Steelers signings and departures

[Doom]

For me it's getting the balance right between giving Brine meaningful games to develop, giving Greener games to get up to speed and trying to qualify for the CC later stages, hopefully as top seed.

Netminding is unique in that the player is on the ice for the full 60 minutes (unless he's pulled of course).

Out skaters it's different, a coach can increase or decrease their ice time depending on how they're playing, so there's less risk involved.

I think Fox will want to win the CC and without wanting to sound disrespectful to Brine, Greenfield gives us the best chance of that, which is why i see him getting 75% of the games.

When Brine does get his opportunities, if he starts putting up 92% save stats then we'll probably see him getting more games.....which is exactly how it should be in my book.

Regards

Doom

[DiscoRay]

2. He might develop further and become an import quality netminder. Who is to say when he gets to that level he won't move to Belfast or abroad, meaning the cost we've put in is effectively in vain?

Doom

How do you think other EIHL teams feel, when an arena team sweeps up a player effectively developed all for them? Phoenix & the Racers did the graft on both Hewitt and Thomas for you, Milton Keynes & Cardiff doing it for Jonathan Phillips, just to name a few examples.

All part of sport, and the same can happen with imports too.

But if you want to stop or at least get soothed for it, then implementing development fees are the ticket for that.

[Doom]

2. He might develop further and become an import quality netminder. Who is to say when he gets to that level he won't move to Belfast or abroad, meaning the cost we've put in is effectively in vain?

Doom

How do you think other EIHL teams feel, when an arena team sweeps up a player effectively developed all for them? Phoenix & the Racers did the graft on both Hewitt and Thomas for you, Milton Keynes & Cardiff doing it for Jonathan Phillips, just to name a few examples.

All part of sport, and the same can happen with imports too.

But if you want to stop or at least get soothed for it, then implementing development fees are the ticket for that.

It's the nature of sport that the teams at the top of the food chain will take from those at the bottom.

A development fee is an interesting idea, but how exactly would it work and would it be legal?

Regards

Doom

[Jayboy]

A great debate guys and a great read.

It is what stands this forum apart from some of the FB groups IMO...

I am going to allow this to continue naturally on this thread... rather than trying to give it its own thread...
some threads grow organically into something else for a while and I am fine with that in the off season...

[Doom]

The more I think about this development fee idea, the more I think it would be far too complicated to implement.

Firstly, there's the legal aspect. If a player is out of contract with his club, how can you enforce a development fee? I suspect the Bosman ruling would come into effect. You're effectively restricting a players ability to earn a living elsewhere.

Secondly, there's the question of when a player has stopped developing. Using Brandon Whistle as an example:

Should Sheffield have paid a fee to Leeds when we signed him?
Should Belfast have paid us a fee?
Should we now pay a fee back to Belfast?

Thirdly, there's the question regarding the level of any fee and who decides it? Is it a set fee based on age or is it based on ability?

Say for example Manchester bring in a relatively unknown Brit and he has a 20 goal season. If Belfast come in for him, does he command a higher fee than say Sheffield picking up a random Brit from Manchester who only scored 3 goals? How is that fee decided?

I think it's a nice idea to try and reward a club who have taken a punt on a player and then loses them to a bigger club for more money, but I suspect it would be far too complicated and possibly even illegal.

Regards

Doom

[DSLSteeler]

The more I think about this development fee idea, the more I think it would be far too complicated to implement.

Firstly, there's the legal aspect. If a player is out of contract with his club, how can you enforce a development fee? I suspect the Bosman ruling would come into effect. You're effectively restricting a players ability to earn a living elsewhere.

Secondly, there's the question of when a player has stopped developing. Using Brandon Whistle as an example:

Should Sheffield have paid a fee to Leeds when we signed him?
Should Belfast have paid us a fee?
Should we now pay a fee back to Belfast?

Thirdly, there's the question regarding the level of any fee and who decides it? Is it a set fee based on age or is it based on ability?

Say for example Manchester bring in a relatively unknown Brit and he has a 20 goal season. If Belfast come in for him, does he command a higher fee than say Sheffield picking up a random Brit from Manchester who only scored 3 goals? How is that fee decided?

I think it's a nice idea to try and reward a club who have taken a punt on a player and then loses them to a bigger club for more money, but I suspect it would be far too complicated and possibly even illegal.

Regards

Doom

The same thing exists in football. It applies to players under 24. The player is free to leave and sign for anyone else if out of contract so there is no restriction on freedom to earn a living. But if he is under 24 then a compensation fee is payable to recognise development costs. If the 2 clubs can't agree on a fee it is decided by a tribunal.

Tribunals base their fees on the player's age, length of time at the previous club, the status of both clubs, and the player's international/first-team experience.

[Doom]

Thanks DSL, I thought there was something in place, but wasn't sure how it worked.

I guess the issues relating to this are:

1. Football clubs like Sheff Utd spend a lot of money on their academies, so you can understand why there needs to be a compensation mechanism. In ice hockey it's not really the same, because there isn't a similar cost.

Teams bring in players from the lower leagues to fill their roster and then play and pay them. Some work out and some don't, but there isn't really a development cost as such.

2. There would be a cost to the league in having a tribunal system.....who pays for it? The league isn't exactly flush with money

3. Would it include players moving from NIHL to EIHL, because the two leagues are completely independent?

If so, the NIHL would be expected to cover some of the cost of the tribunal system.

4. I would also assume that when players move upwards from our league (ie. To DEL), a fee couldn't be enforced.

Whilst I understand the sentiment, I really think it would be very complicated to set up a compensation system in ice hockey.

I seem to have helped drag this thread off topic.

Regards

Doom

[Jayboy]

Thanks DSL, I thought there was something in place, but wasn't sure how it worked.

I guess the issues relating to this are:

1. Football clubs like Sheff Utd spend a lot of money on their academies, so you can understand why there needs to be a compensation mechanism. In ice hockey it's not really the same, because there isn't a similar cost.

Teams bring in players from the lower leagues to fill their roster and then play and pay them. Some work out and some don't, but there isn't really a development cost as such.

2. There would be a cost to the league in having a tribunal system.....who pays for it? The league isn't exactly flush with money

3. Would it include players moving from NIHL to EIHL, because the two leagues are completely independent?

If so, the NIHL would be expected to cover some of the cost of the tribunal system.

4. I would also assume that when players move upwards from our league (ie. To DEL), a fee couldn't be enforced.

Whilst I understand the sentiment, I really think it would be very complicated to set up a compensation system in ice hockey.

I seem to have helped drag this thread off topic.

Regards

Doom

No worries ive covered that here:

A great debate guys and a great read.

It is what stands this forum apart from some of the FB groups IMO...

I am going to allow this to continue naturally on this thread... rather than trying to give it its own thread...
some threads grow organically into something else for a while and I am fine with that in the off season...

[DiscoRay]

Thanks DSL, I thought there was something in place, but wasn't sure how it worked.

I guess the issues relating to this are:

1. Football clubs like Sheff Utd spend a lot of money on their academies, so you can understand why there needs to be a compensation mechanism. In ice hockey it's not really the same, because there isn't a similar cost.

Teams bring in players from the lower leagues to fill their roster and then play and pay them. Some work out and some don't, but there isn't really a development cost as such.

2. There would be a cost to the league in having a tribunal system.....who pays for it? The league isn't exactly flush with money

3. Would it include players moving from NIHL to EIHL, because the two leagues are completely independent?

If so, the NIHL would be expected to cover some of the cost of the tribunal system.

4. I would also assume that when players move upwards from our league (ie. To DEL), a fee couldn't be enforced.

Whilst I understand the sentiment, I really think it would be very complicated to set up a compensation system in ice hockey.

I seem to have helped drag this thread off topic.

Regards

Doom

IIHF already has a base system in place, that's why the Coyotes had to pay a fee towards the Sheffield junior system when they drafted him. It's the domestic side that needs implementing, I don't think the fees should be prohibitive, but at least enough to justify the teams to keep doing as they have been as a player moves up the levels, and split proportionally to the time spent at a club developing. Even if it's only works out to a few grand per club when split-up, it's a few grand they didn't get before, and given arena teams don't develop players and the general EIHL ethos is: "we don't develop players" (which I maintain is nonsense, but I digress), then a development fee is a very small price to pay, especially if it keeps the system below fed and producing.

With the greatest respect to the likes of Richardson and Dowd. At early 40s and late 30s respectively, they really shouldn't still be landing multi-year deals at this level, yet they are and that is down to the lack of sufficient talent coming up to replace them. I know we'd prefer to do/pay nothing and simply cross our fingers a great player with pure natural talent somehow breaks through, but that isn't realistic of sustainable any more given how much costs in general have risen in recent years, and hockey wasn't the most affordable sport to get into to begin with.

Status quo isn't an option, I'll put it that way if nothing else.

[Firefox1001]

As a fan, I would be happy to give a Brit goalie the opportunity to play 15 or so games in a full season, even if that means we might lose the odd game. There has to be noticeable improvement though.

Therein lies the problem, a few losses could be the difference between silverware or another season with no success.

The margins between the big boys in our league can be very fine, do you have more chance of success with a 92% to 93% netminder or an 89% netminder?

Fox's main responsibility is to put out an entertaining successful team. If we lose a few games as a result of going with Brine, I've no doubt many of those applauding this decision would be criticising Fox.

I've no problem with giving a few selective games to Brine to help his development and give Greener a rest, but there's no way Fox is going to give him all the CC games.

Realistically I could see him getting 3 or 4 in the CC and maybe a dozen in the league. He also might get a few part games if we're well ahead/behind.

It's an interesting decision by Fox, but I think it's a risky one because Brine doesn't give us the same chance to win as a McAdam did.

Looking forward, I could see us going with 6 import d when Brine is in net with no detriment to the forwards, because assuming we have a British back-up we'd be able to ice an extra import out skater.

Games in which a back-up could've played last season (when we ended up winning by 3+):
Cup - 3, 1 of which was in Nottingham (4-1). The other 2 were against Guildford (5-2 win) and Coventry (5-1 win). The 5th goal was v Guildford was scored at 52:38. Could've had half the game in Coventry as we were 4-0 up by 27 mins.

League - 14 - (I've stripped out games against Cardiff/Nottingham/Belfast as I expect the starter to play in those games). I've also specfied the NM that played in the game:
4/10 v Dundee 6-1 Greenfield
18/10 @ Coventry 6-1 Greenfield (40 mins)
29/10 @ Guildford 5-1 Greenfield
23/11 V Manchester 5-0 S/o Greenfield
30/11 @ Coventry 5-1 McAdam
7/12 @ Dundee 4-0 S/o McAdam
13/12 V Glasgow 4-0 S/o Greenfield (Brine in nets for Glasgow)
10/1 @ Fife 4-7 Loss McAdam
11/1 V Dunde 6/0 S/o Greenfield
1/2 v Fife 8-0 S/o McAdam
8/2 v Dundee 9-0 S/o Greenfield
22/2 v Guidlford 6-3 Greenfield
8/3 @ Fife 7-1 Greenfield.