM's who refuse to let pretty much anyone walk for free, and the rules have moved more in this direction, rather than away from it. Teams would basically rather go broke, rather than let guys walk, as such, we have a bunch of teams going broke with no owners behind the GM to hold them accountable.

Sorry, end of my rant

We're going broke because of the broken revenues that don't allow us to keep our teams together.

If the teams stuck near the bottom are forced to walk away from good players every year the teams near the top (like yours) will continue to get stronger, continue to make the playoffs, continue to generate more money and the gap between the haves and have nots will continue to grow.

If the revenues are fixed the complaining about paying NHL contracts will start to go away(does this even happen? I can't recall any). The people who overspend in FA have nothing to complain about because they chose to do so, but retaining our good players at a moderate total payroll should not result in going broke like it does now.

 

[Dryden]

We're going broke because of the broken revenues that don't allow us to keep our teams together.

If the teams stuck near the bottom are forced to walk away from good players every year the teams near the top (like yours) will continue to get stronger, continue to make the playoffs, continue to generate more money and the gap between the haves and have nots will continue to grow.

If the revenues are fixed the complaining about paying NHL contracts will start to go away(does this even happen? I can't recall any). The people who overspend in FA have nothing to complain about because they chose to do so, but retaining our good players at a moderate total payroll should not result in going broke like it does now.

There's no point in all this. The have's really don't care nor will they change a system that they don't see as broken because it doesn't affect them.

The have nots, well it's their fault because they are stupid gm's who do everything wrong and it's no one else to blame.

It has nothing to do with having increases in expenses on a yearly basis with a revenue stream that goes nowhere near matching expenses. If i were an owner you'd all be fired every last one of you. This is a business and not one person in here can tell me that this model works.

So, raise the slider and increase revenue or spend more time sitting here chatting like a bunch of girls. Men do women talk. sheesh.

 

[Canuck09]

So, raise the slider and increase revenue or spend more time sitting here chatting like a bunch of girls. Men do women talk. sheesh.

It really should be that simple. Raise the slider a reasonable level, either do away with endorsements or lower them so they don't mean as much and continue on our way. All the other stuff is busy work and a waste of time.

 

[kasper11]

There's no point in all this. The have's really don't care nor will they change a system that they don't see as broken because it doesn't affect them.

The have nots, well it's their fault because they are stupid gm's who do everything wrong and it's no one else to blame.

It has nothing to do with having increases in expenses on a yearly basis with a revenue stream that goes nowhere near matching expenses. If i were an owner you'd all be fired every last one of you. This is a business and not one person in here can tell me that this model works.

So, raise the slider and increase revenue or spend more time sitting here chatting like a bunch of girls. Men do women talk. sheesh.

ummm....the only have to weigh in on the issue, Nick, seemed to be for it. Between the boards and Whatsapp, I don't think I have seen anyone saying "do nothing" right now. I think the only real question would be how much to slide it, and I think Matt's proposal of average revenue being $50M is pretty much dead on. But, if anyone feels differently, speak.

In all fairness, there is another proposal being put forth by Adil that would link revenue with success.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

It really should be that simple. Raise the slider a reasonable level, either do away with endorsements or lower them so they don't mean as much and continue on our way. All the other stuff is busy work and a waste of time.

I agree.

Of course, my bet is the "have nots" just spend the extra $'s on something dumb and are broke again in a year and will be back claiming the system is still broken.



Kidding, people, kidding...

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

The one thing I do recall, is that evidently the slider just increases the % of revenue, which makes sense, but ends up benefitting the rich teams more. Might not be the case anymore, but I seem to recall that happening in some test seasons a while back, likely in a different version of the sim. That might have been FHL v STHL though.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

My suggestion was a bandaid to help conservative teams not go bankrupt.

Teams with less than 50m payroll and less than 10m in bank should get a top up at the beginning of season to 10m.

Teams that want to go crazy with bad contracts, can suffer their own fate.

Until we get an App based SIM that solves this issue and world peace at the same time at least.

 

[The old geezer]

I've twice written repsonses and twice deleted them ... maybe I'll actually hit the 'submit' button this time

I will also keep my responses to my team where ever possible.

Dryden to your point about some us not wanting to change b/c we don't see it as broken you're right. At least in my case. The system is not perfect but those that don't have a problem with it don't b/c we played the cards we were dealt and worked within the confines. There's been times I've gambled and lost on some FA signings and had to eat their contracts through buyouts but those were calculated gambles that I made.

One aspect that isn't being acknowledged by some is Nick's point about teams not willing to walk away from players. I have money b/c I frequently walk away from players ... you can generally find 2-3 Detroit UFA's every that are still good or decent players that I walk away from b/c the salary doesn't work within my budget. I will not resign at any price.

Secondly what isn't being accounted for is lack of a compete level among teams. We all know the recent iterations of the Wings roster hasn't been great but I make the play-offs regularly for 2 simple reasons (i) I don't complain about the quirks of the SIM I play the cards I'm dealt and make the best of it in my roster and playing style and (ii) most importantly in any given year I'm only really competing against 15 of 30 teams for a playoff spot b/c nearly half are always off prospecting and in constant rebuild/retool mode. It's not always the same teams obviously but there is always too many of them.

To some extent the cause and effect statements made in this thread have been backwards. Winning = Financial Health it is not Financial Health =- Winning.

For those newer to the league who mention that losing teams can't make money that is partly true and by design. In the early days we again had way too many prospectors and not enough challengers so we made it more difficult but did soften the blow with endorsements aimed primarily at rebuilding teams. For awhile it actually worked and believe it or not we actually had a few good UFA periods as teams were held accountable for their financial health and let guys walk. Unfortunately we are again back to the start b/c we keep throwing more bailouts and financial changes that make it too easy to blow up a team instead of competing. For example the ability to trade a resigned UFA by the All-Star break or even before if you pay a penalty was never intended to exist. These non stop compromises are why we again have too few competitors.

This debate should be about how do we get back to a competitive league on the ice and away from a competition of who can claim the best list of 'maybe' prospects. Believe me that conversation does not start with giving more money to failing teams.

Rant done.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Drew, are you taking into consideration that the new SIM has drastically altered the financial landscape? You carried a nice bankroll into the new SIM, right?

One of the challenges, no matter how good a GM you are, is that we are paying NHL level contracts but some teams cant even spend to the NHL floor without going bankrupt.

Thats an issue, dont you think?

My base standard is a team should be able to spend to the NHL cap floor and not face bankruptcy by missing the playoffs.

My proposal is intended to subsidize that small subsection of teams that have been impacted by the transition in the SIM and is only supposed to be a bandaid to keep conservative teams from going bankrupt.

I think your rant about the direction some teams enjoy taking (prospecting) has shown up in a few of your recent posts, sounds like something that is bothering you!

However, if I traded for established vets instead of cheap prospects, how would I stay solvent? I already have one of the lowest payroll teams, make reasonably good contract decisions, stay out of the UFA craziness yet I was about 2 weeks from being bankrupt and possibly losing my team last season.

 

[The old geezer]

Drew, are you taking into consideration that the new SIM has drastically altered the financial landscape? You carried a nice bankroll into the new SIM, right?

Robb you’re right that I came into the new SIM with a good bank balance but I made it in the old SIM by winning - I actually had a below average balance when i joined the league and had to shed a few contracts. While we’re now complaining about the new SIM financial model the truth is the old SIM was even more lopsided in revenue generation for winning teams versus losing. My bank account is down now not so much b/c of this SIM but b/c of bad calls I made on UFA’s – 1 year I actually paid $10+M in buyouts for bad decisions on my part and there were a couple of others after that. In the end the implications of those bad decisions were of my own making.

As for not being able to make money with a low budget I’m not absolutely convinced. One thing I've come to appreciate about this SIM is that it's flexible enough that you can assemble a line setup and matching team strategy with a bunch of scrubs that can at least be competitive.

That said i do acknowledge there is a chicken and egg problem that has to be reversed. With so many teams paying any price to resign their guys the price for the left over FA's gets absolutely stupid. In turn there's no negotiation wiggle room with the player agents b/c we all know they'll get it plus more on the free agent market so again we pay top dollar to resign our guys. I'll have to run some numbers but my suspicion is our average salary is actually higher than the NHL's - again do you try to change behavior that caused the issue or band-aid over the problem?

I don’t dismiss the fact that some teams are now in so deep that without a bailout things look dire. Problem is we’ve already given amnesty/bailouts so many times it’s becoming expected and thereby encouraging behaviors detrimental to the league’s health. The problem faced is where do we draw the line.

On one of you other points about being annoyed about teams prospecting the answer is yes. I have the benefit of hindsight to know it's nearly a guaranteed failed approach that will send the team into bankruptcy, or at least close. You've also been around long enough to know that of the many GM's that have tried that only one GM has really succeeded (Josh). Even then he did it by reversing strategy part way in by trading away stockpiled prospects for established players. It's a largely doomed strategy for two reasons - enough of the "can't miss" prospects do miss that in the end the assets you traded away for all those picks never make up for the few that pan out. Secondly if you do get lucky enough to hit the jackpot on more than 2 you can't afford to keep them together or you don't have enough cap room left to fill in the rest of the team (see Pittsburgh, Anaheim's current delema, etc.). In the meantime for every GM that abandons that folly another will take their place thereby ensuring a continued separation of have and have not teams and sub par level of competition in the league.

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

Okay, so here's the first part of my post in regards to providing an alternative to just raising the slider... this is just my analysis on the numbers from last year... i'll add my comments latter on when I have time to write this out properly, but i thought i'd put these numbers up now

	 	Average Income 	`Expenses		Current funds		Total revenue from games
Senators	 $1,105,055.00 	 $59,842,185.00 	 $(2,608,665.00)	 	$46,412,310.00 
Red Wings	 $1,097,465.00 	 $53,561,291.00 	 $38,430,017.00 	 	$46,093,530.00 
Hurricanes	 $1,095,250.00 	 $60,468,750.00 	 $7,561,844.00 		 $46,000,500.00 
Canucks	 $1,089,711.00 	 $60,198,380.00 	 $52,312,184.00 	 	$45,767,862.00 
Kings	 	$1,088,299.00 	 $57,291,430.00 	 $36,914,633.00 	 	$45,708,558.00 
Avalanche	 $1,086,253.00 	 $60,112,251.00 	 $39,524,761.00 	 	$45,622,626.00 
Panthers	 $1,077,698.00 	 $61,072,178.00 	 $27,250,747.00 	 	$45,263,316.00 
Maple Leafs	 $1,075,970.00 	 $59,512,555.00 	 $21,056,430.00 	 	$45,190,740.00 
Oilers	 	$1,060,618.00 	 $48,892,517.00 	 $21,998,695.00 	 	$44,545,956.00 
Blackhawks	 $1,051,868.00 	 $58,651,848.00 	 $14,284,350.00 	 	$44,178,456.00 
Blues	 	$1,049,414.00 	 $60,918,079.00 	 $67,819,278.00 	 	$44,075,388.00 
Rangers	 $1,046,436.00 	 $53,202,154.00 	 $8,927,761.00 		 $43,950,312.00 
Coyotes	 $1,041,045.00 	 $56,513,501.00 	 $15,661,271.00 	 	$43,723,890.00 
Predators	 $1,038,029.00 	 $59,499,233.00 	 $26,314,456.00 	 	$43,597,218.00 
Flyers	 	$1,035,316.00 	 $40,093,563.00 	 $42,102,339.00 	 	$43,483,272.00 
Bruins	 	$1,033,158.00 	 $56,064,886.00 	 $2,137,326.00 		 $43,392,636.00 
Ducks	 	$1,031,281.00 	 $54,158,734.00 	 $13,620,805.00 	 	$43,313,802.00 
Sharks	$1,020,953.00 	 $45,779,227.00 	 $8,381,189.00 		 $42,880,026.00 
Blue Jackets $1,015,096.00 	 $60,321,569.00 	 $3,703,622.00 		 $42,634,032.00 
Sabres	$1,003,544.00 	 $59,644,376.00 	 $33,009,284.00 		 $42,148,848.00 
Canadiens	 $1,002,250.00 	 $54,340,869.00 	 $17,048,657.00 		 $42,094,500.00 
Lightning	 $985,894.00 	 $48,258,662.00 	 $13,922,690.00 		 $41,407,548.00 
Stars	 	$980,730.00 	 $38,918,758.00 	 $44,467,365.00 		 $41,190,660.00 
Wild	 	$972,728.00 	 $46,232,263.00 	 $9,720,568.00 		 $40,854,576.00 
Islanders	 $967,822.00 	 $51,068,067.00 	 $24,911,585.00 		 $40,648,524.00 
Penguins	 $960,196.00 	 $50,157,654.00 	 $7,428,199.00 		 $40,328,232.00 
Capitals	 $952,572.00 	 $54,860,802.00 	 $4,039,012.00 		 $40,008,024.00 
Jets	 	$945,129.00 	 $51,216,494.00 	 $9,034,270.00 		 $39,695,418.00 
Devils	 	$942,029.00 	 $51,645,944.00 	 $9,658,042.00 		 $39,565,218.00 
Flames	 $898,114.00 	 $55,786,883.00 	 $(46,254.00)		 $37,720,788.00

Some interesting things to note...

1. i'm not sure why but Matt got hit pretty hard with the revenue bug he made 2M less then the next lowest revenue team
2. differential from the lowest revenue team to the highest revenue team is 9M... if you don't take the flames into account, your looking at 7M.
3. Average revenue for a team is 43M
4. Average payroll for a team is 54M
5. the two worse teams in the league...
- Lightning with 56points made 41M with a payroll of 48M.
- Sharks with 63 points made 43M with a payroll of 46M

What are the ways for a team to make up that ~10M difference in average payroll? right now there's play-off revenue and endorsements. If you make the playoffs you're looking at 3M to 20M in additional revenue, and if you hit endorsements your looking at another 5-10M in revenue.

So, the way i see it is that there's definitly not enough revenue to sustain the lowest teams in the league, but the worse situation IMHO is the bubble teams... the guys who are fielding 55-60M rosters and who will only make an average of 43M... those guys have zero incentive to compete because it'll cost them 15M in funds if they miss the playoffs. to me the revenue system is too much weighted towards playoffs and endorsements that are hit/miss. that being said, giving everyone an extra 10M doesn't solve the problem because those bubble teams will still loose money (instead of 15M they'll just loose 5M) and playoff teams will get even richer.

I'm thinking that we should provide endorsements that spread revenue out more evenly within the competeing teams so that pay-off happens for the guys missing the playoffs rather then just for the teams making the playoffs.

 

[kasper11]

Drew ---

To me, the fact that we are tying salaries to the NHL, where revenues have increased, without raising our revenue, is not sustainable.

Yes, teams should be willing to let players go. But not all players. You should be able to keep the core players.

I think this can be simplified. Th NHL has tied salaries to revenue. In order to accurately follow the NHL we tie revenue to salaries. The revenue rises or falls in line with the cap.

We are still proposing that teams that spend even mid way between the NHL floor and cap without success will lose money. The only change would be that the gains and losses would Bevin line with where they used to be and would remain stable.

I understand your concerns. We are not looking to add revenue to allow teams to spend without consequences. We are only trying to ensure that teams can keep key players without going bankrupt.

We have never decided that $4Om in revenue is appropriate for the league. We are using sim default. We need to make the decision about what is best for this league. I think $50M in avg revenue is a good balsnce

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

okay, here's an updated table with points added... make sure you scroll to the right to see it

	 Average Income 	 Expenses 	 Current funds 		 Total revenue from games 	Points	Position
OTT	 $1,105,055 	 $59,842,185 	 $(2,608,665)		 $46,412,310 		107		Y
DET	 $1,097,465 	 $53,561,291 	 $38,430,017 		 $46,093,530 		97		X
CAR	 $1,095,250 	 $60,468,750 	 $7,561,844 		 $46,000,500 		100		X
VAN	 $1,089,711 	 $60,198,380 	 $52,312,184 		 $45,767,862 		101		Y
LAK	 $1,088,299 	 $57,291,430 	 $36,914,633 		 $45,708,558 		103		X
COL	 $1,086,253 	 $60,112,251 	 $39,524,761 		 $45,622,626 		90		E
FLA	 $1,077,698 	 $61,072,178 	 $27,250,747 		 $45,263,316 		112		Z
TOR	 $1,075,970 	 $59,512,555 	 $21,056,430 		 $45,190,740 		89		E
EDM	 $1,060,618 	 $48,892,517 	 $21,998,695 		 $44,545,956 		81		E
CHI	 $1,051,868 	 $58,651,848 	 $14,284,350 		 $44,178,456 		99		X
STL	 $1,049,414 	 $60,918,079 	 $67,819,278 		 $44,075,388 		98		X
NYR	 $1,046,436 	 $53,202,154 	 $8,927,761 		 $43,950,312 		77		E
PHX	 $1,041,045 	 $56,513,501 	 $15,661,271 		 $43,723,890 		87		E
NSH	 $1,038,029 	 $59,499,233 	 $26,314,456 		 $43,597,218 		112		Y
PHI	 $1,035,316 	 $40,093,563 	 $42,102,339 		 $43,483,272 		105		Y
BOS	 $1,033,158 	 $56,064,886 	 $2,137,326 		 $43,392,636 		91		X
ANH	 $1,031,281 	 $54,158,734 	 $13,620,805 		 $43,313,802 		117		Z
SJS	 $1,020,953 	 $45,779,227 	 $8,381,189 		 $42,880,026 		63		E
CBJ	 $1,015,096 	 $60,321,569 	 $3,703,622 		 $42,634,032 		109		X
BUF	 $1,003,544 	 $59,644,376 	 $33,009,284 		 $42,148,848 		102		X
MON	 $1,002,250 	 $54,340,869 	 $17,048,657 		 $42,094,500 		90		X
TBL	 $985,894 	 	$48,258,662 	 $13,922,690 		 $41,407,548 		58		E
DAL	 $980,730 	 	$38,918,758 	 $44,467,365 		 $41,190,660 		95		E
MIN	 $972,728 	 	$46,232,263 	 $9,720,568 		 $40,854,576 		75		E
NYI	 $967,822 	 	$51,068,067 	 $24,911,585 		 $40,648,524 		92		X
PIT	 $960,196 	 	$50,157,654 	 $7,428,199 		 $40,328,232 		83		E
WSH	 $952,572 	 	$54,860,802 	 $4,039,012 		 $40,008,024 		72		E
WPG	 $945,129 	 	$51,216,494 	 $9,034,270 		 $39,695,418 		78		E
NJD	 $942,029 	 	$51,645,944 	 $9,658,042 		 $39,565,218 		71		E
CGY	 $898,114 	 	$55,786,883 	 $(46,254)			 $37,720,788 		90		E

I think based on the above, it's pretty obvious that revenue in this sim is not proportional to performance... i think it's more a matter of tweaking the ticket prices in order to find the perfect combination of revenue more then it is about how good your team is.

Looking at the above, raising the slider would do nothing to fix the core issues of the problem... I don't think anyone could look at the above table and agree that regular season revenue should be divided this way with very little relationship between performance and revenue.

What if we took endorsements and replaced it with a $/point adder at the end of the season... how we calculate this can be upto debate, but as an example formulae, let's go with (cap-40M)/(82gp * 2pts * 0.5 avg). the above would give us an adder of $300K/point. The above table would now look like this:

	Points	Position	
OTT	107	Y	 $62,070,846.59 
FLA	112	Z	 $61,653,559.90 
LAK	103	X	 $60,781,728.73 
CAR	100	X	 $60,634,646.34 
VAN	101	Y	 $60,548,349.80 
ANH	117	Z	 $60,435,753.22 
DET	97	X	 $60,288,651.95 
NSH	112	Y	 $59,987,461.90 
PHI	105	Y	 $58,849,125.66 
COL	90	E	 $58,793,357.71 
CHI	99	X	 $58,666,260.88 
CBJ	109	X	 $58,585,251.51 
STL	98	X	 $58,416,851.41 
TOR	89	E	 $58,215,130.24 
BUF	102	X	 $57,075,677.27 
BOS	91	X	 $56,709,709.17 
PHX	87	E	 $56,455,597.32 
EDM	81	E	 $56,399,614.54 
MON	90	X	 $55,265,231.71 
NYR	77	E	 $55,218,604.68 
DAL	95	E	 $55,093,099.02 
NYI	92	X	 $54,111,938.63 
PIT	83	E	 $52,474,573.46 
SJS	63	E	 $52,099,538.20 
MIN	75	E	 $51,830,185.76 
WPG	78	E	 $51,110,052.15 
CGY	90	E	 $50,891,519.71 
WSH	72	E	 $50,544,609.37 
NJD	71	E	 $49,955,461.90 
TBL	58	E	 $49,895,352.88

The above makes a lot more sense to me... lowest team still fields 48M roster and the 16 teams are making revenue close to the 60M cap (this is all based on last years numbers so i used last years cap).

BTW, notice in this scenario, a team like CGY, that barely misses the playoffs gets 13M in extra revenue while last place TBL (sorry Jeff) gets only 8.5M ... to me that's a lot better then just increasing the slider.

 

[Wildman]

I agree with Adil, compensation based on points makes more sense and will encourage teams to compete and do their line ups regularly. I also think that the SIM penalizes small market teams as I won the president trophy 2 years ago was 2nd last in revenues.

 

[Ohio Jones]

I agree with Adil, compensation based on points makes more sense and will encourage teams to compete and do their line ups regularly. I also think that the SIM penalizes small market teams as I won the president trophy 2 years ago was 2nd last in revenues.

Nothing whatsoever to do with size of market. Size of arena, however, is surely a factor, as is the manager's ability and willingness to optimize their prices. I sacrificed some of my potential ticket revenues for greater attendance, and earned $5.5 million in endorsement dollars as a result. This season the sim's attendance algorithm is more erratic, so full occupancy is a little harder to predict, but it's still possible to optimize your ticket pricing to maximize your revenues - either in sales or attendance endorsements.

As to Adil's numbers (thank you for doing that work, Adil), I need to better understand how you propose it working, because I don't get it. Do all teams start out the season with $40M added, and then at the end of the season they add an additional amount based on their record? If so, I have a number of concerns...

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

Nothing whatsoever to do with size of market. Size of arena, however, is surely a factor, as is the manager's ability and willingness to optimize their prices. I sacrificed some of my potential ticket revenues for greater attendance, and earned $5.5 million in endorsement dollars as a result. This season the sim's attendance algorithm is more erratic, so full occupancy is a little harder to predict, but it's still possible to optimize your ticket pricing to maximize your revenues - either in sales or attendance endorsements.

you do have to agree though Doug that performance does seem to have little effect on revenue... Leafs and Avalanche didn't even make the playoffs and we ranked in the top 10 in revenue (8th and 6th). I think all teams should try and maximize their revenue by playing with ticket prices but i don't think that fixes our problem. Also, not all teams take advantage of the easy to achieve endorsements either and if each team did take advantage of it, then what's the difference between that strategy and just adding in flat TV revenue of 5M? I don't know why we even bother with the attendance endorsement anymore... it's a crutch we shouldn't have to use.

 

[Ohio Jones]

you do have to agree though Doug that performance does seem to have little effect on revenue... Leafs and Avalanche didn't even make the playoffs and we ranked in the top 10 in revenue (8th and 6th). I think all teams should try and maximize their revenue by playing with ticket prices but i don't think that fixes our problem. Also, not all teams take advantage of the easy to achieve endorsements either and if each team did take advantage of it, then what's the difference between that strategy and just adding in flat TV revenue of 5M? I don't know why we even bother with the attendance endorsement anymore... it's a crutch we shouldn't have to use.

I agree most endorsements are not helpful. If we get the revenue setting right (producing an average revenue of around $50 million), then the attendance endorsement is no longer needed.

I agree there should be more connection between performance and revenue than the current algorithm seems to permit. Does that mean we turn off sim finances entirely and just use a manual revenue process? I don't get how it's supposed to work?

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

I agree most endorsements are not helpful. If we get the revenue setting right (producing an average revenue of around $50 million), then the attendance endorsement is no longer needed.

I agree there should be more connection between performance and revenue than the current algorithm seems to permit. Does that mean we turn off sim finances entirely and just use a manual revenue process? I don't get how it's supposed to work?

we have enough history on the exisitng sim with the current settings... leave them alone and compensate using our own formulae then add the revenue at the end of the year. If teams go red they can refer to the points/game performance and the expected revenue when they're asked for their team plan. That way we don't have to add revenue from the performance endorsement throughout the season adding administration work..

Flames and Leafs last year had similar performance but the flames make 37M and the I get 45M? The sim financial simulation is seriously messed up and needs to be taken out back and shot.

I know everyone wants to make the sim work... i just want the league to work. I'm tired of us trying to tweak the sim, we don't need it's revenue model and we already bandage it by applying our existing endorsement structure.

BTW, I do agree with Drew on a lot of what he said... there's an element of financing in this game that a lot of teams don't take into account and it leads to UFA signings out of whack... that's why I think it's important we make sure that whatever formula we choose doesn't inject too much money into the system or we propegate that behaviour. still, with base revenue at an average of 43M and the NHL salary floor at 48M and average salaries in the mid 50's it doesn't make sense not to increase revenue... the reason why i'm proposing the above rather then cranking up the slider is that I feel this plan makes the league better and more competitive. This plan hopefully will address Nick and Drew's concerns as well as the concerns of the financially strapped teams.

 

[MatthewFlames]

I agree.

Of course, my bet is the "have nots" just spend the extra $'s on something dumb and are broke again in a year and will be back claiming the system is still broken.



Kidding, people, kidding...

No. That will just be me!

 

[MatthewFlames]

The one thing I do recall, is that evidently the slider just increases the % of revenue, which makes sense, but ends up benefitting the rich teams more. Might not be the case anymore, but I seem to recall that happening in some test seasons a while back, likely in a different version of the sim. That might have been FHL v STHL though.

I also think test seasons are sometimes out of whack by the nature of doing a mass sim. Certainly in every test season my Flames made the playoffs.

I have done the comparison between last season and this, and I'll do it for the season previous to that as well - even though the settings were the same. We can start to see patterns and trends hopefully that are more useful than a test season, though it won't hurt to do those as well.

I do think the rich teams will benefit a lot from the new revenue if implemented. However it doesn't matter, because the cap holds the spending in check. They may lose some competitive advantage for sure, but generally those GM's are good and will be able to hold their own no matter what.

 

[MatthewFlames]

To the Pay for Points arguers (nice work on that Adil) - whats wrong with just letting the playoff revenue be the reward for good performance. And in fact, as I've suggested, raising the slider even more so playoff teams make more revenue per game than usual. Not suggesting 10 million a game. But 1.4 million or 1.5 million instead of 1.1 that's made in the regular season.

For the record, I'm against any handout. Its even been suggested moving the slider this season. I'm not against that but am happy to wait until next season for changes (since 29 teams will survive the season with some cash). This GM isn't arguing for any handouts. Just a change in the way revenue is distributed - in a more even and balanced way that doesn't punish poor teams (like endorsements do now)

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

To the Pay for Points arguers (nice work on that Adil) - whats wrong with just letting the playoff revenue be the reward for good performance. And in fact, as I've suggested, raising the slider even more so playoff teams make more revenue per game than usual. Not suggesting 10 million a game. But 1.4 million or 1.5 million instead of 1.1 that's made in the regular season.

What's wrong with play-off revenue being the reward is that if you've got a great team, and you're at the $64M cap and you don't make the playoffs you're loosing a ton of cash. If you make the first round and walk away with 5M along with other endorsements you might break even, but even then it's still an up-hill battle.

The reason why alot of teams are having issues selling is that not enough teams are buying... any team within the top 12 of the conference at the mid-point of the season should be fighting for a play-off spot... that's not going to happen if the risk/reward system isn't there for them. If you're not making the playoffs your best bet is to shed salary as fast as you can so that you can atleast break even.

If we move to a $/point system we get away from that model.