I tried to find the piece where Daly mentions staggering the expansion fee over 5 years. Unfortunately it has been taken down from what I can see.

If the expansion fees do not affect the HRR, than why would they want to stagger them? No one waits for money unless there is a benefit to doing so.

Can anyone find anything other than Alan Walsh quote from 9 months ago that commits one way or the other to where expansion fees go?

I tried to find the piece where Daly mentions staggering the expansion fee over 5 years. Unfortunately it has been taken down from what I can see.

If the expansion fees do not affect the HRR, than why would they want to stagger them? No one waits for money unless there is a benefit to doing so.

Can anyone find anything other than Alan Walsh quote from 9 months ago that commits one way or the other to where expansion fees go?
- mungozen

It's in the cba

I tried to find the piece where Daly mentions staggering the expansion fee over 5 years. Unfortunately it has been taken down from what I can see.

If the expansion fees do not affect the HRR, than why would they want to stagger them? No one waits for money unless there is a benefit to doing so.

Can anyone find anything other than Alan Walsh quote from 9 months ago that commits one way or the other to where expansion fees go?
- mungozen

The definition of HRR:

(a) "Hockey Related Revenues." "Hockey Related Revenues" or "HRR" for each League Year means the operating revenues, including Barter (as defined below).......derived or earned from, relating to or arising directly or indirectly out of the playing of NHL hockey games or NHL-related events in which current NHL Players participate or in which current NHL Players' names and likenesses are used, by each such Club or the League, or attributable directly to the Club or the League from a Club Affiliated Entity or League Affiliated Entity....

The definition of HRR:

(a) "Hockey Related Revenues." "Hockey Related Revenues" or "HRR" for each League Year means the operating revenues, including Barter (as defined below).......derived or earned from, relating to or arising directly or indirectly out of the playing of NHL hockey games or NHL-related events in which current NHL Players participate or in which current NHL Players' names and likenesses are used, by each such Club or the League, or attributable directly to the Club or the League from a Club Affiliated Entity or League Affiliated Entity....
- JaredCrozier

There is also an explicit exclusion. Just don't have time to look it up

There is also an explicit exclusion. Just don't have time to look it up
- Tumbleweed

From the CBA, , Article 50.1

(b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 50.1(a) above, HRR shall not include the following non-exhaustive list of revenues:
(i) Revenues from the Assignment (i.e., Waivers) of any SPC;
(ii) Revenues from the relocation or sale of any existing Club (or any interest
therein) or the grant of any new franchise; ....

Yeah I just found 50.1(b)(ii)

However like all good legal documents, it can be bent and re-interpreted. There is still plenty of window for the league to share the expansion fees as HRR. If they spread the fees over 5 active years, they can term it a revenue stream as per 50.1(a)

Any new revenue stream that is "material," that is, in excess of $10 million (gross) per revenue stream, to overall League-wide revenues, annually will be discussed by the parties to determine the basis for the accounting of such revenues.

The 'grant of a new franchise' may refer specifically to the costs associated with winning a franchise, not with owning the franchise. The expansion fee (which doesn't appear as a term in the CBA) could be considered a revenue stream if the NHLPA challenged it. I really doubt the NHLPA is going to sit down and watch a potential 500 million just walk by given how much the players have given up the past few years in escrow.

Yeah I just found 50.1(b)(ii)

However like all good legal documents, it can be bent and re-interpreted. There is still plenty of window for the league to share the expansion fees as HRR. If they spread the fees over 5 active years, they can term it a revenue stream as per 50.1(a)

Any new revenue stream that is "material," that is, in excess of $10 million (gross) per revenue stream, to overall League-wide revenues, annually will be discussed by the parties to determine the basis for the accounting of such revenues.

The 'grant of a new franchise' may refer specifically to the costs associated with winning a franchise, not with owning the franchise. The expansion fee (which doesn't appear as a term in the CBA) could be considered a revenue stream if the NHLPA challenged it. I really doubt the NHLPA is going to sit down and watch a potential 500 million just walk by given how much the players have given up the past few years in escrow.
- mungozen

That is a stretch. Expansion fees are not an "annual" revenue stream, its a one-time thing, and doesn't come from the game itself. It can't be assumed to continue beyond whatever window they decide to charge it over. I think the staggering would just be to make it easier for prospective owners to come up with the money, rather than all at once, but that is just my thought.

To include that in HRR, even if staggered over 5 years, would benefit the players short term but would greatly complicate things long-term, once that stream runs out. The PA knew what they were giving up when it was written, and it is pretty cut and dried what granting a new franchise means.

The benefit to the players comes in the $140M+ increase in their share of the revenue pie and more jobs, while the owners get the one-time $33 or so million payment.

Oh, and a second (or third) thought.

With expansion slated tentatively for 2017-2018 do you think teams are considering expansion drafts, and what rules will be used? Remember that typically existing teams protect a certain number of players and the expansion teams can draft from the leftovers.

That will likely change the context of contracts for players over the next few years as teams get prepared to protect that which they want.
- mungozen

Here are the rules from the last expansion draft...

At the time of the draft, teams were each allowed to protect either one goaltender, five defensemen, and nine forwards or two goaltenders, three defensemen, and seven forwards. The Atlanta Thrashers and Nashville Predators had their entire rosters protected, as they were the two newest franchises in the league, only being in existence for one and two years respectively.

For teams protecting only one goaltender, there was no experience requirement for those left unprotected. For teams protecting two goaltenders, each goaltender left unprotected must have appeared in either 10 NHL games in the 1999–2000 season or 25 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasons combined. A goaltender had to be in net for at least 31 minutes in each game for the game to be counted against these totals.

At least one defenceman left unprotected by each team had to have appeared in at least 40 games in the 1999–2000 season or 70 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasons combined. At least two forwards left unprotected by each team had to have met the same requirements.

To give some sense of what this might look like...

PROTECTED
F - Turris, Ryan, Zibanejad, Stone, MacArthur, Hoffman, Lazar, Pageau, Chiasson
D - Karlsson, Methot, Ceci, Weircioch, Borowiecki
G - Anderson

UNPROTECTED
F - Michalek, Smith, Neil, Greening
D - Phillips, Cowen
G - Hammond

Here are the rules from the last expansion draft...

At the time of the draft, teams were each allowed to protect either one goaltender, five defensemen, and nine forwards or two goaltenders, three defensemen, and seven forwards. The Atlanta Thrashers and Nashville Predators had their entire rosters protected, as they were the two newest franchises in the league, only being in existence for one and two years respectively.

For teams protecting only one goaltender, there was no experience requirement for those left unprotected. For teams protecting two goaltenders, each goaltender left unprotected must have appeared in either 10 NHL games in the 1999–2000 season or 25 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasons combined. A goaltender had to be in net for at least 31 minutes in each game for the game to be counted against these totals.

At least one defenceman left unprotected by each team had to have appeared in at least 40 games in the 1999–2000 season or 70 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasons combined. At least two forwards left unprotected by each team had to have met the same requirements.

To give some sense of what this might look like...

PROTECTED
F - Turris, Ryan, Zibanejad, Stone, MacArthur, Hoffman, Lazar, Pageau, Chiasson
D - Karlsson, Methot, Ceci, Weircioch, Borowiecki
G - Anderson

UNPROTECTED
F - Michalek, Smith, Neil, Greening
D - Phillips, Cowen
G - Hammond
- khawk

See, they are keeping Greening for a reason!

That is a stretch. Expansion fees are not an "annual" revenue stream, its a one-time thing, and doesn't come from the game itself. It can't be assumed to continue beyond whatever window they decide to charge it over. I think the staggering would just be to make it easier for prospective owners to come up with the money, rather than all at once, but that is just my thought.

To include that in HRR, even if staggered over 5 years, would benefit the players short term but would greatly complicate things long-term, once that stream runs out. The PA knew what they were giving up when it was written, and it is pretty cut and dried what granting a new franchise means.

The benefit to the players comes in the $140M+ increase in their share of the revenue pie and more jobs, while the owners get the one-time $33 or so million payment.
- JaredCrozier

Agreed.

I believe the clause is there to account for things like new TV deals that could significantly increase revenue.

Agreed.

I believe the clause is there to account for things like new TV deals that could significantly increase revenue.
- Tumbleweed

or Jersey advertising (if that isn't already included in the pages of revenue streams)...its coming, like it or not!

Here are the rules from the last expansion draft...

At the time of the draft, teams were each allowed to protect either one goaltender, five defensemen, and nine forwards or two goaltenders, three defensemen, and seven forwards. The Atlanta Thrashers and Nashville Predators had their entire rosters protected, as they were the two newest franchises in the league, only being in existence for one and two years respectively.

For teams protecting only one goaltender, there was no experience requirement for those left unprotected. For teams protecting two goaltenders, each goaltender left unprotected must have appeared in either 10 NHL games in the 1999–2000 season or 25 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasons combined. A goaltender had to be in net for at least 31 minutes in each game for the game to be counted against these totals.

At least one defenceman left unprotected by each team had to have appeared in at least 40 games in the 1999–2000 season or 70 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasons combined. At least two forwards left unprotected by each team had to have met the same requirements.

To give some sense of what this might look like...

PROTECTED
F - Turris, Ryan, Zibanejad, Stone, MacArthur, Hoffman, Lazar, Pageau, Chiasson
D - Karlsson, Methot, Ceci, Weircioch, Borowiecki
G - Anderson

UNPROTECTED
F - Michalek, Smith, Neil, Greening
D - Phillips, Cowen
G - Hammond
- khawk

Come on now.....you protect cowen over Boro. Neither one is that good right now, but cowen is younger and has an infinitely higher ceiling

Salary increases do not follow cap increases. For example 5% of 70 mil is 3.5 mil cap increase but 5% of 5 mil salary is $250,000 not 2.5 mil. The way things are going now the greedy player will get paid but teams won't have money to spend on quality players to fill the roster.

Come on now.....you protect cowen over Boro. Neither one is that good right now, but cowen is younger and has an infinitely higher ceiling
- sensarmy_11

I was wondering who would call me out on that one... you're probably right, but I figured it would be more interesting to leave one controversial pick in there.

Of course, by then Cowen will probably have been traded to make room for the likes of Chabot, Englund, Claesson or Wikstrand. Hopefully at least one of them proves capable of playing 20min/gp at the NHL level.

Come on now.....you protect cowen over Boro. Neither one is that good right now, but cowen is younger and has an infinitely higher ceiling
- sensarmy_11

Infinitely? I mean, he has a higher ceiling, but damn...

Infinitely? I mean, he has a higher ceiling, but damn...
- Mr_Clean

Boro has the " potential " to be exactly what he already is.......a mediocre 6-7 dman on a mid range team.

Cowen has the " potential " to be a real good wnd pairing guy.

Cowen could wind up remaining a bust......but the potential is still there for him to be real good. Boro will never be anything more than what he already is.......below average

These line combos came to me in a dream

MacArthur - Turris - Lazar
Hoffman - Zibanejad - Stone
Chiasson - Pageau - Ryan
Michalek - Smith - Condra

But here's what I would go with:

MacArthur - Turris - Stone
Hoffman - Zibanejad - Ryan
Puempel - Pageau - Lazar
Chiasson - Smith - Robinson

Methot - Karlsson
Boroweici - Ceci
Wiercioch - Cowen

Here are the rules from the last expansion draft...

At the time of the draft, teams were each allowed to protect either one goaltender, five defensemen, and nine forwards or two goaltenders, three defensemen, and seven forwards. The Atlanta Thrashers and Nashville Predators had their entire rosters protected, as they were the two newest franchises in the league, only being in existence for one and two years respectively.

For teams protecting only one goaltender, there was no experience requirement for those left unprotected. For teams protecting two goaltenders, each goaltender left unprotected must have appeared in either 10 NHL games in the 1999–2000 season or 25 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasons combined. A goaltender had to be in net for at least 31 minutes in each game for the game to be counted against these totals.

At least one defenceman left unprotected by each team had to have appeared in at least 40 games in the 1999–2000 season or 70 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasons combined. At least two forwards left unprotected by each team had to have met the same requirements.

To give some sense of what this might look like...

PROTECTED
F - Turris, Ryan, Zibanejad, Stone, MacArthur, Hoffman, Lazar, Pageau, Chiasson
D - Karlsson, Methot, Ceci, Weircioch, Borowiecki
G - Anderson

UNPROTECTED
F - Michalek, Smith, Neil, Greening
D - Phillips, Cowen
G - Hammond
- khawk

Hey expansion might be just what we need to get rid of crappy contracts! Minus Hammond of course lol. Too bad expansion wasn't this year.

Hey expansion might be just what we need to get rid of crappy contracts! Minus Hammond of course lol. Too bad expansion wasn't this year.
- karlssens

Still be better than the leafs

If an expansion team wants to take these guys off our hands go for it


UNPROTECTED
F - Michalek, Smith, Neil, Greening
D - Phillips, Boro

Boro has the " potential " to be exactly what he already is.......a mediocre 6-7 dman on a mid range team.

Cowen has the " potential " to be a real good wnd pairing guy.

Cowen could wind up remaining a bust......but the potential is still there for him to be real good. Boro will never be anything more than what he already is.......below average
- sensarmy_11

I agree about Boro, but Cowen? Based on what?