2/3 is less than 3/3. And it equals millions. If the p[layer can get a new contract that equals or exceeds the difference, great. If not, they get much less than they bargained for (and I suspect their agent doesn't take a hit off the buyout).
Yes.... but it's exactly the same as a regular buyout - the only difference is that it doesn't go against the cap - which is good for every other player by making the pool for players salaries larger. The only players it will effect negatively are those players that a team would not normally buyout unless a compliance buyout was offered - and even then - only those players that didn't sign a new free agency contract that at least made up for that 1/3 difference - so very few.
The Following User Says Thank You to JackIsBack For This Useful Post:
Yes.... but it's exactly the same as a regular buyout - the only difference is that it doesn't go against the cap - which is good for every other player by making the pool for players salaries larger. The only players it will effect negatively are those players that a team would not normally buyout unless a compliance buyout was offered - and even then - only those players that didn't sign a new free agency contract that at least made up for that 1/3 difference - so very few.
More than you suspect I bet. I think players will lose money this go around if there are compliance buyouts. And it won't be made up by new jobs. Mainly because the league has gotten so much younger.
I doubt that the NHL is going to do compliance buyouts just to let teams clear their mistakes. IF they do approach the NHLPA and say, hey we want compliance buyouts, the NHLPA is going to say
What are you giving us in return for this?
The NHLPA would love compliance buyouts - their members get 2/3 of the contract, plus that cap space goes towards another member. So their members get more money from the teams, which is what they want.
Plus the NHL teams get the ability to get rid of awful contracts so everyone wins.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mean Mr. Mustard For This Useful Post:
Just like they liked the non-salary cap era that let them off the hook for their own stupidity.
I'm sure there were GMs that really, really wanted a salary cap, because it was for the common good. I'm sure Toronto's GM really would like no cap at all, but MLSE probably isn't complaining all that much.
Just like compliance buyouts are for their common good.
Question: Why were buyouts allowed the last time then?
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
I think buyouts will happen. Not sure what the voting percentage needs to be, but how many teams can honestly say they don't have at least one contract they'd like to be rid of?
How many were allowed the last times? Two per team?
I'm sure there were GMs that really, really wanted a salary cap, because it was for the common good. I'm sure Toronto's GM really would like no cap at all, but MLSE probably isn't complaining all that much.
Just like compliance buyouts are for their common good.
Question: Why were buyouts allowed the last time then?
Regardless of what GMs want, the Owners wanted a Salary cap. Full stop.
Its why almost every North American Sports League has some form of Salary Cap.
There was no Salary Cap and Toronto could outspend pretty much everyone.
How did that go for them? How many Cups did they win with the Star-Studded rosters they bought?
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
I'm sure there were GMs that really, really wanted a salary cap, because it was for the common good. I'm sure Toronto's GM really would like no cap at all, but MLSE probably isn't complaining all that much.
Just like compliance buyouts are for their common good.
Question: Why were buyouts allowed the last time then?
Compliance buyouts were part of the 2013 CBA because the percentage of revenue dropped from 57% to 50%. Some teams would have had to buy out a bunch of players not becasue they were bad contracts, but simply because they had no other way to actually get under the cap. Remember, under a regular buyout, the team still has 1/3 of the contract value against the cap, AND still has to replace that contract with another player (another contract), to fill out the roster. So, if a team needed to drop $5 million to get under the cap, they would have to buy out probably $10 million worth of contracts.
I wasn't suggesting they would or would not - I was just explaining why I don't think it's bad for the players.
BUT....
Why wouldn't the NHLPA want them? They are a way of making the revenue split work in their favor. Let's say the NHL stays at a 50/50 split - compliance buyouts make it so that the money some players are paid remains outside that split - so in effect its 49 owners 51 players (just an example).
OT: Can you imagine employee costs at 50% of your overall revenue in any other business, no wonder a drink at a game costs so much.
Compliance buyouts still count against the players' share of revenue. They potentially give teams more cap space to work with, but for the players, all it ultimately does is increase how much is held back in escrow.
A small number of players will be able to leverage the extra cap space into larger contracts, but for most of the players, it just means receiving less of the money they're supposed to receive.
As to your other point, you really can't look at the players as just any other employee. They are the product. They are the reason people are paying what they are for tickets. I don't know if 50/50 is what the split should be, but I do know that the players aren't your typical employee.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
Compliance buyouts were part of the 2013 CBA because the percentage of revenue dropped from 57% to 50%. Some teams would have had to buy out a bunch of players not becasue they were bad contracts, but simply because they had no other way to actually get under the cap. Remember, under a regular buyout, the team still has 1/3 of the contract value against the cap, AND still has to replace that contract with another player (another contract), to fill out the roster. So, if a team needed to drop $5 million to get under the cap, they would have to buy out probably $10 million worth of contracts.
Teams had two years to get under the new cap. Meh. Seeing as how the players once again lost big time, I can't see how another lockout will help them out.
But again, buyouts are liked by both sides. They'll just come up with a different justification for them.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
Teams had two years to get under the new cap. Meh. Seeing as how the players once again lost big time, I can't see how another lockout will help them out.
But again, buyouts are liked by both sides. They'll just come up with a different justification for them.
Overall, I think you're right, I cant see no more compliance buyouts, that being said though, limiting contract length and eliminating the steeply back-diving contract structures is likely going to see less damage in terms of contracts.
They just arent as big of a problem as they used to be when teams were locking players up for 10+ years with steeply front-loaded deals.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
So, as some of you probably know the Second Annual Flat Earth International Conference took place at the Fantasyland Hotel in Edmonton in August 2018. The organizer for the conference is a local Edmontonian. I was listening to the Q & A session with famous flat-earth buffoon Mark Sargent, and one of the attendees identified himself not only as a true believer, but also as "Phil McDavid: direct relation to the captain of the Oilers."
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
So, as some of you probably know the Second Annual Flat Earth International Conference took place at the Fantasyland Hotel in Edmonton in August 2018. The organizer for the conference is a local Edmontonian. I was listening to the Q & A session with famous flat-earth buffoon Mark Sargent, and one of the attendees identified himself not only as a true believer, but also as "Phil McDavid: direct relation to the captain of the Oilers."
Wow... I never thought of it that way... but you are totally right. Draft the best player available at the time.
The problem with this statement is that they don't know who the best player is at the time. Prime example, the year they drafted Yak and the year they did not draft Tkachuk.
"There’s hardly a more perfect place to discuss the merits of a flat Earth than a fake British pub, situated on a fake street in the world’s ####tiest tourist attraction."
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
The NHLPA would love compliance buyouts - their members get 2/3 of the contract, plus that cap space goes towards another member. So their members get more money from the teams, which is what they want.
Plus the NHL teams get the ability to get rid of awful contracts so everyone wins.
Exactly. More compliance buyouts equal more money to the union as a whole. They would be on board
Exactly. More compliance buyouts equal more money to the union as a whole. They would be on board
I am probably not going out on a limb saying the majority of owners would not be on board. Beyond that, I don't know many that would want to give outs to a franchise that lucked into McDavid. Having the boat anchor contract of Lucic balances things out so barring a miracle some peak McDavid years are spent dragging lucic around.
I am probably not going out on a limb saying the majority of owners would not be on board. Beyond that, I don't know many that would want to give outs to a franchise that lucked into McDavid. Having the boat anchor contract of Lucic balances things out so barring a miracle some peak McDavid years are spent dragging lucic around.
Interesting.
Hard to say, really. What would it take, 2/3?
Most teams have a boat anchor but I don't know if any worse than. Lucic.
