FinnLightning26
Death and no taxes
Even the talk of that is batshit f***ing insane but I digress.
OT: Around Hockey and the NHL
- Thread starter Felonious Python
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Even the talk of that is batshit f***ing insane but I digress.
LordStanlersCup
Registered User
- Sep 6, 2024
- 260
- 190
LightningStrikes
Champa Bay Lightning
- Nov 24, 2009
- 26,838
- 10,847
The best logos are usually the ones a child could roughly draw imo paired with a good color combination. These here look like generic 3D placeholders from a video game.
I guess the yeti with the mountains concept is the best but the execution is lacking. Its borders are weird and unnecessarily unsymmetrical. And it would go with the “HC” name apparently which I personally find out of place in NA hockey. This is not European soccer.
I guess the yeti with the mountains concept is the best but the execution is lacking. Its borders are weird and unnecessarily unsymmetrical. And it would go with the “HC” name apparently which I personally find out of place in NA hockey. This is not European soccer.
Felonious Python
Minor League Degenerate
- Aug 20, 2004
- 32,579
- 9,795
The colors don't work for Outlaws. It's got to get into the reds, oranges, and yellows.
Are they really the official logos, or are they the logos they officially showed to fans?
I'm not convinced that these are the 'final' logos. They decided to pull Wasatch just a few days ago for Outlaws. How many final logos do they have?
Are they really the official logos, or are they the logos they officially showed to fans?
I'm not convinced that these are the 'final' logos. They decided to pull Wasatch just a few days ago for Outlaws. How many final logos do they have?
Felonious Python
Minor League Degenerate
- Aug 20, 2004
- 32,579
- 9,795
Renopucker
Registered User
I wonder how much fentanyl goes NORTH to Canada via US border towns and roads? I’ll bet its ALOT. And the Canadians ain’t crying and kavetching about it.
Felonious Python
Minor League Degenerate
- Aug 20, 2004
- 32,579
- 9,795
Felonious Python
Minor League Degenerate
- Aug 20, 2004
- 32,579
- 9,795
I saw this tweet and decided to mention it. I'm not focused on the politics, as we all know where that type of discussion goes, but it should be a sign for NHL teams to remind their players every so often, in training camp, and maybe around Halloween as election season picks up, that political donations in the US are public record.
Felonious Python
Minor League Degenerate
- Aug 20, 2004
- 32,579
- 9,795
Coming soon to NCAA hockey?
It makes sense for these types of teams to have separate scouting departments. The player pool is becoming larger, and with relaxed rules around transfers, there can be more movement than ever.
In most pro settings, the coach reports to the GM, but it doesn't have to be that way. Some Athletic Directors may still want the coach to be their direct report, and the GM would be more of a scouting role.
It makes sense for these types of teams to have separate scouting departments. The player pool is becoming larger, and with relaxed rules around transfers, there can be more movement than ever.
In most pro settings, the coach reports to the GM, but it doesn't have to be that way. Some Athletic Directors may still want the coach to be their direct report, and the GM would be more of a scouting role.
Last edited:
Oh that person seems totally mentally stable and reasonable.
Players voted for Trump? Boo f***ing hoo.
Felonious Python
Minor League Degenerate
- Aug 20, 2004
- 32,579
- 9,795
Players should probably stay away from any political donations they have to put their name to.
A hundo to a candidate probably isn't worth the downsides of getting stereotyped and categorized politically. "Republicans buy sneakers, too."
A donation potentially puts you on the hook, in some people's minds, for anything that politician does or says.
As if someone needs to donate to get stereotyped or categorized politically.
Felonious Python
Minor League Degenerate
- Aug 20, 2004
- 32,579
- 9,795
Ok. What about a modified 2.5% that's split between the NHL and NHLPA?
2.5% of league revenues would go into the industry growth fund each year, and the NHLPA's eventual cut of that investment would go into expanding player pensions?
I'm a bit hesitant to cut the NHLPA in, not because I don't think they deserve it (I do), I just think that having more voices in the process complicates things. It would, however, directly tie it to HRR. A 2.5% pool just between the owners doesn't seem to concern the players that much.
A league minimum deal of $850,000 would set aside $10,650 for the growth fund per year. The PA may be able to internally adjust their own fees, so it may not be an additional 1.25% that comes out of their paychecks. They'd also have to figure out how the escrow would work. I know that if the league is falling short of revenue projections, it's probably time to put more investment in.
I don't think players would cause too much of a fuss, since the money is going to directly grow grassroots hockey itself, and they'll get paid in retirement. The owners have less skin in the game, and they're really the ones that need to take initiative here. It also takes away the incentive for the owners to put extra money into their projects. Sure, they get $20 million to spend, but if they kick in an additional $5m of their own on top, then they can really get that extra value. One more addition, or just enough to get the project over the line.
Owner-led investment would still raise boats as they need coaches, refs, and everything else at their rinks, and the expanded access to hockey should raise HRR indirectly anyway.
edit: the simpler way would probably to take 2.5% off the top of HRR. Owners and players each contribute 1.25% of their 50/50 split. No money coming out of paychecks.
1.25% each (2.5% HRR) contribution = 136m (8 facilities/year) 20mil grant
1.5% each (3% HRR) contribution = 198m (8 facilities/year) 25mil grant
1.75% each (3.5% HRR) contribution = 231m (8 facilities/year) 29mil grant
2% each (4% HRR) contribution = 264m (8 facilities/year) 33mil grant
2.5% each (5% HRR) contribution = 330m (8 facilities/year) 41.25mil grant
5% might be too OP. Half the league gets their windfall each year (if it's 20 million). They can't build that fast. They could have 8 teams getting $40 mil, but I don't like four pads together. It's more economical, sure, but mega facilities probably won't be a place a single person will walk or bike to. I'd rather have 1-2 pads scattered all over the place. Maybe they can ramp into multiple projects at the same time, but this scale of a project is already new. I'd rather grow HRR overall, and teams will learn to adapt to getting increasing amounts of money over time.
The IGF money would have to be strictly defined. My concern is that if owners are able to put a few more of their own personal dollars on top of the grant, that it will undermine the intent of a 50/50 split. If the team decides to add some tennis courts with their new rink, that probably shouldn't be covered. Dek hockey would, however. What about if they have street hockey on the tennis courts? Does the NHLPA collect on that? How do they determine when it's IGF money being used?
My concern is that all this money incentivizes building rinks, or at least using it only in ways to directly profit. Subsidizing equipment for a street hockey league, or renovating someone else's local rink, doesn't make money for the players pensions (other than indirect HRR growth). I'd also want to turn most of the responsibility over to the NHL teams themselves, as they know their markets best. That takes the NHLPA out of much of the process.
I'm hoping that some economies of scale kick in at some point. Things will become streamlined, so maybe they'll also become cheaper.
2.5% of league revenues would go into the industry growth fund each year, and the NHLPA's eventual cut of that investment would go into expanding player pensions?
I'm a bit hesitant to cut the NHLPA in, not because I don't think they deserve it (I do), I just think that having more voices in the process complicates things. It would, however, directly tie it to HRR. A 2.5% pool just between the owners doesn't seem to concern the players that much.
A league minimum deal of $850,000 would set aside $10,650 for the growth fund per year. The PA may be able to internally adjust their own fees, so it may not be an additional 1.25% that comes out of their paychecks. They'd also have to figure out how the escrow would work. I know that if the league is falling short of revenue projections, it's probably time to put more investment in.
I don't think players would cause too much of a fuss, since the money is going to directly grow grassroots hockey itself, and they'll get paid in retirement. The owners have less skin in the game, and they're really the ones that need to take initiative here. It also takes away the incentive for the owners to put extra money into their projects. Sure, they get $20 million to spend, but if they kick in an additional $5m of their own on top, then they can really get that extra value. One more addition, or just enough to get the project over the line.
Owner-led investment would still raise boats as they need coaches, refs, and everything else at their rinks, and the expanded access to hockey should raise HRR indirectly anyway.
edit: the simpler way would probably to take 2.5% off the top of HRR. Owners and players each contribute 1.25% of their 50/50 split. No money coming out of paychecks.
1.25% each (2.5% HRR) contribution = 136m (8 facilities/year) 20mil grant
1.5% each (3% HRR) contribution = 198m (8 facilities/year) 25mil grant
1.75% each (3.5% HRR) contribution = 231m (8 facilities/year) 29mil grant
2% each (4% HRR) contribution = 264m (8 facilities/year) 33mil grant
2.5% each (5% HRR) contribution = 330m (8 facilities/year) 41.25mil grant
5% might be too OP. Half the league gets their windfall each year (if it's 20 million). They can't build that fast. They could have 8 teams getting $40 mil, but I don't like four pads together. It's more economical, sure, but mega facilities probably won't be a place a single person will walk or bike to. I'd rather have 1-2 pads scattered all over the place. Maybe they can ramp into multiple projects at the same time, but this scale of a project is already new. I'd rather grow HRR overall, and teams will learn to adapt to getting increasing amounts of money over time.
The IGF money would have to be strictly defined. My concern is that if owners are able to put a few more of their own personal dollars on top of the grant, that it will undermine the intent of a 50/50 split. If the team decides to add some tennis courts with their new rink, that probably shouldn't be covered. Dek hockey would, however. What about if they have street hockey on the tennis courts? Does the NHLPA collect on that? How do they determine when it's IGF money being used?
My concern is that all this money incentivizes building rinks, or at least using it only in ways to directly profit. Subsidizing equipment for a street hockey league, or renovating someone else's local rink, doesn't make money for the players pensions (other than indirect HRR growth). I'd also want to turn most of the responsibility over to the NHL teams themselves, as they know their markets best. That takes the NHLPA out of much of the process.
I'm hoping that some economies of scale kick in at some point. Things will become streamlined, so maybe they'll also become cheaper.
Last edited:
Hockeyville USA
Registered User
Felonious Python
Minor League Degenerate
- Aug 20, 2004
- 32,579
- 9,795
Felonious Python
Minor League Degenerate
- Aug 20, 2004
- 32,579
- 9,795
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Finland vs Sweden - Centre Bell, MontréalWagers: 3Staked: $387.00Event closes - 3 days from now
- Updated:
-
USA vs Canada- Centre Bell, MontréalWagers: 3Staked: $389.00Event closes - 3 days from now
- Updated:
-
-
Sweden vs USA - TD Garden, BostonWagers: 4Staked: $1,776.00Event closes - 5 days from now
- Updated: