Um..I believe it will be the NHL and the Washington Capitals trying to get Ovechkin's ass over here.And It's AO that dreams of playing in the NHL.So yes it is all about the NHL.MaV said:
- Status
Do explain..jekoh said:The NHL's made Ovechkin what he is today, yeah right.
I'm talking about the pros in the game today.
I guess Russian clubs (and fans) would be much better off if Fedorov or Markov were not "recognized" in NA...
CSKA
Registered User
its about Russian hockey system , about Dynamo Moscow ( russian club ) and its about russian national team ! Oh and the FANS !!!
2 million ? damn its Ovechkin and not just "another" 1st rounder !
2 million ? damn its Ovechkin and not just "another" 1st rounder !
Last edited:
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
jekoh said:
I dunno, I think the hockey situation is quite different than football, in that one league, the NHL, is so superior to all the other leagues in the world. It tends to reduce all the other leagues to the de facto status of "feeder leagues" for the NHL. The players themselves generally therefore have a legitimate desire to progress into the most competitive league and to reach their fullest potential as players, and for most, that means going to the NHL.
I know that isn't much comfort to the fans of Dynamo Moscow, but in a way, what are they really expecting? Should Sidney Crosby keep playing in Rimouski until he's 21 just because the fans there really enjoy him and they have his junior rights? Should Trent Hunter, Michael Ryder, or Andrew Raycroft have kept on giving the fans in Bridgeport, Hamilton, or Providence something to cheer about?
It's reasonable to presume that Ovechkin wants to progress too, into the NHL, and nobody should want to stand in his way just to put money into their own pockets.
That said, the NHL should be obliged to offer FAIR compensation for these players. $200,000 filtered down through the sticky fingers of various federations and organisations probably doesn't cut it. $2,000,000 actually sounds a lot more fair to me. But I'd like to see that number, whatever it is, formalised into a rigid system, so that no one greedy rogue can try to screw up a kid's dreams just to put a few more bucks into his own pocket. These aren't slaves to be bought and sold. Compensate the team, yes, see that the compensation is administered equally and fairly, but don't turn it into a free-for-all.
(Now then... all THAT aside, I'm not really happy with the idea of the NHL being the sole superpower in hockey either, at least not when it is exclusively based in North America. Ideally, I'd love to see a situation in which either the NHL has franchises in European cities, or a rival pan-European league rises up which has the quality and the clout to compete with the NHL for players.)
Epsilon
#basta
Blind Gardien said:
It's very different than football so I don't think people should use that comparison either. People have to remember that ALL transfers in football are cash deals and so they can be inherently bigger because the cash a team gains will largely just be spent on more players. A good comparison that had been brought up, however, is Japanese baseball which is a professional league at a lower level to MLB. Players are bought out at large costs if they are currently under contract when a team wants to bring them over.
Apples and oranges. Dynamo Moscow is a professional team, in a professional league, with no affiliation to any NHL team. It's players are signed to legally valid professional services contracts. The CHL is a developmental league which pays it's players a nominal salary, has rules about age limits, and already gets a pretty good deal from the NHL with regards to transfers and favouritism. The AHL players are under contract to their NHL teams, not the AHL teams they play for (which are funded by those NHL teams specifically to develop these players for use in the NHL).
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
Just out of curiosity, do you all think that whatever fees are agreed to should be paid by the drafting club or from pool established by the NHL? There is no compensation for a player drafted from America, Canada, Western Europe. And how would that effect a salary cap is one is enacted?
Epsilon
#basta
Jaded-Fan said:
That's not true. There are compensation plans already in place in North America, and a new agreement with most IIHF countries is likely to be negociated post-CBA. As for your suggestion, I don't like it because it's basically a double hit to the successful teams. In addition to picking lower in the draft, they will be subsidizing the signing of the top picks for the bad teams, since those players are going to be the ones getting the big money buyouts.
I do feel that Russian clubs should get better/more financial compensation. But I think it makes it a little difficult to digest when one imagines the compensation lining someones pockets rather then being reinvested in that team.
Then again 200k in Russia is worth a lot more than 200k in the US, heh.
Then again 200k in Russia is worth a lot more than 200k in the US, heh.
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
Epsilon said:
This is all blatantly obvious, but the point was meant to address the complaint about fans being upset about seeing the best players from their local team pack up and head off to the NHL. The *fans* in all these cases should have the same expectation, regardless of whether we are talking about the AHL, CHL or RSL.
It's not like these European teams are doing all this player development out of the goodness of their hearts, are they? These teams are commercial entities, right? They make money, in part, because of who they have playing for them?
What would be unfair about requiring an NHL team to simply buy out the remainder of the contract of the player in question?
What would be unfair about requiring an NHL team to simply buy out the remainder of the contract of the player in question?
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
Jaded-Fan said:
I think it should come from the drafting club. But it should be a fixed amount, known in advance for any 1st rounder, any 2nd rounder, etc.
(I'm talking about development fees here).
Low-market teams have had a tendency to trade off high-salary players to get draft picks. If draft picks suddenly start costing a team to use them, maybe we can get a little bit of parity-inducement from the bottom-up, instead of the top-down approach that hasn't been working all that well lately. In a new cost-certain CBA, making development fees part of the team-by-team equation might be interesting.
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
Epsilon said:
We should probably make sure we draw a more careful line between "development fees" and "transfer fees".
I think the NHL should have a formal agreement and structured system with regards to development fees. (Which they in fact have, afaik).
If a player has no existing contract, and wishes to move from one league to another, then I don't feel any transfer fees are warranted. People have a right to move and search for work somewhere else.
When it comes to buying players out of existing contracts, then it's a whole different story. In that case, I don't mind if Dynamo Moscow wants to set any ransom they deem fair to release Ovechkin from his current 1-year contract. The only provision on this one is that there might be an "age of majority" requirement on the validity of contracts. If you tell a 14 year old kid that he has to sign a 10-year personal services contract in order to enter your prestigious development system, or that he has to enlist in the Red Army, well, that's out of bounds.
Buffaloed
webmaster
I've had to delete several posts in this thread due to bigotry and personal attacks. This is an important discussion for our boards and it's not going to be derailed by those that can't express their opinions in a civil fashion. There won't be any tolerance if I receive anymore complaints.
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
Further thought, or a proposal if you will:
Group I: Development fees
- Standard amounts paid to federation or association to be administered to the hockey programs responsible for the player's development, in the manner which the federation or association sees fit. (Although the guidelines for this manner must be transparent and adhered to, and the NHL will conduct audits to insure that no fees are falling into the wrong hands).
1st Round pick: $1,000,000
2nd Round pick: $500,000
3rd Round pick: $250,000
4th-9th Round pick: $100,000
Group II: Transfer fees:
- Transfer fees to follow a standard scale to allow any players to transfer out of their existing contracts, for any players who signed those contracts in professional leagues prior to their 18th birthdays.
1st Round pick: $2,000,000
2nd Round pick: $1,000,000
3rd Round pick: $500,000
4th-9th Round pick: $250,000
Group III: Contract Buy-Out
If a player signs a professional contract after his 18th birthday, then the player is expected to honour that contract, unless a private arrangement can be mutually worked out by the player and his club.
Group IV: Free Agents
A player with no professional contract obligation in any professional league is free to sign with any team in any member nation of the IIHF, with no fees involved.
In this scenario, Ovechkin would generate a development fee payment from the Washington Capitals of $1,000,000 to the IIHF or Russian federation. They would be expected to allot a goodly portion of that to the Dynamo development system, some to the various national team programs that Ovechkin participated in, other minor associations responsble for his development, etc. Transparently, and with paper trails.
Meanwhile, presuming Ovechkin signed his contract before his 18th birthday, the Caps would have to pay another $2,000,000 to Dynamo if they wanted to pull him out of that contract early.
If Ovechkin foolishly signed the contract with Dynamo after his 18th birthday (and there are no out clauses or specified buyouts), then they can ask the Caps, via Ovechkin, to give them $50M if they want. Of course, they run the risk of alienating the player and causing lots of other headaches if they make their demand too high, but I think they have the right.
Group I: Development fees
- Standard amounts paid to federation or association to be administered to the hockey programs responsible for the player's development, in the manner which the federation or association sees fit. (Although the guidelines for this manner must be transparent and adhered to, and the NHL will conduct audits to insure that no fees are falling into the wrong hands).
1st Round pick: $1,000,000
2nd Round pick: $500,000
3rd Round pick: $250,000
4th-9th Round pick: $100,000
Group II: Transfer fees:
- Transfer fees to follow a standard scale to allow any players to transfer out of their existing contracts, for any players who signed those contracts in professional leagues prior to their 18th birthdays.
1st Round pick: $2,000,000
2nd Round pick: $1,000,000
3rd Round pick: $500,000
4th-9th Round pick: $250,000
Group III: Contract Buy-Out
If a player signs a professional contract after his 18th birthday, then the player is expected to honour that contract, unless a private arrangement can be mutually worked out by the player and his club.
Group IV: Free Agents
A player with no professional contract obligation in any professional league is free to sign with any team in any member nation of the IIHF, with no fees involved.
In this scenario, Ovechkin would generate a development fee payment from the Washington Capitals of $1,000,000 to the IIHF or Russian federation. They would be expected to allot a goodly portion of that to the Dynamo development system, some to the various national team programs that Ovechkin participated in, other minor associations responsble for his development, etc. Transparently, and with paper trails.
Meanwhile, presuming Ovechkin signed his contract before his 18th birthday, the Caps would have to pay another $2,000,000 to Dynamo if they wanted to pull him out of that contract early.
If Ovechkin foolishly signed the contract with Dynamo after his 18th birthday (and there are no out clauses or specified buyouts), then they can ask the Caps, via Ovechkin, to give them $50M if they want. Of course, they run the risk of alienating the player and causing lots of other headaches if they make their demand too high, but I think they have the right.
I must say one more thing. Actually I believe teams in Finland, Sweden etc. were basicly happy with the amount of money they were getting on the last deal. Ok, more wouldn't hurt, but their main concern was the late date for the NHL-IIHF deal release clause. NHL teams were able to sign the players (usually best form the teams) as late as 15th of July. That doesn't sound too late, but actually some teams start their preseason two weeks after that date here. Obviously all the best players are signed at that point and it's very hard to build a team when you are now sure which players you are able to keep. You'd figure it's not easy to use the star players you have possibly acquired to promote season tickets when fans know they might leave ust before the season.
Now, the teams were asking to move the deadline to 15th on July for previously drafted players. AFAIK NHL had no problem with this, they were ready to do that, and it wouldn't really be a problem as the players they usually sign are not going to get a roster spot straight away anyway, so they don't have to know how things develop with their other players. NHLPA didn't like this idea however, so they had to keep the date on July.
The money issue with Russians is different. I think it's partly cultural thing and partly because of the ompensation which the teams get nwo doesn't mean as much to Russian teams. I believe the top clubs operate with more than $10M a year budget. $200k is not that much for them. For some small Finnish teams it can be quite a lot actually, even one fifth of their salary budget. So it can be quite hard to combine all the European clubs to same transfer deal.
Now, the teams were asking to move the deadline to 15th on July for previously drafted players. AFAIK NHL had no problem with this, they were ready to do that, and it wouldn't really be a problem as the players they usually sign are not going to get a roster spot straight away anyway, so they don't have to know how things develop with their other players. NHLPA didn't like this idea however, so they had to keep the date on July.
The money issue with Russians is different. I think it's partly cultural thing and partly because of the ompensation which the teams get nwo doesn't mean as much to Russian teams. I believe the top clubs operate with more than $10M a year budget. $200k is not that much for them. For some small Finnish teams it can be quite a lot actually, even one fifth of their salary budget. So it can be quite hard to combine all the European clubs to same transfer deal.
jekoh
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2004
- 4,416
- 4
Mr.Brownov said:
My point was that "if the NHL didn't bring them across seas", the Fedorovs and Markovs would be playing in Russia. Now I'm not an owner of a Russian club, but I guess a league with all those players would be likely to generate more revenue.
me2
Go ahead foot
jekoh said:
Indeed. If the top 200 players in the NHL up and went to Russia it would be huge for the Russian game. People would be tuning in to watch Moscow v whoever just to see Fedorov pass it Sakic who passes it to Lemuix who dekes out Lidstrom and scores on Belfour. GOAL!!!
Whats left of NHL would mostly suck, it'd be a glorified AHL. I wonder how financially viable the NHL would be if every team was made up leftovers. 18,000+ crowds would be a thing of the past.
===============================================
I wouldn't hurt to pay some of the overseas hockey federations a little more money for the best prospects to compensate for talent drain. Paying the NA ones isn't really nescessary, after all the best NA players end up playing in Canada and US anyway (via the NHL). So there isn't really a drain on NA. Those few that leave and go to Europe are usually the NHL rejects (so no great loss).
===============================================
As regards AO, the Russian team has a contract so they can demand what they like. If the Caps can't handle the amount they can walk away and wait until he is off contract. $2m is not that much. It is 40000 seats at $50 a seat (merchandise is profit after that). If Washington think he can bring in the extra 1000 fans a game its more than worth it. If not then wait it out.
Jussi
Registered User
Petey21
Registered User
I just read that article posted by the thread starter, and I must agree with Dynamo Moscow on this one. The old deal was a nothing but a joke, the European teams had nothing good coming out of that one and I'm sure the NHL GM's were laughing all the way to the press conference that they managed to literally steal yet another European prospect for loose cash. That's just not fair, is it?
Remember that Ovechkin is under a contract with Dynamo Moscow, and if he wants to leave for the NHL, and Washington wants him so bad, then it's his employers that should set the actual transfer fee, not the buyer. It's not like people go to the grocery store and buy groceries and tell the people that work there "Well, I want this stuff, and you'll have to accept the money I'll pay you for it", and then give them a couple bucks for food worth $20. So why should this be any different? It should always be the team that owns the player that sets the price they think is right (some teams might have a higher price on a certain player than others would, depending on how important he is to their team).
And I could be wrong as I don't know all the details about the old deal, but what I've heard is that there was a given amount of money that all European teams that lost players to the NHL would split? Meaning that if there was only ONE player coming from Europe they'd get the whole amount, but if there were 100 all teams would split that money and get basically nothing per player. That's just plaid ridiculous and I hope the IIHF will NEVER EVER agree on such a lousy deal again!
Remember that Ovechkin is under a contract with Dynamo Moscow, and if he wants to leave for the NHL, and Washington wants him so bad, then it's his employers that should set the actual transfer fee, not the buyer. It's not like people go to the grocery store and buy groceries and tell the people that work there "Well, I want this stuff, and you'll have to accept the money I'll pay you for it", and then give them a couple bucks for food worth $20. So why should this be any different? It should always be the team that owns the player that sets the price they think is right (some teams might have a higher price on a certain player than others would, depending on how important he is to their team).
And I could be wrong as I don't know all the details about the old deal, but what I've heard is that there was a given amount of money that all European teams that lost players to the NHL would split? Meaning that if there was only ONE player coming from Europe they'd get the whole amount, but if there were 100 all teams would split that money and get basically nothing per player. That's just plaid ridiculous and I hope the IIHF will NEVER EVER agree on such a lousy deal again!
Jussi said:
Erm... yes, obviously not July, I knew I would make a mistake with post that long (for me at least). Actually I think it was May 15th.
Petey21 said:
Wel, yes, and no. NHL actually paid pre-arrenged amount to IIHF. (Note to those who said it should be to NHL team paying directly, not all team, that was not the case with the old system). IIHF then divided the money, but AFAIK they had decided the amounts, so those didn't really change depending on the players signed. Actually the amount NHL paid went up every year, but so did the number of players signed. I suppose IIHF just kept small portition of the money, maybe partly to balane the difference of the paymends many on different years when there were different number of signed players.
Petey21 said:
That works, of course, until the grocery store decides it wants to keep it's groceries and demands $100 for a stick of butter. There is a difference between the role of a grocery store and the role of a European hockey team. A grocery store is meant to do what? To sell groceries, and try to have better service and lower prices than their competitors--that way they sell more groceries. A European hockey team, however, would rather keep it's "groceries" if it can. They aren't trying to have lower prices than their competitors. They see two primary opportunities with every good player that is in their control:
1. Keep the player on the team so the team will be more competetive within it's own league system.
2. Get as much money as possible can for the player if that player wants to leave to the NHL.
These two interests are quite unlike those of a grocery store, so there needs to be an independent arbitrator, in one form or another, to assess the value of a player so that the European club does not act unfittingly based on it's two primary interests. Dealing individually with European teams is not a very wise move in my opinion. It leaves too much room for cheating, bribery and other undesirable business practices.
Of course the present deal isn't fair, but neither is charging $2 million dollars for one player. They have to find a way to make a deal that charges more for better players but not too much. The NHL has a rather tight budget and they don't have money to throw around to aggressive European teams. In my opinion all transfer fees should be under $1 million. That is several times the amount they would get under the present agreement and without getting up into outrageous soccer-style prices. If the Caps fork over $2 million dollars for one player, it sets a very dangerous precedent. Soon other teams would try to pull the same trick, and the NHL will be in dire straits.
- Status
