Player Commitment to League Is it time for Change

[HockeyPops]

So if I understand this suggestion, then Sudbury likely wouldn't have drafted Byfield last year under a tender system as many teams would be willing to offer a tender for a player like that. How does that help a team like Sudbury?

 

[barclayplager]

Teams at the lower end can't change geography either. A major issue many players have is where a team is located.

I know the parents of two players who were drafted into the OHL years ago off the same team. Both players parents had a major issue with geography.

They didn't want their sons drafted by teams too far away from home. They were blue collar families and therefore, weren't "made of money" so to speak and wanted them playing close enough to home (KW area) for it to be economical to see their kids play their home games.
I know of parents who have "separated" and one moves to a desiredAAA team to have residency than after that draft year they resume the original marital status and residence.
One player, who was high end, had the cache to dictate that he wouldn't report to the various teams that were too far from home (far reaches of the league). He was taken in the first round by St Mike's. The parents were happy.

The other player did not have that kind of pull and therefore, couldn't control his destination and wound up getting picked in the mid rounds by Sudbury. He reported and had a long OHL career. But the parents were pissed because they didn't get to see anywhere near the games they would have liked.

They say CHL hockey is the best time of these players lives. It's also huge for he parents as well. I can understand why.

It's amazing the lengths some parents will go to, to see their kids play at this level live. I know one parent who's son was put on waivers after two years in the O. The kid was picked up by a team in the Q and went on to play out his eligibility in Nova Scotia.

The dad, another blue collar worker, put himself off on workman's compensation to get out of work (without losing pay) in order to spend the majority of the season out east to watch his son play. He told me he didn't care. "I'll only get to see my son play at this high a level once".

 

[member 71782]

haven’t read enough of the replies to see if these have been brought up yet.

first of all, I did see USHL tenders brought up. My idea would be that all players wishing to enter the OHL draft must declare for it, and must sign off that they will report to the team they are selected by.

Once you start forcing commitments to a league where all teams do not do things on an equal level you start losing more and more higher level players to the many other options out there. The 70s/80s are over. The OHL is not the only game in town when it comes to getting to the pros.

Second to this. As the league becomes more watered down and the level of competition drops the costs of running a team will continue to rise while the level of player reporting will continue to decline making things even more costly for those "have not" teams. Let's face it, if the level of development and play drops the league will become a secondary option so telling the best players sorry, you're not welcome here if the player won't accept what they feel is a less desirable franchise then watch the exodus to other leagues with more options continue to grow.

If people are alright with that then simply go watch the lower leagues instead of hoping the OHL does it's best to become a Tier II/JR A/B league.

second, for free agents, I would propose a waiver-style selection process. If a guy decides he wants to come to the OHL out of the NCAA, USDP or USHL (or others that would be determined), they have a priority list based off of one year’s standings or whatever. every team gets the chance to pick guys up in order of the priority list, top to bottom, and if you get a guy you go back to the bottom of the priority list.

here’s what I’m stuck on for the 2nd change. option 1) the player doesn’t have to report to the team that picks him, but he is ineligible to play in the OHL. option 2) the player must declare that he will play for the team that picks him

I’m opting towards #1 as it doesn’t “force” anyone to be somewhere

So basically eliminate free agents?

The whole point of a player signing on as a free agent is to sign with the team they choose to sign with not to mention the resources some teams put into finding free agents. If what you describe is what you want why not simply have anyone willing to report commit to the league and if they aren't drafted they're out of luck?

Eliminating even more high end talent who may have been late bloomers or slipped through the draft so you can dictate where they play just further turns even more high end talent off of the league. Again, the level of play will continue to decline.

I can see some merit to the tenders option but this again, while having a cost to the team exercising this option provides no benefit and comes at the cost of the other 19 teams in the league. It guarantees a high end player to a team that is not likely to take a chance on spending an extra first round pick but other players will simply drop down the draft board for them to take in later rounds the following year when they have no first round pick to use so it doesn't solve the issue that many seem to have with "draft manipulation". The league again as a collective pays the price to the benefit of a single team.

The only way to improve the commitment situation is improving the level of development/play for individual teams as well as the league as a whole.

The only way to do this is stop watering down the product, bring some prestige or exclusivity back to being drafted into the league regardless of which team. This is accomplished only by limiting the number of available spots available to enter the league.

For those who want to use geography or market size as a crutch for why players won't report I have a couple of issues with this.

First of all players won't report to certain teams due to geography yet will commit to an NCAA school that is even further away? Is geography the main issue or simply an excuse and a way to avoid saying they don't feel certain teams will give them the best development opportunities to chase a pro career?

Second, small market teams not having the resources to compete. Well if an ownership group can't financially support the franchise why do they have it in a market where they won't see a return on their investment or are unable to financially afford the resources required to compete in all areas including attracting top talent?

Unfortunately the only way to ever remedy these situations is moving the franchises. It's not a popular idea but to use these as excuses when owners have placed these teams in this situation or taken over franchises in these situations and expecting the rest of the league to carry them or give up competitive advantages so that they have an easier time makes no sense. Why should teams A/B/C put an inferior product on the ice just so teams D/E/F can compete with them?

The biggest problem again, the talent level has become watered down and as the league wide product as a whole has taken a drop those who are in a position to pick their spot will always gravitate to those teams that provide the best opportunity for them to develop and win.

Some people want to see expansion in the league while the product itself certainly doesn't warrant it and in reality contraction would be the best thing that could happen combined with some other changes such as shortening the draft etc but with the recent speculation of some teams being up for sale the likelihood of some owners getting together and buying out a few franchises to improve the overall product is becoming more and more remote and doubtful. The only way contraction happens is if multiple teams suddenly become non viable from a financial perspective and the remaining owners refuse to carry them until a sale can be found.

It would be nice to see players report to whatever team drafts them but as long as the league puts out a less than top tier product it will never happen and the situation will only continue to get worse until franchises start folding or the league acts in a collective way that brings some prestige to all teams and forcing players with options to report or commit pre draft will only make it worse.

When will it fall on the individual franchises to take responsibility for their franchises and when will the league as a whole take responsibility to improve the overall product across? Both of these go together.​

 

[Fischhaber]

Players want to be paid and the league wants top players. That's why the top players are paid to report to certain cities over and over again. I don't see this changing.

I think that the league could do more to even the playing field on a financial level so that some teams can't provide 6 figure bonuses while other teams can provide pretty much nothing, but that's a bit of a different issue.

 

[EvenSteven]

Once you start forcing commitments to a league where all teams do not do things on an equal level you start losing more and more higher level players to the many other options out there. The 70s/80s are over. The OHL is not the only game in town when it comes to getting to the pros.

Second to this. As the league becomes more watered down and the level of competition drops the costs of running a team will continue to rise while the level of player reporting will continue to decline making things even more costly for those "have not" teams. Let's face it, if the level of development and play drops the league will become a secondary option so telling the best players sorry, you're not welcome here if the player won't accept what they feel is a less desirable franchise then watch the exodus to other leagues with more options continue to grow.

If people are alright with that then simply go watch the lower leagues instead of hoping the OHL does it's best to become a Tier II/JR A/B league.

So basically eliminate free agents?

The whole point of a player signing on as a free agent is to sign with the team they choose to sign with not to mention the resources some teams put into finding free agents. If what you describe is what you want why not simply have anyone willing to report commit to the league and if they aren't drafted they're out of luck?

Eliminating even more high end talent who may have been late bloomers or slipped through the draft so you can dictate where they play just further turns even more high end talent off of the league. Again, the level of play will continue to decline.

I can see some merit to the tenders option but this again, while having a cost to the team exercising this option provides no benefit and comes at the cost of the other 19 teams in the league. It guarantees a high end player to a team that is not likely to take a chance on spending an extra first round pick but other players will simply drop down the draft board for them to take in later rounds the following year when they have no first round pick to use so it doesn't solve the issue that many seem to have with "draft manipulation". The league again as a collective pays the price to the benefit of a single team.

The only way to improve the commitment situation is improving the level of development/play for individual teams as well as the league as a whole.

The only way to do this is stop watering down the product, bring some prestige or exclusivity back to being drafted into the league regardless of which team. This is accomplished only by limiting the number of available spots available to enter the league.

For those who want to use geography or market size as a crutch for why players won't report I have a couple of issues with this.

First of all players won't report to certain teams due to geography yet will commit to an NCAA school that is even further away? Is geography the main issue or simply an excuse and a way to avoid saying they don't feel certain teams will give them the best development opportunities to chase a pro career?

Second, small market teams not having the resources to compete. Well if an ownership group can't financially support the franchise why do they have it in a market where they won't see a return on their investment or are unable to financially afford the resources required to compete in all areas including attracting top talent?

Unfortunately the only way to ever remedy these situations is moving the franchises. It's not a popular idea but to use these as excuses when owners have placed these teams in this situation or taken over franchises in these situations and expecting the rest of the league to carry them or give up competitive advantages so that they have an easier time makes no sense. Why should teams A/B/C put an inferior product on the ice just so teams D/E/F can compete with them?

The biggest problem again, the talent level has become watered down and as the league wide product as a whole has taken a drop those who are in a position to pick their spot will always gravitate to those teams that provide the best opportunity for them to develop and win.

Some people want to see expansion in the league while the product itself certainly doesn't warrant it and in reality contraction would be the best thing that could happen combined with some other changes such as shortening the draft etc but with the recent speculation of some teams being up for sale the likelihood of some owners getting together and buying out a few franchises to improve the overall product is becoming more and more remote and doubtful. The only way contraction happens is if multiple teams suddenly become non viable from a financial perspective and the remaining owners refuse to carry them until a sale can be found.

It would be nice to see players report to whatever team drafts them but as long as the league puts out a less than top tier product it will never happen and the situation will only continue to get worse until franchises start folding or the league acts in a collective way that brings some prestige to all teams and forcing players with options to report or commit pre draft will only make it worse.

When will it fall on the individual franchises to take responsibility for their franchises and when will the league as a whole take responsibility to improve the overall product across? Both of these go together.​

This sir, is an outstanding post!!

Hats off!!

 

[member 71782]

This sir, is an outstanding post!!

Hats off!!

Thanks

Just trying approach things from a common sense perspective.

I think we would all like to see kids willing to report to whatever team drafts them but since fans have let teams off the hook by accepting the idea of a JR hockey cycle, three losing/rebuilding seasons for one, possibly two chances at a run then those teams that try to avoid this cycle will always attract more talent.

Rebuilds don't always work out, not only not winning a championship obviously but also not even being in contention. When a cycle becomes three or four cycles out of contention teams are seen as poor places to report to. Why would anyone want to report to a perpetual rebuild?

Teams need to be pushing to win every year and while no one will win every year until an eighth seed can be a reasonable threat to a one seed regularly then we know that's not happening.

Poor product will not attract top talent and right now the overall product across the league is mediocre at best.

Stop watering down the product league wide, which will increase competitiveness across the league and reporting issues will begin to disappear.

 

[NorthernVoice]

This sir, is an outstanding post!!

Hats off!!

It's terrible but no one is going to bother reading all that anyway, so :shrug:

 

[EvenSteven]

It's terrible but no one is going to bother reading all that anyway, so :shrug:

:rolls eyes:

 

[NorthernVoice]

1 - The only way to improve the commitment situation is improving the level of development/play for individual teams as well as the league as a whole. The only way to do this is stop watering down the product, bring some prestige or exclusivity back to being drafted into the league regardless of which team. This is accomplished only by limiting the number of available spots available to enter the league.

2 - For those who want to use geography or market size as a crutch for why players won't report I have a couple of issues with this. First of all players won't report to certain teams due to geography yet will commit to an NCAA school that is even further away? Is geography the main issue or simply an excuse and a way to avoid saying they don't feel certain teams will give them the best development opportunities to chase a pro career? Second, small market teams not having the resources to compete. Well if an ownership group can't financially support the franchise why do they have it in a market where they won't see a return on their investment or are unable to financially afford the resources required to compete in all areas including attracting top talent?

3 -Unfortunately the only way to ever remedy these situations is moving the franchises. It's not a popular idea but to use these as excuses when owners have placed these teams in this situation or taken over franchises in these situations and expecting the rest of the league to carry them or give up competitive advantages so that they have an easier time makes no sense. Why should teams A/B/C put an inferior product on the ice just so teams D/E/F can compete with them?

The biggest problem again, the talent level has become watered down and as the league wide product as a whole has taken a drop those who are in a position to pick their spot will always gravitate to those teams that provide the best opportunity for them to develop and win.

4 - Some people want to see expansion in the league while the product itself certainly doesn't warrant it and in reality contraction would be the best thing that could happen combined with some other changes such as shortening the draft etc but with the recent speculation of some teams being up for sale the likelihood of some owners getting together and buying out a few franchises to improve the overall product is becoming more and more remote and doubtful. The only way contraction happens is if multiple teams suddenly become non viable from a financial perspective and the remaining owners refuse to carry them until a sale can be found.

5 - When will it fall on the individual franchises to take responsibility for their franchises and when will the league as a whole take responsibility to improve the overall product across? Both of these go together.​

Ok, I'll be the one to pick this apart.

1 - The vast majority of Ontario players still choose the OHL, as they always have, it still is a prestige league. It is not "watered down" the level of competition from the lower levels on up is fiercer than it has ever been. The level of training, skills coaching, and the base from which the league is drawing from is as wide as it has ever been. Quit with the watered down nonsense. Exclusivity is long gone, there will always be other options.

2 - To deny market size as a factor is completely asinine. There is only one Windsor, one London, one Kitchener. Those teams can reasonably expect to draw big crowds and big $$$ every year. Beyond that? Oshawa may fall next in line but their fans didn't show up in the playoffs, how big is that base really? Ottawa has been down for years despite solid teams, big potential but low floor. Niagara similar with shaky ownership situation.

3 - The OHL finances released showed that there were 9 teams making money in the last reported financial year. None, London aside are making big money (the next highest are Kingston and Niagara but I'm assuming they've come back down to earth). Windsor lost 200k, move them? Ottawa lost 900k, move them? Erie lost 800k, Hamilton lost 600k. Where are you moving these teams exactly? Or is it about ownership's willingness to lose money? The teams that are willing to lose the most money to field a competitive team are most viable... that seems feasible long term.

4 - Strawman - no one really wants to see expansion. Contraction? Again from the documents revealed, we can argue 11 teams are "non viable" (losing money) , how's that 9 team league look? Sure lots of talent in a few cities, beyond that, no one cares. I think that's the summer box lacrosse league's model, but I don't care enough to follow.

5 -What do you want them to do? If they draft the best players and they don't report, they fall behind. If they draft subpar players and they do report, they still fall behind. It's great to say raise yourself up, but how do you do that when the players you need to make it happen won't report?

 

[member 71782]

Well at least you're willing to give some thought out responses, I can sincerely appreciate that whether we agree or not.

Ok, I'll be the one to pick this apart.

1 - The vast majority of Ontario players still choose the OHL, as they always have, it still is a prestige league. It is not "watered down" the level of competition from the lower levels on up is fiercer than it has ever been. The level of training, skills coaching, and the base from which the league is drawing from is as wide as it has ever been. Quit with the watered down nonsense. Exclusivity is long gone, there will always be other options.

2 - To deny market size as a factor is completely asinine. There is only one Windsor, one London, one Kitchener. Those teams can reasonably expect to draw big crowds and big $$$ every year. Beyond that? Oshawa may fall next in line but their fans didn't show up in the playoffs, how big is that base really? Ottawa has been down for years despite solid teams, big potential but low floor. Niagara similar with shaky ownership situation.

3 - The OHL finances released showed that there were 9 teams making money in the last reported financial year. None, London aside are making big money (the next highest are Kingston and Niagara but I'm assuming they've come back down to earth). Windsor lost 200k, move them? Ottawa lost 900k, move them? Erie lost 800k, Hamilton lost 600k. Where are you moving these teams exactly? Or is it about ownership's willingness to lose money? The teams that are willing to lose the most money to field a competitive team are most viable... that seems feasible long term.

4 - Strawman - no one really wants to see expansion. Contraction? Again from the documents revealed, we can argue 11 teams are "non viable" (losing money) , how's that 9 team league look? Sure lots of talent in a few cities, beyond that, no one cares. I think that's the summer box lacrosse league's model, but I don't care enough to follow.

5 -What do you want them to do? If they draft the best players and they don't report, they fall behind. If they draft subpar players and they do report, they still fall behind. It's great to say raise yourself up, but how do you do that when the players you need to make it happen won't report?

1 - The vast majority of Ontario players still choose the OHL, true but how many of them have no other options? How many of those with other options are choosing to exercise those options etc. While still the minority the numbers are growing and we are left with those who have limited options so we aren't always getting the top kids anymore which leads to a watered down league/talent pool. Skills development is improving, everywhere and in many instances is surpassing skills training in Ontario. coaching etc the same. Simply look at the NHL ranked prospects this season, even though a bit of an outlier most first round ranked kids are not OHL and definitely not Ontario born/raised. Now the extremely low number may be an exception but the trend has been going in that direction for a long time so skills development elsewhere appears to be outpacing skills development here at both the minor hockey level and the OHL level.

So is it watered down? Well with fewer high end players outside Ontario reporting, more high end Ontario kids looking at other options and more kids who would not be considered top tier talent playing in the league well, I don't know what your idea of watered down is but mine would be settling for less then the best and believing that is acceptable.

2 - Market size can be a factor in terms of financial return but my problem with market size is if an owner is willing to put a team in a small centre then complain they are at a disadvantage in their ability to compete then why did they put that team there or why haven't they moved it to a more sustainable or profitable market? It would suck for the fans of those teams if they ever lost their team but looking to fix a problem for them by limiting other team's ability to compete and attract talent is going to make things worse. The rules were in place and owners still put teams into those markets then complain when teams in larger markets do better and want to bring those teams down to their level? If you're not willing to deal with the situation then it's time for the situation to be changed for that team, not the entire league. Either pay the price, which if they were smart they would have understood would have come with the situation or sell the team to someone who will. Market size in terms of attracting talen is two fold. if you have a top program, which can be had anywhere then attracting talent should be no more of a problem than any other team and yes, every team gets turned down by players for various reasons. Cutting the number of draft picks, again limiting the opportunities to get in the league will also help getting kids to report. Less opportunities to get into the league means more likely kids report to where they are drafted.

3 - Money, money, money. If these teams are in such dire straits financially why haven't most of them folded by now? how many times have well to do do/wealthy people cried poor while living the high life? On top of that those financial disclosures were set to show the league cannot afford to pay kids while they make money off of them so some fudging of the numbers is very likely as well as the rumoured price tag on teams reportedly up for sale shows a much different story. If these teams were simply bleeding money then in all likelihood they wouldn't be receiving offers well north of $10 million. Now are some struggling or less profitable then others? Of course but again there are numerous reasons for this including location, quality of product etc. The league as a whole makes money and the question about these teams not being profitable that needs to be asked is how many are losing money and how many are not making money by choice? Even in the mom and pop days most teams made a small profit and while today the expenses are probably about 4x what they were back then the incoming revenues are about 8x what they were back then. There's a lot of people getting paid to make sure the bottom line shows negative and if the financials were as bad as they are portrayed this league would only have about eight teams in it.

4 - With continued talk and speculation about different cities becoming part of the league its pretty clear expansion is on the minds of many. For the owners is a pay day from the fees which would likely be seven figures compared to less than $50,000 in the mid seventies. In terms of contraction, as the league has grown the overall level of competitiveness has dropped. When the league was ten teams there was no JR hockey cycle that everyone buys into now whereas now three years of losing rebuilding for a one or two year window to be competitive has become acceptable. A similar number of players to choose from spread out over double the teams equals a less competitive league overall. How w0uld a ten team league look about now? Higher quality hockey from all teams across the league, top talent centralized across those teams, even more consistent development at a higher level, more financial stability, less draft manipulation and a higher profile for the league itself in terms of ability to help get kids into the pros.

5 - As I have laid out in this thread and in others there's multiple steps improve the situation which I agree needs to be fixed for all teams to remain viable as well as the league itself.

- Cut the draft back to ten rounds. This limits the number of opportunities to get into the league thus ensuring more kids will report to the teams that draft them. It also exposes kids/agents who want to use geography as an excuse. If a kid won't report to a team in the league yet will report to a team south of the border that is even further away it proves geography is not the issue. Work with the kids/agents to see what the problem really is and in most cases you will find geography is not the real issue but development is. Work with the teams to improve the situation where this is an ongoing problem including pushing for the sale of the franchise.

- Expand the number of imports teams can carry. If this were upped to three while the import draft itself were cut to a single round you are again making the number of opportunities limited thus making it more likely that kids will report. When dealing with only 60 imports each year you are going to be bringing in most of the top imports and adding one more high end spot filled by a high end player thus increasing the overall talent level in the league. Another change to the imports would be to eliminate the import tag from potential OA imports. While this won't affect very many players it will add another opportunity to add a high end import to a roster, or two or three. Now this would only apply to imports who have played at least one full season in the league.

- Keep improving the draft pick rules as well as trading rules. This last change was a step in the right direction, the league doesn't look like such a joke trading picks a decade out. This brings some value back to draft picks.; Trading of players, 16 year olds needs to be consistent. Either they are all eligible to be traded or none of them. Some kids capable of playing in the league get stuck on depth charts and never get the opportunity while on another team they could get that opportunity.

- Eliminate league compensation for defected players and allow players to be included in those deals. The only time league compensation should be awarded for a defected player is when a player won't report to the league which means the team would have to the following draft to either deal him and get no compensation or release him in which case the league would give a first round pick at the end of the first round in the following draft. If a team signs the player as a free agent that team would have to compensate the league with their first round pick in the next draft, they would have to have a first round pick in order to sign him. Expand the defected players to include players in the first two rounds since a lot of potential defected players are simply allowed to slide to a lower round.

- Allow trades during the draft, including players/picks/first round picks/import picks. If a player will only report to certain teams they should be allowed to drop, teams should be able to get compensation for them instead of simply settling for a lesser talent and that compensation should not have to wait until the draft is over. This would require moving the draft back to after the Memorial Cup obviously.

- The league as a whole needs to get involved with recruiting as a cooperative effort. Star recruiting high end US kids at 14 years old through different programs that gives them exposure to the league giving them in person development opportunities. Running summer camps etc that won't interfere with their NCAA eligibility, that would fail if it did. This allows them to get to know the various teams as well as the league instead of simply relying on media/agents or other biased parties for their information.

These are the basics in my opinion that could improve the level of talent in the league, the level of play which creates a more attractive league to players and their interests as well as fan support. The higher the talent level the better the results in terms of turning players pro. The more pros the league develops the more interest they will receive from high end players. Start with cutting the draft down and increasing the number of imports that can play on each team and you will give every team a boost in talent almost immediately. Make the changes to the draft rule/trade rules and you level the playing field for all teams in terms of compensation.

Settling for attracting only those who will report under the current rules will continue to see more and more players choosing other options thus lowering/watering down the talent in the league. As that continues the league will develop fewer pros thus making it an ongoing cycle that will be harder to stop.

We disagree on a number of points, so be it but at least discussion gets different ideas out there. The league is not what it was, soe of that is good but much of it is not. Fans right now only have the choice to accept it or not and judging by declining attendance numbers they're choosing not to accept it. The league can either fix it or continue to see the losses mount both financially and in level of talent and competition.

 

[barclayplager]

..shinny hockey does not seem to turn on the fans but if you are younger you do not see the difference …"more experienced" fans know..

 

[EvenSteven]

Well at least you're willing to give some thought out responses, I can sincerely appreciate that whether we agree or not.



1 - The vast majority of Ontario players still choose the OHL, true but how many of them have no other options? How many of those with other options are choosing to exercise those options etc. While still the minority the numbers are growing and we are left with those who have limited options so we aren't always getting the top kids anymore which leads to a watered down league/talent pool. Skills development is improving, everywhere and in many instances is surpassing skills training in Ontario. coaching etc the same. Simply look at the NHL ranked prospects this season, even though a bit of an outlier most first round ranked kids are not OHL and definitely not Ontario born/raised. Now the extremely low number may be an exception but the trend has been going in that direction for a long time so skills development elsewhere appears to be outpacing skills development here at both the minor hockey level and the OHL level.

So is it watered down? Well with fewer high end players outside Ontario reporting, more high end Ontario kids looking at other options and more kids who would not be considered top tier talent playing in the league well, I don't know what your idea of watered down is but mine would be settling for less then the best and believing that is acceptable.

2 - Market size can be a factor in terms of financial return but my problem with market size is if an owner is willing to put a team in a small centre then complain they are at a disadvantage in their ability to compete then why did they put that team there or why haven't they moved it to a more sustainable or profitable market? It would suck for the fans of those teams if they ever lost their team but looking to fix a problem for them by limiting other team's ability to compete and attract talent is going to make things worse. The rules were in place and owners still put teams into those markets then complain when teams in larger markets do better and want to bring those teams down to their level? If you're not willing to deal with the situation then it's time for the situation to be changed for that team, not the entire league. Either pay the price, which if they were smart they would have understood would have come with the situation or sell the team to someone who will. Market size in terms of attracting talen is two fold. if you have a top program, which can be had anywhere then attracting talent should be no more of a problem than any other team and yes, every team gets turned down by players for various reasons. Cutting the number of draft picks, again limiting the opportunities to get in the league will also help getting kids to report. Less opportunities to get into the league means more likely kids report to where they are drafted.

3 - Money, money, money. If these teams are in such dire straits financially why haven't most of them folded by now? how many times have well to do do/wealthy people cried poor while living the high life? On top of that those financial disclosures were set to show the league cannot afford to pay kids while they make money off of them so some fudging of the numbers is very likely as well as the rumoured price tag on teams reportedly up for sale shows a much different story. If these teams were simply bleeding money then in all likelihood they wouldn't be receiving offers well north of $10 million. Now are some struggling or less profitable then others? Of course but again there are numerous reasons for this including location, quality of product etc. The league as a whole makes money and the question about these teams not being profitable that needs to be asked is how many are losing money and how many are not making money by choice? Even in the mom and pop days most teams made a small profit and while today the expenses are probably about 4x what they were back then the incoming revenues are about 8x what they were back then. There's a lot of people getting paid to make sure the bottom line shows negative and if the financials were as bad as they are portrayed this league would only have about eight teams in it.

4 - With continued talk and speculation about different cities becoming part of the league its pretty clear expansion is on the minds of many. For the owners is a pay day from the fees which would likely be seven figures compared to less than $50,000 in the mid seventies. In terms of contraction, as the league has grown the overall level of competitiveness has dropped. When the league was ten teams there was no JR hockey cycle that everyone buys into now whereas now three years of losing rebuilding for a one or two year window to be competitive has become acceptable. A similar number of players to choose from spread out over double the teams equals a less competitive league overall. How w0uld a ten team league look about now? Higher quality hockey from all teams across the league, top talent centralized across those teams, even more consistent development at a higher level, more financial stability, less draft manipulation and a higher profile for the league itself in terms of ability to help get kids into the pros.

5 - As I have laid out in this thread and in others there's multiple steps improve the situation which I agree needs to be fixed for all teams to remain viable as well as the league itself.

- Cut the draft back to ten rounds. This limits the number of opportunities to get into the league thus ensuring more kids will report to the teams that draft them. It also exposes kids/agents who want to use geography as an excuse. If a kid won't report to a team in the league yet will report to a team south of the border that is even further away it proves geography is not the issue. Work with the kids/agents to see what the problem really is and in most cases you will find geography is not the real issue but development is. Work with the teams to improve the situation where this is an ongoing problem including pushing for the sale of the franchise.

- Expand the number of imports teams can carry. If this were upped to three while the import draft itself were cut to a single round you are again making the number of opportunities limited thus making it more likely that kids will report. When dealing with only 60 imports each year you are going to be bringing in most of the top imports and adding one more high end spot filled by a high end player thus increasing the overall talent level in the league. Another change to the imports would be to eliminate the import tag from potential OA imports. While this won't affect very many players it will add another opportunity to add a high end import to a roster, or two or three. Now this would only apply to imports who have played at least one full season in the league.

- Keep improving the draft pick rules as well as trading rules. This last change was a step in the right direction, the league doesn't look like such a joke trading picks a decade out. This brings some value back to draft picks.; Trading of players, 16 year olds needs to be consistent. Either they are all eligible to be traded or none of them. Some kids capable of playing in the league get stuck on depth charts and never get the opportunity while on another team they could get that opportunity.

- Eliminate league compensation for defected players and allow players to be included in those deals. The only time league compensation should be awarded for a defected player is when a player won't report to the league which means the team would have to the following draft to either deal him and get no compensation or release him in which case the league would give a first round pick at the end of the first round in the following draft. If a team signs the player as a free agent that team would have to compensate the league with their first round pick in the next draft, they would have to have a first round pick in order to sign him. Expand the defected players to include players in the first two rounds since a lot of potential defected players are simply allowed to slide to a lower round.

- Allow trades during the draft, including players/picks/first round picks/import picks. If a player will only report to certain teams they should be allowed to drop, teams should be able to get compensation for them instead of simply settling for a lesser talent and that compensation should not have to wait until the draft is over. This would require moving the draft back to after the Memorial Cup obviously.

- The league as a whole needs to get involved with recruiting as a cooperative effort. Star recruiting high end US kids at 14 years old through different programs that gives them exposure to the league giving them in person development opportunities. Running summer camps etc that won't interfere with their NCAA eligibility, that would fail if it did. This allows them to get to know the various teams as well as the league instead of simply relying on media/agents or other biased parties for their information.

These are the basics in my opinion that could improve the level of talent in the league, the level of play which creates a more attractive league to players and their interests as well as fan support. The higher the talent level the better the results in terms of turning players pro. The more pros the league develops the more interest they will receive from high end players. Start with cutting the draft down and increasing the number of imports that can play on each team and you will give every team a boost in talent almost immediately. Make the changes to the draft rule/trade rules and you level the playing field for all teams in terms of compensation.

Settling for attracting only those who will report under the current rules will continue to see more and more players choosing other options thus lowering/watering down the talent in the league. As that continues the league will develop fewer pros thus making it an ongoing cycle that will be harder to stop.

We disagree on a number of points, so be it but at least discussion gets different ideas out there. The league is not what it was, soe of that is good but much of it is not. Fans right now only have the choice to accept it or not and judging by declining attendance numbers they're choosing not to accept it. The league can either fix it or continue to see the losses mount both financially and in level of talent and competition.

Your point, #3 about money money money:

In regards to the issue of being able to pay the players a minimum wage- The Kitchener Rangers reported they barely break even some years and sometimes make a modest profit in other years. As far as I'm concerned, as you mentioned it under #3, these numbers have to be fudged. There is no way that they are not making a ton of money in Kitchener. I go to all the games in Kitchener and the building is near full every night. Tickets are not cheap. Thry bring in a massive amount of money in advertising, concessions, beer sales, etc. etc. etc.

If the Kitchener Rangers are barely breaking even and sometimes making a modest profit, how can this league even be afloat?

Also, under your issue with trading all players /picks be they import or North American, and raising the number of import slots to three per team:

I would also agree with allowing three per team which equals 60 per season for the league. One thing I would do with that is that once the season starts, take the limits off how many imports you can have on your roster.

Once the season starts, and the 60 imports are locked into the league, the trading of import for North American player or picks should be allowed. The number of imports in the league would not exceed 60. But one team having four on their roster another team having two should be permitted.

The way things are today, the value of an import is usually less than the value of a comparable North American player. This is because teams that already have two imports cannot bring in a third without moving one off the roster. So a team that wants to trade an import is restricted and therefore, the value goes down for that asset.

 

[HockeyPops]

Your point, #3 about money money money:

In regards to the issue of being able to pay the players a minimum wage- The Kitchener Rangers reported they barely break even some years and sometimes make a modest profit in other years. As far as I'm concerned, as you mentioned it under #3, these numbers have to be fudged. There is no way that they are not making a ton of money in Kitchener. I go to all the games in Kitchener and the building is near full every night. Tickets are not cheap. Thry bring in a massive amount of money in advertising, concessions, beer sales, etc. etc. etc.

If the Kitchener Rangers are barely breaking even and sometimes making a modest profit, how can this league even be afloat?

Kitchener seems to be doing alright.

Kitchener Rangers turn profit for 22nd consecutive season

Would be nice to see the financial statements rather than just the summaries.

The article that @NorthernVoice shared said the only OHL teams with audited financial statements were Kitchener, Erie, and Ottawa.

 

[member 71782]

Your point, #3 about money money money:

In regards to the issue of being able to pay the players a minimum wage- The Kitchener Rangers reported they barely break even some years and sometimes make a modest profit in other years. As far as I'm concerned, as you mentioned it under #3, these numbers have to be fudged. There is no way that they are not making a ton of money in Kitchener. I go to all the games in Kitchener and the building is near full every night. Tickets are not cheap. Thry bring in a massive amount of money in advertising, concessions, beer sales, etc. etc. etc.

If the Kitchener Rangers are barely breaking even and sometimes making a modest profit, how can this league even be afloat?

Also, under your issue with trading all players /picks be they import or North American, and raising the number of import slots to three per team:

I would also agree with allowing three per team which equals 60 per season for the league. One thing I would do with that is that once the season starts, take the limits off how many imports you can have on your roster.

Once the season starts, and the 60 imports are locked into the league, the trading of import for North American player or picks should be allowed. The number of imports in the league would not exceed 60. But one team having four on their roster another team having two should be permitted.

The way things are today, the value of an import is usually less than the value of a comparable North American player. This is because teams that already have two imports cannot bring in a third without moving one off the roster. So a team that wants to trade an import is restricted and therefore, the value goes down for that asset.

Replying to your import comments, I could support that. Many times import players are some of the top talents on their respective teams yet when deals are made the cost associated with acquiring them in relation to other top talent are bargains because of the restrictions involved.

60 imports in the league but no restrictions on the number per team wouldn't be a bad idea. Teams that do well with imports or are desired locations for imports can be moved, picks or players and the team dealing them can get a better return.

No issue at all.

 

[EvenSteven]

Replying to your import comments, I could support that. Many times import players are some of the top talents on their respective teams yet when deals are made the cost associated with acquiring them in relation to other top talent are bargains because of the restrictions involved.

60 imports in the league but no restrictions on the number per team wouldn't be a bad idea. Teams that do well with imports or are desired locations for imports can be moved, picks or players and the team dealing them can get a better return.

No issue at all.

I find that usually, most imports don't have the same "I'll only report to this team or that. I won't report to this team or that" demands that some elite NA players do.

They usually go where they are drafted to. So therefore, a "have not" market may be able to improve their roster if they can employ three, four, or even five imports by drafting them and trading for them.

So if many of these changes discussed here were implemented, perhaps Peterboro, wanting to contend this year, would be able to trade no report McTavish to whatever team and be able to do so for picks, players, even imports (even though they may already have a couple on the roster). Best way to get full value for the asset.

 

[ohloutsider]

Your point, #3 about money money money:

In regards to the issue of being able to pay the players a minimum wage- The Kitchener Rangers reported they barely break even some years and sometimes make a modest profit in other years. As far as I'm concerned, as you mentioned it under #3, these numbers have to be fudged. There is no way that they are not making a ton of money in Kitchener. I go to all the games in Kitchener and the building is near full every night. Tickets are not cheap. Thry bring in a massive amount of money in advertising, concessions, beer sales, etc. etc. etc.

If the Kitchener Rangers are barely breaking even and sometimes making a modest profit, how can this league even be afloat?

Also, under your issue with trading all players /picks be they import or North American, and raising the number of import slots to three per team:

I would also agree with allowing three per team which equals 60 per season for the league. One thing I would do with that is that once the season starts, take the limits off how many imports you can have on your roster.

Once the season starts, and the 60 imports are locked into the league, the trading of import for North American player or picks should be allowed. The number of imports in the league would not exceed 60. But one team having four on their roster another team having two should be permitted.

The way things are today, the value of an import is usually less than the value of a comparable North American player. This is because teams that already have two imports cannot bring in a third without moving one off the roster. So a team that wants to trade an import is restricted and therefore, the value goes down for that asset.

Kitchener gives away most of their "profit" to charity so on the books it shows as them not making much money.

 

[EvenSteven]

Kitchener seems to be doing alright.

Kitchener Rangers turn profit for 22nd consecutive season

Would be nice to see the financial statements rather than just the summaries.

The article that @NorthernVoice shared said the only OHL teams with audited financial statements were Kitchener, Erie, and Ottawa.

The Rangers choose to run their operation as a nonprofit. So that means they are choosing to only make very small profits every year. Sure it's great that they give away thousands and thousands of dollars to local charities, scholarships, hockey associations, etc every year.

But at the end of the day, how does that help the players financially who play for them? To bring in the amount of money that they do, and it's a ton of money, then dispense it around the area in the form of donations, and then proclaim that they'd never be able to pay the players minimum-wage because they're not making enough money to do so is mighty disingenuous, and quite frankly, insulting.

Also, it's one thing to help pay towards Arena improvements. But we are on our second video clock now. I don't know when this one will be paid for, but don't be surprised if as soon as it is paid for, we run out and buy another one even though we certainly do not need one. In my opinion, it will be just another way to dispense funds to show minimal profit

 

[member 71782]

I find that usually, most imports don't have the same "I'll only report to this team or that. I won't report to this team or that" demands that some elite NA players do.

They usually go where they are drafted to. So therefore, a "have not" market may be able to improve their roster if they can employ three, four, or even five imports by drafting them and trading for them.

So if many of these changes discussed here were implemented, perhaps Peterboro, wanting to contend this year, would be able to trade no report McTavish to whatever team and be able to do so for picks, players, even imports (even though they may already have a couple on the roster). Best way to get full value for the asset.

While most will report, at least what we know publicly there are some but most of them won't report to any team.

It provides better value yes but also provides opportunities since so much of the import draft is related to prearranged deals. Any team that can establish and enhance stronger links to imports will attract more high end talent from all regions.

 

[BadgerBruce]

Kitchener seems to be doing alright.

Kitchener Rangers turn profit for 22nd consecutive season

Would be nice to see the financial statements rather than just the summaries.

The article that @NorthernVoice shared said the only OHL teams with audited financial statements were Kitchener, Erie, and Ottawa.

Closest you’ll get to actual financials is the Smith Forensics audit, available here:
http://www.chlclassaction.com/wp-co...17.02.28-Smith-Forensics-Report-OHL-Final.pdf

Lots of interesting information — Barrie Colts have a setup I’ve never seen before, for instance.

In terms of “profit,” what tends to occur a great deal is the owners simply pay themselves and/or family members salaries that in a sense are the profits. They include these payments on the expense side and then say “the team had revenues of $4.3 million and expenses of $4.275 million,” so a tiny paper profit. Or like the Niagara Ice Dogs owners who claim they’ve never drawn salaries from the team but self-issued hundreds of thousands of dollars to themselves in dividends.

Fun stuff if you’ve got the time to read it and like numbers.

 

[BadgerBruce]

Kitchener gives away most of their "profit" to charity so on the books it shows as them not making much money.

Thought I’d do a little digging for you — here are the figures from 2016.

The first shocker is that the team had retained earnings as of May 31, 2016 of $4,238,000. What that means is the club has a financial war chest that is probably close to $5 million today. (Smith, Tab 10).

The team reported revenues of $6,779,351 in 2016. They claim to have made $370,879 (approximately 5%) in “Community Donations They also claim to have spent $2,813,237 in operating costs — that’s really high compared to most other teams, and the club financial statements do not indicate what falls under the “operating costs” heading. Smith says as much in his notation (Tab 10).

Now, a bit about hockey teams and “community donations.” We tend to think of these donations as cash, sort of like any of us writing a cheque to the Cancer Society or Liver Foundation. That’s not
the case with hockey teams in my personal experience. A team I was involved with years ago always claimed to donate several hundred thousand dollars to youth hockey, and here’s one example of how they did it: they’d send the coaching staff out to run a day of “free” practices for a minor hockey association. The club arbitrarily assigned a dollar value to that day of practices — say, 4 coaches and 6 players on the ice to help the kids for 6 total hours. Gotta be worth $5,000, right? Presto, instant “donation” — usually, the team paid the head coach around $2,000 and split up the other 3K amongst the others.

Not saying Kitchener does this. I have no idea. But the practice is very common.

 

[ohloutsider]

Thought I’d do a little digging for you — here are the figures from 2016.

The first shocker is that the team had retained earnings as of May 31, 2016 of $4,238,000. What that means is the club has a financial war chest that is probably close to $5 million today. (Smith, Tab 10).

The team reported revenues of $6,779,351 in 2016. They claim to have made $370,879 (approximately 5%) in “Community Donations They also claim to have spent $2,813,237 in operating costs — that’s really high compared to most other teams, and the club financial statements do not indicate what falls under the “operating costs” heading. Smith says as much in his notation (Tab 10).

Now, a bit about hockey teams and “community donations.” We tend to think of these donations as cash, sort of like any of us writing a cheque to the Cancer Society or Liver Foundation. That’s not
the case with hockey teams in my personal experience. A team I was involved with years ago always claimed to donate several hundred thousand dollars to youth hockey, and here’s one example of how they did it: they’d send the coaching staff out to run a day of “free” practices for a minor hockey association. The club arbitrarily assigned a dollar value to that day of practices — say, 4 coaches and 6 players on the ice to help the kids for 6 total hours. Gotta be worth $5,000, right? Presto, instant “donation” — usually, the team paid the head coach around $2,000 and split up the other 3K amongst the others.

Not saying Kitchener does this. I have no idea. But the practice is very common.

I've read up to tab 1 in your attached report - interesting stuff, will read more tomorrow.

 

[Fischhaber]

Your point, #3 about money money money:

In regards to the issue of being able to pay the players a minimum wage- The Kitchener Rangers reported they barely break even some years and sometimes make a modest profit in other years. As far as I'm concerned, as you mentioned it under #3, these numbers have to be fudged. There is no way that they are not making a ton of money in Kitchener. I go to all the games in Kitchener and the building is near full every night. Tickets are not cheap. Thry bring in a massive amount of money in advertising, concessions, beer sales, etc. etc. etc.

If the Kitchener Rangers are barely breaking even and sometimes making a modest profit, how can this league even be afloat?

Also, under your issue with trading all players /picks be they import or North American, and raising the number of import slots to three per team:

I would also agree with allowing three per team which equals 60 per season for the league. One thing I would do with that is that once the season starts, take the limits off how many imports you can have on your roster.

Once the season starts, and the 60 imports are locked into the league, the trading of import for North American player or picks should be allowed. The number of imports in the league would not exceed 60. But one team having four on their roster another team having two should be permitted.

The way things are today, the value of an import is usually less than the value of a comparable North American player. This is because teams that already have two imports cannot bring in a third without moving one off the roster. So a team that wants to trade an import is restricted and therefore, the value goes down for that asset.

We'll never get a true picture of a team's bottom line until we know what they spend to recruit players. Kitchener has the financial ability to make some pretty big splashes and they have done so in the past. We all saw what Jack Campbell got a few years ago and I happen to know that London exceeded that amount for a player recently so it still happens.

Teams know that spending will put butts in the seats and make the OHL happy so that's what they do. It's hard to blame them for being good business people.

 

[aresknights]

We'll never get a true picture of a team's bottom line until we know what they spend to recruit players. Kitchener has the financial ability to make some pretty big splashes and they have done so in the past. We all saw what Jack Campbell got a few years ago and I happen to know that London exceeded that amount for a player recently so it still happens.

Teams know that spending will put butts in the seats and make the OHL happy so that's what they do. It's hard to blame them for being good business people.

"I happen to know that London exceeded that amount for a player recently so it still happens."

And the player is???????
And the amount was???????

Just give us one of the 2 lol.

If ya can throw out the statement you have made, Id hope you can go 1 step further and just own it.
Or else it just looks....... Well ya know.

You have made the claim for all to see. Ya should back it up for the good of the entire league I guess a couple reasons not to, is because its heresay or your team does it also?

Ill be the first to say LK deserves their spanking, if true.

PM if neccessary

 

[Fischhaber]

"I happen to know that London exceeded that amount for a player recently so it still happens."

And the player is???????
And the amount was???????

Just give us one of the 2 lol.

If ya can throw out the statement you have made, Id hope you can go 1 step further and just own it.
Or else it just looks....... Well ya know.

You have made the claim for all to see. Ya should back it up for the good of the entire league I guess a couple reasons not to, is because its heresay or your team does it also?

Ill be the first to say LK deserves their spanking, if true.

PM if neccessary

We are prohibited from discussing player recruitment on this forum, but I sent you a PM.

I wasn't trying to single out a specific team, just using the most well known recent example to show how things work in this league. Undrafted players wearing $5000 suits are bound to raise some eyebrows.

This discussion is more about how to regulate these type of payments in order to create some semblance of parity in the league, while also bring the world's top talent to the OHL and we should try to keep it there.

 

[OHL4Life]

"I happen to know that London exceeded that amount for a player recently so it still happens."

And the player is???????
And the amount was???????

Just give us one of the 2 lol.

If ya can throw out the statement you have made, Id hope you can go 1 step further and just own it.
Or else it just looks....... Well ya know.

You have made the claim for all to see. Ya should back it up for the good of the entire league I guess a couple reasons not to, is because its heresay or your team does it also?

Ill be the first to say LK deserves their spanking, if true.

PM if neccessary

i dont know, a few years ago the soo had 5/6 very good americans on their team, mid to late round picks and free agents. i wonder what they did to get them there

its easy to throw things out there, not so easy to prove it.