nfl - the signing bonus

[mr gib]

no-one in any media has menitoned how the nfl gets around their - cap -
the deferred signing bonus - thats the way around the cap in the nhl

Click to read more...

 

[LadyJet26]

no-one in any media has menitoned how the nfl gets around their - cap -
the deferred signing bonus - thats the way around the cap in the nhl

they also get 65% of the NFL's profits.

 

[ehc73]

The other way is the ability to cut anyone they need to in order to get under the cap.

 

[Whakahere]

they also get 65% of the NFL's profits.

I agree you should be able to be cut or fired. I hate how in the NHL you can´t fire players if they don´t preform.

Personaly players should be able to be fired. First they must be given a warning (made public) then if they don´t meet the standard (which should be set in the contract) they can be fired. These standards must be fixed and be able to be recorded. (no, you must play well)

e.g. player a has a:
2 million contract for 2 years.
must score 0.63 points per game (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must score 0.15 goals per game (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must score 0.40 assists per game (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must play 0.80 of all games (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must have a + or - of +1 (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)

Now if player a does not achieve one of these by the 20th game he is given a warning. By the 40th game he still does not he can be fired. If by the 40th game he achieves these goals he needs to be warned again. Now this means players need to achieve the money they asked for. You don´t have to fire a player but you can if you want. If you are fired you be come an UFA.

Simple. Free market you want you can have. But if the NHLPA want a free market then they will have to set themselves up to a free market.

In my job they only have to give me a 2 week warning!! The players have it too good right now.

 

[guitaraholic*]

I agree you should be able to be cut or fired. I hate how in the NHL you can´t fire players if they don´t preform.

Personaly players should be able to be fired. First they must be given a warning (made public) then if they don´t meet the standard (which should be set in the contract) they can be fired. These standards must be fixed and be able to be recorded. (no, you must play well)

e.g. player a has a:
2 million contract for 2 years.
must score 0.63 points per game (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must score 0.15 goals per game (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must score 0.40 assists per game (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must play 0.80 of all games (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must have a + or - of +1 (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)

Now if player a does not achieve one of these by the 20th game he is given a warning. By the 40th game he still does not he can be fired. If by the 40th game he achieves these goals he needs to be warned again. Now this means players need to achieve the money they asked for. You don´t have to fire a player but you can if you want. If you are fired you be come an UFA.

Simple. Free market you want you can have. But if the NHLPA want a free market then they will have to set themselves up to a free market.

In my job they only have to give me a 2 week warning!! The players have it too good right now.

this is perhaps the single dumbest post I've read on this board in a long, long time. Very simply, you can be fired with no warning as you don't have a contract. A contract is a legally binding agreement betweent two parties that is enforcable through the legal system. If you think a player should be able to be "fired" for not "producing" (this doesn't even begin to take into account a huge amount of intagables such as ice time, injuries to teammates, etc, that affect a players stats... not to mention how you determine a stay at home dman's performance and value to a team) then it should follow that that player should have the 'right' to terminate his contract if he feels the team is not living up to their end of the agreement, whatever that may be, or if he gets a better offer to play elsewhere. Basically, you're suggesting that contracts be a one way agreement that the owners have the right to honor or not, based on some arbitrary statistical standard that you probabably put all of 2 minutes into contriving. Urgh. Why even bother?

 

[Seachd]

no-one in any media has menitoned how the nfl gets around their - cap -
the deferred signing bonus - thats the way around the cap in the nhl

One poster here was saying that every cent - including signing bonuses - is including under the NFL cap. Does anyone know for sure?

 

[Benji Frank]

I agree you should be able to be cut or fired. I hate how in the NHL you can´t fire players if they don´t preform.

Personaly players should be able to be fired. First they must be given a warning (made public) then if they don´t meet the standard (which should be set in the contract) they can be fired. These standards must be fixed and be able to be recorded. (no, you must play well)

e.g. player a has a:
2 million contract for 2 years.
must score 0.63 points per game (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must score 0.15 goals per game (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must score 0.40 assists per game (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must play 0.80 of all games (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must have a + or - of +1 (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)

Now if player a does not achieve one of these by the 20th game he is given a warning. By the 40th game he still does not he can be fired. If by the 40th game he achieves these goals he needs to be warned again. Now this means players need to achieve the money they asked for. You don´t have to fire a player but you can if you want. If you are fired you be come an UFA.

Simple. Free market you want you can have. But if the NHLPA want a free market then they will have to set themselves up to a free market.

In my job they only have to give me a 2 week warning!! The players have it too good right now.

Good luck. Hockey's supposed to first and foremost be a team sport.....

If anything gets done in this contract, it'll most likely be the lowering of the buyout charge ... I think standard is 2/3's of the remainder of the contract now. That'll likely get tinkered with with current contracts (IE Signed before 09/15) being red circled and still only negotiable under the old format..... John Leclair will still be a rich man when the rest of the players go back to work!!!

 

[Go Flames Go*]

I agree you should be able to be cut or fired. I hate how in the NHL you can´t fire players if they don´t preform.

Personaly players should be able to be fired. First they must be given a warning (made public) then if they don´t meet the standard (which should be set in the contract) they can be fired. These standards must be fixed and be able to be recorded. (no, you must play well)

e.g. player a has a:
2 million contract for 2 years.
must score 0.63 points per game (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must score 0.15 goals per game (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must score 0.40 assists per game (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must play 0.80 of all games (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)
must have a + or - of +1 (counted on the 20th, 40th 60th and 82nd game)

Now if player a does not achieve one of these by the 20th game he is given a warning. By the 40th game he still does not he can be fired. If by the 40th game he achieves these goals he needs to be warned again. Now this means players need to achieve the money they asked for. You don´t have to fire a player but you can if you want. If you are fired you be come an UFA.

Simple. Free market you want you can have. But if the NHLPA want a free market then they will have to set themselves up to a free market.

In my job they only have to give me a 2 week warning!! The players have it too good right now.

This is a horrible way to dictate if a player should be realesed or not. Its simple if the GM feels Jarome Iginla should be scoring 50 goals a season and he scores 23, 20 in 2 seasons and has 4 years left on his 75 million contract just cut him or renegotiate the deal to make it more reasonable.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

One poster here was saying that every cent - including signingbonuses - is including under the NFL cap. Does anyone know for sure?

It depends on how contracts are structured and how much money is deffered and paid upfront. So if Peyton Manning signs a 7 year 40 mill contract and a 32 million bonus he gets 10 million up front which prolly wont get counted, the rest is charged as a bonus against the cap dollar for dollar however they structure it, and if they cut Peyton they are charged the bonus they owe him and he is paid the bonus he is owed for the year, and they are charged against there cap the next season the amount they owed.

 

[hockeytown9321]

One poster here was saying that every cent - including signing bonuses - is including under the NFL cap. Does anyone know for sure?

what happnes is that the bonus is paid upfront, in full at the time of signing. If I sign you to a 4 year deal with an $8 million bonus, I give you a check for $8 million the day you sign. The bonus then gets prorated over the lenght of the contract, so only $2 million in cap space is taken up per year.

I think the problem in signing bonuses with regard to a NHL cap wouldn't be cap space, but that there are still going to be teams able to offer huge bonuses that small market teams can't. If Pittsburgh can't pay someone $5 million over a season, how can they pay it upfront?

 

[Go Flames Go*]

what happnes is that the bonus is paid upfront, in full at the time of signing. If I sign you to a 4 year deal with an $8 million bonus, I give you a check for $8 million the day you sign. The bonus then gets prorated over the lenght of the contract, so only $2 million in cap space is taken up per year.

I think the problem in signing bonuses with regard to a NHL cap wouldn't be cap space, but that there are still going to be teams able to offer huge bonuses that small market teams can't. If Pittsburgh can't pay someone $5 million over a season, how can they pay it upfront?

Revenue Sharing will make it even so all teams can compete.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Revenue Sharing will make it even so all teams can compete.

But the owners aren't talking about revenue sharing. As a matter of fact the players are the one who put a revenue sharing plan in thier proposal. Large market owners do not want to share their revenue with the small markets. Thats why they want such a low cap numbers. It helps the small markets compete, and lets the large market owners rake in the dough.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

But the owners aren't talking about revenue sharing. As a matter of fact the players are the one who put a revenue sharing plan in thier proposal. Large market owners do not want to share their revenue with the small markets. Thats why they want such a low cap numbers. It helps the small markets compete, and lets the large market owners rake in the dough.

Gary Bettman said many times that revenue sharing, and even Bill Daly that revenue sharing will be apart of this CBA it will be a major point in it.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Gary Bettman said many times that revenue sharing, and even Bill Daly that revenue sharing will be apart of this CBA it will be a major point in it.

Sorry but i dont believe Bettman and Daly just like i dont believe Goodenow and Linden. Why are you people such suckers when these people speak. I would suggest people go over to the History of Hockey Board. There is a thread detailing the 1994 lockout. Take a look at what both sides aid and was really done.