Modified UEFA Financial Fair Play + Revenue sharing

Article IX of the NHL is "Dues and Assessments." Nothing there about VETO power.

Are you refering to Article XI 11.1 Leagues Rules which state

"League Rules shall be adopted with the affirmative vote of two third majority members of the League provided always that no such "League Rule" or amendment thereto shall have the effect of depriving any Member Club of the vested property rights in the service of the players or in its home territory except by unanimous consent of all members of the League"

Nothing about veto here either.

I will check the NFL veto power another time. It would be a revelation that a team like the Dallas Cowboys could veto "NFL revenue sharing" if it doesn't think it is in its best interest.

 

Did all the NHL owners favor shutting down the 2004-2005 season?

Since if it requires unanimous decision, a big team like Toronto, Montreal, Detroit, New York or Philadelphia could veto it.

Or were they outvoted because many more teams want a hard cap at all cost. Shutting down 1 season is worth the price.

 

I did read it. Noting there about 1 club having veto power unless it deal with stripping said club of their property rights or changing the Constitution of the League.

Look at another pro league. The Scottish Premier League. They will vote in July whether to admit "NEWCO" back into the league. It will have significant financial ramification for the SPL. (Think MLS with or without Seattle + LA).

Does it require unanimous affirmative decision?
No. It does require 8-4 majority.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/hearts-dont-want-newco-rangers-153000477.html

The SPL is also voting whether to adopt UEFA financial fair play. And it too doesn't require unanimous affirmative decision.

To the SPL, changing from free spending to UEFA fiancial fair play is as significant as for MLS changing from $2.6 mil hard cap to a 1/3 of revenue = hard cap.

 

Article IX is "Dues and Assessments"

So let's me ask you, if MLS change from $2.6 mil hard cap to 1/3 of revenue = hard cap, which majority is required?

Simple majority
Super-majority
Unanimous approval

My disagreement is that it requires unanimous approval. I believe it requires a super-majority (which is defined as 60% or 66.7%). And I haven't seen anything to make me change my mind.

If others want to continue to believe it requires unanimous approval, it is their rights. Let's agree to disagree.

 

it talks about "dues and assessments" not "revenue sharing."

I don't think revenue sharing require unanimous agreement.

Look at MLB who does have revenue sharing. It doesn't require unanimous approval. Otherwise, the Yankees would have veto it.

Look at the Premiership, which share a lot of TV revenue. To change the tv revenue sharing %, 14 Premierships owners have to approve.




And if the Premiership want to abolish relegation and promotion, it needs 2/3 majority or 14 clubs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/17/foreign-owners-premier-league-relegation
Several of the biggest Premier League clubs want to scrap relegation and promotion, according to the League Managers' Association chief executive, Richard Bevan

He fears that if more teams change ownership there could be a vote to abolish relegation, a move which would require the backing of two thirds of Premier League clubs as well as Football Association approval.


If the NFL allows a veto on revenue sharing, a rich team like Washington Redskins or Dallas Cowboys might have used it already.

 

Found MLB revenue sharing and it doesn't require unanimous approval

http://roadsidephotos.sabr.org/baseball/02-4rules.htm

Unless otherwise specified, all votes require a simple majority of all clubs in both leagues, with the vote of each team in the smaller league weighted so the leagues collectively cast the same number of votes. (Thus each of the 16 NL clubs receives one vote, each of the 14 AL clubs receives 1-1/7 vote.) The specified exceptions include:

Simple majority, including at least five clubs in each league: matters subject to collective bargaining with the MLBPA.

Simple majority of clubs in each league, counted separately: issues affecting the scheduling of both leagues' seasons; any action affecting the All-Star Game or any postseason series; amendment of the playing or scoring rules (where if the leagues disagree, the Commissioner can cast the deciding vote); any action relating to radio or television.

3/4 majority of the clubs in each league: interleague play; switch in either league away from current three-division format; any amendment to the Central Fund Agreement except those affecting radio and TV (which, as noted above, can be changed by a simple majority in each league).

3/4 majority in the affected league, plus a majority of clubs in the other league: expansion, sale or transfer of control of a club (except that control passing to a spouse or descendant requires only a majority vote), relocation of a club to a city not within the other league's circuit [transfers into another club's territory require 3/4 majority in both leagues]

3/4 majority of all member clubs: any change in revenue sharing that affects both leagues, except for amendments to the Central Fund Agreement [3/4 majority of each league]; amendments to the Major League Agreement, except that those affecting the Commissioner, the Executive Council and the procedure, including voting requirements, applicable at joint meetings require a 3/4 majority of the clubs in each league.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That's probably explain why MLB doesn't have a NFL-style hard cap. It would require 3/4 supermajority or 23 out of 30 owners. A hard cap makes a lot of sense for MLB compare to EPL. Since MLB is the top baseball league, it won't lose top talents to another league if it moves to a hard cap. The same can't be said for the EPL. EPL with a NFL hard cap will see a drain on top talents. But a revenue (for example 2/3 of revenue = salary+transfers) hard cap would work for EPL.

A "% of revenue" hard cap would work for MLB too but it will maintain the status quo, which mean no parity.

 

You're confusing Dues and Assessments with revenue sharing. Please re-read it careful.




At each annual meeting, the owners will determine the amount of "dues" they have to pay. Lot of organization charges you a dues for annual membership.

(any) Assessments are payments from members club to pay for the League expenses/liabilities. This assessment has to be EQUAL among all members. And the league can't use this assessment to foster, promote, aid a particular member unless it gets unanimous approval.

 

IF (big if in my opinion) revenue sharing does require unanimous approval in MLS and be subjected to a veto just by 1 club, it can be work around.

1/3 of revenue = maximum salary budget

$30 mil revenue: $10 mil salary budget (maximum)
$20 mil revenue: $6.67 mil salary budget (maximum)
$15 ml revenue: $5 mil salary budget (maximum)
$10 mil revenue: $3.33 mil salary budget (maximum)

+ solidarity payment. Each club will send a _ % of their salary budget as solidarity payment. This percentage figure will be the same for all clubs. The solidarity payment will be divided equally among all clubs. MLS owners will negotiate among themselves to come up with a percentage that work.

For example, Seattle will send X% of their $10 mil salary budget
Toronto will send X% of their $7 mil salary budget
San Jose will send X% of their $3.33 mil salary budget

High salary clubs will have a net loss and low salary clubs will have a net gain.

The solidarity payment is a compromise to get more owners on board.

 

Which requires 75% affirmative vote for MLB.
Which requires 67% affirmative votes for EPL.

Maybe MLS is in the same ballpark instead of 100% affirmative vote required?