CHL minimum wage lawsuit reveals clubs' financials

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by GGG

It expires so if you go play hockey in Europe or echl level trying to extend the dream you lose it. That said fixing the scholarships would likely be better for the players than giving them 10k in cash.

The players would probably be okay with that as well.

As far as I'm concerned the players should have up to 10 years to use their scholarships.

I'm sure plenty of guys bounce around the ECHL for a few years until the dream is dead. They should be able to use their scholarships at that point.

[northcrunk]

I thought it was a bit of a reach when the president of the CHL called it 'amateur sports' and that is why the kids don't get paid. Last time I checked when you charge people to buy tickets to see a hockey team it is a professional team.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

I thought it was a bit of a reach when the president of the CHL called it 'amateur sports' and that is why the kids don't get paid. Last time I checked when you charge people to buy tickets to see a hockey team it is a professional team.

Last I checked, most amateur sports and leagues have charged consumers for access for well over a century. That does not make a team or league professional. What does is paying the athletes. YMMV on whether or not the stipend players are given makes them professional, however.

[calf]

Originally Posted by MBates

I don't mind admitting I don't fully understand. If you have revenues of $7.6 million as a junior hockey club (being $3 million more than your expenses) is that not machine-like making of the money?

I appreciate that might not be indicative of long term financial stability but it is a huge pile of money for "amateur" hockey no?

Earnings are a good indicator, but what's missing from the tweet is if the team has any debt and what those repayment terms are. If they're making $3M a year but have to repay $2.9M, it might not be as good. If they're debt free however, they likely doing alright.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Last I checked, most amateur sports and leagues have charged consumers for access for well over a century. That does not make a team or league professional. What does is paying the athletes. YMMV on whether or not the stipend players are given makes them professional, however.

In the case of the CHL though, also have to consider that the players' "likeness" is being used to market games like EAs NHL series. Should the players themselves not be due to receive some of that?

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

In the case of the CHL though, also have to consider that the players' "likeness" is being used to market games like EAs NHL series. Should the players themselves not be due to receive some of that?

They have been licencing CHL players for years now. IMO they are professionals at a lower level professional league. What the CHL is doing by not paying them is garbage. Even their peers who work a part time job get paid.

[Robbob]

That 3 million number is also money after going all the way. When they lost in the 2nd round it was 1.87. Playing in the post season drives up those numbers. Ball park it looks like around 500k per round.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MBates

I don't mind admitting I don't fully understand. If you have revenues of $7.6 million as a junior hockey club (being $3 million more than your expenses) is that not machine-like making of the money?

I appreciate that might not be indicative of long term financial stability but it is a huge pile of money for "amateur" hockey no?

No, I dont think so.

I mean, those London figures are stupendous and even then, in the end, they dont wind up with much left over after taxes and thats cherry-picking stats from the most profitable club in it's best year.

Thats not to say that I disagree with paying players, I'm not really convinced of that one way or the other yet. I believe that they should probably get more than they currently are, but I also believe in the value of the educational opportunity they are afforded.

If they choose not to make full benefit of that opportunity then some of that responsibility has to rest with the player.

Does the CHL have a 'Revenue-sharing' program?

[automaton 3]

I agree that there is room to extend the terms of the scholarships. A good attempt at minor pro should be allowed.

Most of these kids dream of a career in the NHL, and it can be a tough pill to swallow to make the choice to give up that dream and attend university or college.

[speede5]

This is why you see guys who get drafted low taking a long time to sign. They are giving up their scholarship, which is 10K per year played, so they want a signing bonus significant enough to cover that loss.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

In the case of the CHL though, also have to consider that the players' "likeness" is being used to market games like EAs NHL series. Should the players themselves not be due to receive some of that?

Sure. But that is an issue unrelated to Northcrunk's personal opinion of what makes a "professional" having no basis in common usage.

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

I thought it was a bit of a reach when the president of the CHL called it 'amateur sports' and that is why the kids don't get paid. Last time I checked when you charge people to buy tickets to see a hockey team it is a professional team.

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

The leagues should propose this instead. Pay them minimum wage, but then also make them pay for their skates, pay for their sticks, pay their health/dental deductable, if you are out East, room/board is included, so instead make them pay for that too...

I'd love someone to sit down and figure out the value of what they get vs this minimum wage option. I've spoken to a couple of guys that used to play in the WHL, and they think this is completely ridiculous...

But both (and myself) also believe that they should fix the scholarship program instead, giving them longer to cash it in.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

I thought it was a bit of a reach when the president of the CHL called it 'amateur sports' and that is why the kids don't get paid. Last time I checked when you charge people to buy tickets to see a hockey team it is a professional team.

Where do you think the teams get revenue to run their franchise, scout amateur players, pay for players travel/meals, and operate an arena? That stuff isn't free. The reason you get to go to an arena and watch your kids for free is because you paid $$$ for annual fees.

[FireGilbert]

Can't they have a schorarship option and minimum wage? Where is that taco girl gif...

If that means teams like London have to revenue share and a few non profitable teams have to move or fold then so be it.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

The leagues should propose this instead. Pay them minimum wage, but then also make them pay for their skates, pay for their sticks, pay their health/dental deductable, if you are out East, room/board is included, so instead make them pay for that too...

I'd love someone to sit down and figure out the value of what they get vs this minimum wage option. I've spoken to a couple of guys that used to play in the WHL, and they think this is completely ridiculous...

If you are going to go that route then you may as well let the players sell their services to the highest bidder rather than get drafted and have to travel hundreds of miles away from home for the sake of "development".

I think it's pretty obvious that the players aren't getting a fair shake when it's their talent that sells the tickets and some owners are making millions a year off this talent.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

If you are going to go that route then you may as well let the players sell their services to the highest bidder rather than get drafted and have to travel hundreds of miles away from home for the sake of "development".

I think it's pretty obvious that the players aren't getting a fair shake when it's their talent that sells the tickets and some owners are making millions a year off this talent.

That's the key here because some are but most aren't.

[northcrunk]

It's almost like they need some sort of profit sharing agreement like the NHL does.

[PeteMoss]

Shocking turn of events that some posters are pro-owners even when the players are only getting paid $100/week plus a scholarship that may be completely useless to some of them.

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

If you are going to go that route then you may as well let the players sell their services to the highest bidder rather than get drafted and have to travel hundreds of miles away from home for the sake of "development".

I think it's pretty obvious that the players aren't getting a fair shake when it's their talent that sells the tickets and some owners are making millions a year off this talent.

?!? Don't even see how that makes sense... ?!?

They'll get paid their minimum wage wherever they play. What difference is it whether they sell in one city or another... well, i guess different provinces have different minimum wages? OK - you win that one...


The players are provided the opportunity to play in the CHL to further develop their game and hopefully make it into the NHL. The teams are providing things for the players to assist with that, and to make their time in the league easier. It really isn't supposed to be about money at this level. The league has a scholarship program set up (that could be improved) to assist those who don't make it to the big leagues.

Not sure what the expectation is here. The players are being taken care of in exchange for working on improving their level of play in a game they love while they try and get to the NHL. The CHL is not a job - it is an opportunity... and still better than an internship.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Locke

No, I dont think so.

I mean, those London figures are stupendous and even then, in the end, they dont wind up with much left over after taxes and thats cherry-picking stats from the most profitable club in it's best year.

Thats not to say that I disagree with paying players, I'm not really convinced of that one way or the other yet. I believe that they should probably get more than they currently are, but I also believe in the value of the educational opportunity they are afforded.

If they choose not to make full benefit of that opportunity then some of that responsibility has to rest with the player.

Does the CHL have a 'Revenue-sharing' program?

From what I've read - these figures are all based on tax returns. As you know, taxable income <> accounting income.

Keep in mind with the Knights the owners are also employees so you can pull funds out of the business as wages or bonuses to show what you want to show.

But these franchises are like pro franchises in that the gains tend to come from appreciation in value rather than income.