A suggested rule change (even if for a full season away)... Signing bonus's SHOULD be part of the salary cap

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

A suggested rule change (even if for a full season away)... Signing bonus's SHOULD be part of the salary cap

CBJackets · Guru

I don't really like that idea in an FHL league, because I think it will A) punish teams who build a good core of young players and B) makes making money less important.

I don't know exactly how close this league wants to follow the NHL, but I really dislike the scenario where a team build a really good team through the draft or through trades and then has to trade their guys away just because of the salary cap. It rewards bad and mediocre management. Signing bonuses are a way to help ensure against that, while by no means guaranteeing that a team can keep all of their players (Most good RFAs are going to command huge bonuses.)

That's just my opinion though

San Jose · Senior Member

BRHL2 is based on a cap system,,, In my opinion signing bonuses should not be allowed..it goes against the system..

The players salary falls under the cap....plain and simple...

no signing bonuses!!!

A cap is set to create parity in the league.....

In most cases, The good teams with many 80ov players have better finances then others..thus, they have more cash..no they have an unfair advantage in offering players signing bonuses....

LEts just use a CAP...no bonuses

Philippe27 · Guru

I would have agreed before the draft started but I don't think you can just change the rules like this. I'm resigning all my core players this season so it wouldn,t affect me but it would be unfair even if it's just a year away. Such an important rule like this even if it is a year away cannot be changed because it affects the way people built their team.

CBJackets · Guru

Caps are crap, they just reward poor management. And no, managing a team's finances should not be a big part of managing a team.

Basically the only reason a cap is in place in the NHL is because of the discrepancy between markets. Markets are the same in FHL, so there really is no reason for a cap, in my opinion. Each team has the same ability to make money.

CBJackets · Guru

San Jose wrote:

In most cases, The good teams with many 80ov players have better finances then others..thus, they have more cash..no they have an unfair advantage in offering players signing bonuses....

It's really not a huge difference maker. Maybe if you've got 5 80+ players, but not if you have one or two more than another team. On the flipside if you've got a lot of 80 + players you're going to have to pay a hefty price in salaries. So this, oh the good teams have better finances doesn't really hold any water.

VanIslander · Guru

I agree to such rule changes for year three

but I'd have to take a shotgun to my computer screen if we did that for next season: I traded to get a whole boatload of younger RFAs and totally have plans for the spare cap room in term sof going after UFAs.

CBJackets · Guru

Well there's no way you can remove signing bonuses altogether. If you did that money would mean abslutely nothing. For RFAs I can see, but you definitely need to keep them for UFAs.

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

CBJackets wrote:

Caps are crap, they just reward poor management. And no, managing a team's finances should not be a big part of managing a team.

Basically the only reason a cap is in place in the NHL is because of the discrepancy between markets. Markets are the same in FHL, so there really is no reason for a cap, in my opinion. Each team has the same ability to make money.

But we DO have a cap, they aren't crap what so ever, and they do far more than "reward poor management". In addition, it adds another level of complexity ensuring that you in fact, HAVE to manage your team with fiscal responsibility. So if we're going to have a cap, then have a cap. Signing bonuses that don't count towards the cap knock a HUGE part of the cap away and make it very ineffective when it comes to ensuring people follow it, because in reality, they aren't.

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

CBJackets wrote:

Well there's no way you can remove signing bonuses altogether. If you did that money would mean abslutely nothing. For RFAs I can see, but you definitely need to keep them for UFAs.

Well that's just simply untrue that money would mean absolutly nothing... of course the finances tab could be lowered to make it mean more so that not every team would be automatically be making money as well.

I really don't care about removing them, but just as in the real NHL... make them count towards the cap.

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

Philippe27 wrote:

I would have agreed before the draft started but I don't think you can just change the rules like this. I'm resigning all my core players this season so it wouldn,t affect me but it would be unfair even if it's just a year away. Such an important rule like this even if it is a year away cannot be changed because it affects the way people built their team.

Actually, now that I look at things... where exactly does it say that signing bonuses aren't part of the cap? I don't see it anywhere in the rules (granted, I'm quickly screening right now). In fact, quite the opposite, the rules say that the league salary cap will run in correlation with the NHL salary cap. And in the NHL, signing bonuses do indeed count with regards to the cap.

Philippe27 · Guru

Florida Panthers wrote:

Philippe27 wrote:

I would have agreed before the draft started but I don't think you can just change the rules like this. I'm resigning all my core players this season so it wouldn,t affect me but it would be unfair even if it's just a year away. Such an important rule like this even if it is a year away cannot be changed because it affects the way people built their team.

Actually, now that I look at things... where exactly does it say that signing bonuses aren't part of the cap? I don't see it anywhere in the rules (granted, I'm quickly screening right now). In fact, quite the opposite, the rules say that the league salary cap will run in correlation with the NHL salary cap. And in the NHL, signing bonuses do indeed count with regards to the cap.

I. The salary cap is defined as the pro payroll.

Hawks_G · Guru

With the NHL CBA as the guideline...

Performance bonuses can be earned by the following players only:
- players on entry-level contracts
- veteran players (400 or more games) signing one-year contracts. after returning from long-term injuries (100 or more days on injured reserve in their most recent year).
- players who sign a one-year contract after the age of 35.

Signing bonuses are capped at 10 percent of the player's salary. Under the old deal, signing bonuses for entry-level players were capped at 50 percent of base salary.

CBJackets · Guru

Hawks_G wrote:

With the NHL CBA as the guideline...

Performance bonuses can be earned by the following players only:
- players on entry-level contracts
- veteran players (400 or more games) signing one-year contracts. after returning from long-term injuries (100 or more days on injured reserve in their most recent year).
- players who sign a one-year contract after the age of 35.

Signing bonuses are capped at 10 percent of the player's salary. Under the old deal, signing bonuses for entry-level players were capped at 50 percent of base salary.

Well, if we're going with this as the guideline, we're going to need to scrap a bunch of contracts that have already been negotiated and passed through the BOD.

VanIslander · Guru

Hawks_G wrote:

the NHL CBA ...Signing bonuses are capped at 10 percent of the player's salary.

We could go to that for season 3.

But our rules explicitly state our signing bonuses are to be no more than 50 % of the total value of the contract. We have been playing by the rules. I have.

But I agree with George's direction: we should try to stay close to the NHL in terms of rules revision. It is the way to go.