Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617
Results 161 to 166 of 166
  1. #161
    RANGZ
    aaron's Avatar
    Karma: 30245000
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    5,451
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1475 Post(s)

    Default

    Signing bonuses are such an advantage to the players that the HOF commissioner told teams to stop giving them out in lockout years.

  2. #162
    Nyssa's Minion
    jammer06's Avatar
    Karma: 1822492647
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,341
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    3348 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troy_Ice View Post
    Also to clarify, yes, you have the process correct. The CBA is set to expire on September 15 in the years it can be ended. So the point of the signing bonuses is to deliver to the players (a large percentage of) their money before that date in order to protect that income from the lockout.

    You're also right its not *that* complicated but despite this, many players and agents don't take advantage of it. Perhaps many players don't have the leverage to pressure teams to do that. But I also suspect that this is one of those issues that seems obvious only after the really smart agents have raised the issue and insured their players against the lockout. Similarly, many players, even prominent ones (e.g., OEL, DD), do not have their salaries front loaded even though this also seems like an obvious way to insure against buyout (and get them use of their money sooner).
    I still think the bonuses pay into escrow and the higher a proportion of them that hit in a single season, the greater the likelihood that those bonuses end up violating the hrr split and bring down everyone's payday. Losing 10% of 25% of your payday due to escrow is a great savings to owners.

  3. #163
    3rd Line Role Player
    Troy_Ice's Avatar
    Karma: 1203000
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    191
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    114 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jammer06 View Post
    I still think the bonuses pay into escrow and the higher a proportion of them that hit in a single season, the greater the likelihood that those bonuses end up violating the hrr split and bring down everyone's payday. Losing 10% of 25% of your payday due to escrow is a great savings to owners.
    Unless I am misunderstanding you, I don't think that is correct. Whether the money is paid in the form of a bonus or in the form of salary it is all included in the forecasted player compensation in determining the escrow rate for the season. Whether 90% of your pay that year is in the from of a signing bonus or in salary doesn't make any difference--they are payments the league knows about and that count against the players share of HRR.

    The cap ceiling and floor are set 15% above and below the projected hockey related revenues (so HRR projection is the midpoint between the cap ceiling and floor -before the escalator is considered). Every net dollar above that midpoint increases the need for escrow and gets taken in to account when determining what escrow is. Those dollars count the same irrespective of how they are parceled out.

    Because HRR is split 50-50, escrow withholdings don't benefit the owners except tot he extent that they ensure that players dont receive more than 50% of revenue. Whatever that HRR number is the players and owners each get 50% of irrespective of what the team cap numbers and escrow rates are. The owners receive the same amount of total revenue regardless of what the escrow rate is. The people hurt by the escrow are typically the replacement level players at or near the minimum contract. If escrow gets increased because more dollars are spent above the projected 50% of HRR (the midpoint), they get hit at the same rate as the players who are driving the escrow rate higher. Some of this is their own fault in that they seem to support invoking the escalator clause even though it primarily benefits those players that can negotiate for large deals and force teams to spend more dollars above the midpoint of the proposed cap range (though perhaps this has changed the last couple of years as the full 5% escalator hasnt been employed).

    What would be interesting is to see how HRR is set in a year where there is no season but in which signing bonuses have already been paid. I assume there is some revenue that doesnt come from games but it is easy to see how it might not cover these bonuses.

  4. #164
    Nyssa's Minion
    jammer06's Avatar
    Karma: 1822492647
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,341
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    3348 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troy_Ice View Post
    Unless I am misunderstanding you, I don't think that is correct. Whether the money is paid in the form of a bonus or in the form of salary it is all included in the forecasted player compensation in determining the escrow rate for the season. Whether 90% of your pay that year is in the from of a signing bonus or in salary doesn't make any difference--they are payments the league knows about and that count against the players share of HRR.

    The cap ceiling and floor are set 15% above and below the projected hockey related revenues (so HRR projection is the midpoint between the cap ceiling and floor -before the escalator is considered). Every net dollar above that midpoint increases the need for escrow and gets taken in to account when determining what escrow is. Those dollars count the same irrespective of how they are parceled out.

    Because HRR is split 50-50, escrow withholdings don't benefit the owners except tot he extent that they ensure that players dont receive more than 50% of revenue. Whatever that HRR number is the players and owners each get 50% of irrespective of what the team cap numbers and escrow rates are. The owners receive the same amount of total revenue regardless of what the escrow rate is. The people hurt by the escrow are typically the replacement level players at or near the minimum contract. If escrow gets increased because more dollars are spent above the projected 50% of HRR (the midpoint), they get hit at the same rate as the players who are driving the escrow rate higher. Some of this is their own fault in that they seem to support invoking the escalator clause even though it primarily benefits those players that can negotiate for large deals and force teams to spend more dollars above the midpoint of the proposed cap range (though perhaps this has changed the last couple of years as the full 5% escalator hasnt been employed).

    What would be interesting is to see how HRR is set in a year where there is no season but in which signing bonuses have already been paid. I assume there is some revenue that doesnt come from games but it is easy to see how it might not cover these bonuses.

    on the macro level the ownerships pay out 50% of HRR in salary collectively in real dollars per season. Some contracts like Tavares coming up will be paid more than their AAV value and some will be paid less than the AAV (Hossa Contract). Without the escalator the theory was these should even out and the escrow was there to balance out if the coming years projections came up short and ownership needed to claw back money.

    Using Tavares contract as an example however (https://www.capfriendly.com/players/john-tavares) you can see how frontloading a contract with salary (signing bonus or otherwise) can effectively give himself a paycut. Whether or not that money goes in the owners pocket I can't be sure.

    Its not unusual for escrow to be set at amounts over 10% and not too long ago it was hitting 14-15%
    https://www.tsn.ca/nhl-players-set-a...scrow-1.590263

    You take Tavares and his 15.9 million in salary (an extra 4.9 million in year 1 over the cap average) and its going to contribute to all salaries potentially busting the 50% mark, when that happens that escrow check doesn't come back so there goes 2.38 million. Do that again in years 2 and 3 of the contract and all the sudden there's 6.5 million in salary that disappeared off your guaranteed 77 million dollar deal. To my understanding that money doesn't ever come back, it just departs just like it hurts the low end guy who needed it more. The Owner of the leafs may have paid it, but now he gets his money back (or it goes into some form of revenue sharing).

    The actual final escrow amounts appear to be a closely held secret around the league and as far as I can tell the league hasn't managed to grow fast enough to ever cause a reverse escrow with the ownership.

    So my point is that while it may sound great to be sure you get yours, the reality is that the bigger the UFA class signing bonus is, the more it will always contribute to lost salary in escrow so long as the league continues to grow. The discounted salaries on the latter half of the deals would only ever gain ground if the cap contracted. At some point the NHLPA guys are going to realize just how guaranteed their contracts are.

  5. #165
    3rd Line Role Player
    Troy_Ice's Avatar
    Karma: 1203000
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    191
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    114 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jammer06 View Post

    The actual final escrow amounts appear to be a closely held secret around the league and as far as I can tell the league hasn't managed to grow fast enough to ever cause a reverse escrow with the ownership.

    So my point is that while it may sound great to be sure you get yours, the reality is that the bigger the UFA class signing bonus is, the more it will always contribute to lost salary in escrow so long as the league continues to grow. The discounted salaries on the latter half of the deals would only ever gain ground if the cap contracted. At some point the NHLPA guys are going to realize just how guaranteed their contracts are.
    I think I read last year they had growth well beyond their projections but they still didn't cover the escrow. The implication was they just missed. In a quick search I cant find the reference.

    Well, it seems like at least some players are starting to catch on in that they have at least stopped maxing out the escalator provision the last two years. It looks like it declined from 5% three years ago to ~2.5 last year to less than ~1.5 this year. They still haven't declined to use it though.

  6. #166
    1st Scoring Line
    hokiecat's Avatar
    Karma: 2147483647
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,327
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1068 Post(s)

    Default

    I read this article years ago which said that escrow did not apply to signing bonuses.

    https://www.spectorshockey.net/2015/07/new-loopholes-in-the-nhls-cba/

    Which was wrong. The article has been updated to note that bonuses are not exempt from escrow.

    Someday the players will set the escalator to zero and their salaries will be close to the advertised signing value.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •