League revenues increase to about $2.33B in '06-07

[GSC2k2*]

To what is this revenue growth most likely attributable to?

Is this just normal growth that continues as always?
Is it largely the effect of the Canadian dollar?
Is it because expenses were capped and 30 equal teams increased attendance?

If revenues grow 6-10% again, (wasn't 7.5% the growth factor Goodenow wanted to use?) and it is expected to continue again the next year, then it would seem pushing the cap to the max works best for the players? Only if revenues are dropping or stabilizing would you worry about escrow not returning?

Without crunching the numbers, and just lookinig at it from a 10,000 foot level, I would think that if salaries increase more than the rate of growth of revenue, there is an escrow hit for the players (assuming as well that the player's share is past the midpoint on average, as was the case this year).

 

[Ted Hoffman]

So ... with talk of the cap supposedly jumping to $52 million, I went back and re-visited some of the calculations I made in the opening post of this thread.

For the cap to end up at $52 million, revenues will have to end up around $2.36 billion; since revenues for '05-06 were reported at $2.1 billion, we're talking about a nearly 12% jump in revenues during '06-07. That's quite a bit of a jump from the originally reported 5-7% increase in revenues and virtually guarantees that the players are getting all of their escrow back (and maybe a little more). It also indicates that the NHL has roared back from the lockout with little more than a hiccup on the overall numbers.

It also means that the Upper Limit for '06-07 will be the midpoint for '07-08, and that Washington is going to probably have to give a ridiculous-looking contract or two to get to the Lower Limit.

 

[GSC2k2*]

So ... with talk of the cap supposedly jumping to $52 million, I went back and re-visited some of the calculations I made in the opening post of this thread.

For the cap to end up at $52 million, revenues will have to end up around $2.36 billion; since revenues for '05-06 were reported at $2.1 billion, we're talking about a nearly 12% jump in revenues during '06-07. That's quite a bit of a jump from the originally reported 5-7% increase in revenues and virtually guarantees that the players are getting all of their escrow back (and maybe a little more). It also indicates that the NHL has roared back from the lockout with little more than a hiccup on the overall numbers.

It also means that the Upper Limit for '06-07 will be the midpoint for '07-08, and that Washington is going to probably have to give a ridiculous-looking contract or two to get to the Lower Limit.

IB, I seem to recall that revenues were in the $2.2 billion range. That would put revenues for this year in the $2.32-2.35 billion range. When you apply the 5% kicker, that puts the cap in the $52 million range, does it not?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

IB, I seem to recall that revenues were in the $2.2 billion range. That would put revenues for this year in the $2.32-2.35 billion range. When you apply the 5% kicker, that puts the cap in the $52 million range, does it not?

From the link I originally posted, they stated revenues last year ('05-06) were $2.1 billion and I backed into the various components to get the midpoint to be $36 million (and the Upper Limit at $44 million) - and that was without the 5% inflator clause. Player Benefits would have been about $54 million in that formula. Assuming benefits grew 5% and setting an Upper Limit of $52 million, league revenues for '06-07 would have to be about $2.362 billion - which would give the players 55.81% of league revenues.

If league revenues last year were in fact $2.2 billion, player benefits would have had to been about $121 million; if I leave that fixed (assuming no growth) and make revenues $2.36 billion, it would put the Upper Limit at $49.4 million. However, I don't recall seeing that revenues last year were as high as $2.2 billion - so if you've got links stating that, please post and I can re-tweak my calculations accordingly and try to back into things again.

 

[Fugu]

From the link I originally posted, they stated revenues last year ('05-06) were $2.1 billion and I backed into the various components to get the midpoint to be $36 million (and the Upper Limit at $44 million) - and that was without the 5% inflator clause. Player Benefits would have been about $54 million in that formula. Assuming benefits grew 5% and setting an Upper Limit of $52 million, league revenues for '06-07 would have to be about $2.362 billion - which would give the players 55.81% of league revenues.

If league revenues last year were in fact $2.2 billion, player benefits would have had to been about $121 million; if I leave that fixed (assuming no growth) and make revenues $2.36 billion, it would put the Upper Limit at $49.4 million. However, I don't recall seeing that revenues last year were as high as $2.2 billion - so if you've got links stating that, please post and I can re-tweak my calculations accordingly and try to back into things again.

The NHL and NHLPA can decide where the cap should be set, meaning the league revenues could have been $2.2 billion....

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The NHL and NHLPA can decide where the cap should be set, meaning the league revenues could have been $2.2 billion....

I suppose they could have decided to set the cap independent of revenues, but there's no indication that it actually occurred; the only indicated change was the NHLPA waiving the 5% growth factor. Besides, I seriously doubt Dollar Bill would have gone along without squawking long and loud about the players getting more than the CBA called for.

Now ... if the two sides have negotiated a new growth factor (allowed since revenues clearly exceed $2.1 billion) then it's another thing to consider - one that I haven't done and probably won't do until there's some official announcement that it indeed happened.

 

[Bobby Orr]

if indeed Bettman said revenues will be close to $2.4 billion

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=7768

And this is a business that will do close to $2.4 billion in
revenues.

To me, "close" would imply 2.375ish and up.

 

[Fugu]

I suppose they could have decided to set the cap independent of revenues, but there's no indication that it actually occurred; the only indicated change was the NHLPA waiving the 5% growth factor. Besides, I seriously doubt Dollar Bill would have gone along without squawking long and loud about the players getting more than the CBA called for.

Now ... if the two sides have negotiated a new growth factor (allowed since revenues clearly exceed $2.1 billion) then it's another thing to consider - one that I haven't done and probably won't do until there's some official announcement that it indeed happened.

Okay, I'm here to brighten your day by showing you that you were wrong.


Last October, Saskin said the first year revenue projection, used to determine the first cap were off by $350 MM or so.... That would mean $1.8 billion + $350 MM = $2.15 billion.

Link from Canada.com that 2005-06 revenues likely to exceed $2.1 billion:

NHLPA executive director Ted Saskin met with 115 agents during a nine-hour meeting in Toronto and the news was good. The final numbers won't be tallied until the end of June but it's expected revenues will likely exceed $2.1 billion, easily surpassing the $1.8 billion initially estimated for this season in the new collective bargaining agreement.

from Pierre LeBrun of the CP via KK's:

Question: What are your expectations for league revenues this year, in other words, where do you think the salary cap is headed?
Saskin: Well I think we’re still going to see growth. I don’t think we can expect that tremendous, one-year boost above the projected number that we had last year. Last year we exceeded by the projections by over $350 million, which is fantastic but also unusual because there was a lot of uncertainty in the projection.

Here's what Bettman said during the State of the NHL address, via Kukla's here, but Bobby Orr has provided another link directly above:

Q. There have been much discussions here about television issues. And you even alluded in your remarks about it’s not perfect and we all hear about that, too. [snip]
COMMISSIONER BETTMAN: By the way, I think it’s a good point. We are what we are. And we think we’re pretty darn good. And we like where we are. And this is a business that will do close to $2.4 billion in revenues.

...

Q. Gary, do you have the exact number for the salary cap for next season?
COMMISSIONER BETTMAN: Not yet, but you can do a projection as follows. The cap is linked to revenues. Revenues this year will grow between 6.5 and 7 percent. So you can do your own math and expect the growth at least in that range.

Q. I can’t do math, so what would that be (laughter)?
COMMISSIONER BETTMAN: Somewhere in the $48 to $49 million range. And that assumes we don’t put in a kicker and project additional revenue growth next year as well. But that’s the vicinity of where we think we’ll be.

So he said a cap of $48-49 MM before the 5% kicker...

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Thanks for the links. I had backed into player benefits (loosely) to get the Upper Limit to end up at $44 million ... so they're in there. The NHLPA waived the 5% inflator for '06-07, otherwise the Upper Limit would have been near $46.2 million.

Let me work on this later this evening and see how things change ... I'll work from $2.15 billion in revenue for '06-07 and do some testing to see how much numbers wiggle if I change the revenue number from last year.

 

[RTWAP*]

Does the percentage escalator (from 54% to 56% or 57%) happen based on this year's final revenue number, or the projection for next year? If it is based on next year's projection and that projection has the 5% growth factor added then that would bump the numbers a bit. Right?

 

[Fugu]

Does the percentage escalator (from 54% to 56% or 57%) happen based on this year's final revenue number, or the projection for next year? If it is based on next year's projection and that projection has the 5% growth factor added then that would bump the numbers a bit. Right?

Both.

When the league sets a cap, they take this year's revenue and use that as the basis for their projection. They do not have to project higher than current year actuals-- other than the 5% growth rate the NHLPA has the option to invoke per the CBA. The players' share is then estimated based on the projection.

However, the escrow account is used to track the accuracy of the projection vs. actual revenues. There are four points during the regular season where the NHL adjusts the escrow amount being withheld. If revenues are better than projections, the escrow rate would be lower. If revenues are low, then the escrow rises.... so whatever is required to insure that the players get 54-57% of the revenue (depending on what that revenue actually is trending).

 

[RTWAP*]

Both.

When the league sets a cap, they take this year's revenue and use that as the basis for their projection. They do not have to project higher than current year actuals-- other than the 5% growth rate the NHLPA has the option to invoke per the CBA. The players' share is then estimated based on the projection.

However, the escrow account is used to track the accuracy of the projection vs. actual revenues. There are four points during the regular season where the NHL adjusts the escrow amount being withheld. If revenues are better than projections, the escrow rate would be lower. If revenues are low, then the escrow rises.... so whatever is required to insure that the players get 54-57% of the revenue (depending on what that revenue actually is trending).

So if this year's revenues were at a level that triggered a 55% player cost, then you would add the 5% and potentially put the projected revenues up enough to trigger a bump in the percentage to 55.25%?

So when comparing this year's revenue to next year's cap there are two factors and the first one (projected 5% revenue increase) can trigger the second one (increased percentage for salary linkage)?

 

[Fugu]

So if this year's revenues were at a level that triggered a 55% player cost, then you would add the 5% and potentially put the projected revenues up enough to trigger a bump in the percentage to 55.25%?

So when comparing this year's revenue to next year's cap there are two factors and the first one (projected 5% revenue increase) can trigger the second one (increased percentage for salary linkage)?

Here's what the CBA says, first on linkage (the players share, and then how the cap range is determined):

For any League Year (other than the 2005-06 League Year) for which Actual HRR is below $2.2 billion, the Players' Share shall be fifty-four (54) percent of Actual HRR for such League Year.

(C) For any League Year (other than the 2005-06 League Year) for which Actual HRR is equal to or exceeds $2.2 billion, but is below $2.4 billion, the Players' Share shall be a percentage between fifty-five (55) and fifty-six (56) percent of Actual HRR, as adjusted pursuant to subsection (ii) below, for such League Year.

(D) For any League Year (other than the 2005-06 League Year) for which Actual HRR is equal to or exceeds $2.4 billion, but is below $2.7 billion, the Players' Share shall be a percentage between fifty-six (56) and fifty-seven (57) percent of Actual HRR, as adjusted pursuant to subsection (ii) below, for such League Year.

For any League Year (other than the 2005-06 League Year) for which Actual HRR is equal to or exceeds $2.7 billion, the Players' Share shall be fifty-seven (57) percent of Actual HRR for such League Year.

(i) The Upper and Lower Limits of the Team Payroll Range shall be determined in accordance with the following formula:

Preliminary HRR for the prior League Year multiplied by [x] the Applicable Percentage (as defined in Section 50.4(b) of this Agreement), minus [-] Preliminary Benefits, divided [/] by the number of Clubs then playing in the NHL (e.g., 30), shall equal [=] the Midpoint of the Payroll Range, which shall be adjusted upward by a factor of five (5) percent in each League Year (yielding the Adjusted Midpoint) until League-wide Actual HRR equals or exceeds $2.1 billion, at which point the five (5) percent growth factor shall continue unless or until either party to this Agreement proposes a different growth factor based on actual revenue experience and/or projections, in which case the parties shall discuss and agree upon a new factor. If a significant (i.e., $20 million or more) one-time increase or decrease to League-wide revenues (e.g., by reason of the addition or loss of a national television contract or the scheduled opening of one or more new arenas which is expected to result in a significant increase in League-wide revenues) is anticipated in the next League Year, the parties will endeavor to estimate the expected increase or decrease and incorporate that estimate into the above-stated formula for calculating the Adjusted Midpoint.

After adjustment for the revenue growth factor, the Payroll Range shall be constructed by adding $8 million to the Adjusted Midpoint to establish the Upper Limit, and subtracting $8 million from the "Adjusted Midpoint" to establish the Lower Limit.

(ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(i) above, in the 2005-06 League Year only, the Lower Limit of the Range shall be $21.5 million and the Upper Limit of the Range shall be $39.0 million.

(iii) For the 2006-07 League Year, and each subsequent League Year, the Lower Limit and the Upper Limit of the Range shall be calculated by the Independent Accountants no later than June 30 of the immediately preceding League Year, using Preliminary HRR and Preliminary Benefits, which shall be based upon the Initial HRR Report for the immediately preceding League Year.

(iv) In each League Year, the Lower and Upper Limit calculations set forth in paragraph (b)(iii) above shall be subject to adjustment upon the Independent Accountants' issuance of the Final HRR Report for the immediately preceding League Year, which Report shall set forth the Actual HRR and Benefits figures. If, as a result of re-calculating the Payroll Range by using the Actual HRR and Benefits figures set forth in the Final HRR Report –rather than Preliminary HRR and Preliminary Benefits figures used to calculate the Range in paragraph (b)(i) above –the Adjusted Midpoint of the Range would be either increased or decreased by $3 million or more in either direction, then the Payroll Range for such League Year shall be adjusted accordingly, effective as of the first day of the NHL Regular Season, based on the figures set forth in the Final HRR Report. The NHLPA, upon further consultation with the NHL, may elect to reduce the threshold for adjusting the Payroll Range in the manner set forth in this paragraph for future League Years to an amount lower than $3 million. Illustration: Assume that the Initial HRR Report for Year 2 calculates Preliminary HRR for Year 2 to be $1.9 billion, and Preliminary Benefits to be $66 million. Calculating the Range for Year 3 would occur on or before the June 30 immediately preceding Year 3 as follows:

The Midpoint is (54% of $1.9 billion) - $66 million
----------------------------------------- =
30 Clubs in the NHL
($1.026 billion - $66 million) / 30 = $960 million / 30 = $32.0 million

The Adjusted Midpoint is calculated by increasing $32.0 million by five (5)
percent, to $33.6 million.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

OK ... based on Fugu's links, let's assume revenues for 2005-06 were $2.15 billion. That puts player benefits at about $75.3 million - omit the 5% inflation factor, and the Upper Limit for '05-06 stands at $44 million. Now adjust revenues to $2.36 billion for 2006-07, figure benefits increase by 5% and add the 5% inflation factor and the Upper Limit for '07-08 comes out at $51.1 million.

-- Make '05-06 revenues $2.16 billion, and player benefits have to be about $80.35 million; then bump revenues to $2.36 billion, make the 5% adjustments as above, and the Upper Limit for '07-08 comes out at $50.9 million.

-- To get an Upper Limit of $52 million for 2007-08, league revenues would have to end up at almost $2.4 billion.

 

[Fugu]

More links, this time from Bloomberg.com.

Basically, NHL revenues will be $2.33 billion, a 7% increase from the previous year. I'll let IB back fill this, or perhaps update the title of the thread since he has special mod powers....

I think that means a cap in excess of $50 MM if the NHLPA uses the 5% kicker.

Most franchises have recovered from the labor lockout that canceled the 2004-2005 season, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said in an interview. League attendance this year averaged a record 16,961 fans a game, up from 16,550 the year before the lockout. And Bettman said revenue will increase 7 percent to a record $2.33 billion.

``This is a strong business now,'' Bettman said. ``We don't worry about teams going bankrupt. We are no longer scrambling for survival.''

...

Regular-season games were seen in an average 160,134 U.S. households on Versus this year, compared with an average 416,000 households when it was on ESPN during the 2003-2004 season.

``TV dollars are the mother's milk of major American sports,'' Ganis said. ``Despite all the good things the league has done, without meaningful broadcast revenue, they will always be fighting an uphill battle.''

The NHL generates $177.8 million, or about 7.6 percent of its revenue, from national television contracts this season, the league said. Major League Baseball gets about 18 percent of its $5.5 billion in revenue from national broadcasts, and the NFL about half of its $6 billion in revenue from television.

Good article, and some comments on the Preds and franchise values.

 

[bleed_oil]

More links, this time from Bloomberg.com.

Basically, NHL revenues will be $2.33 billion, a 7% increase from the previous year. I'll let IB back fill this, or perhaps update the title of the thread since he has special mod powers....

I think that means a cap in excess of $50 MM if the NHLPA uses the 5% kicker.



Good article, and some comments on the Preds and franchise values.

Has anyone bothered to calculate how much of Bettemens strong business is simply due to increases in the value of the Canadian Dollar?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

bleed_oil - If someone has access to things like (A) paid attendance, (B) merchandise sales, (C) TV revenue, (D) how much was paid to help support Canadian teams pre-lockout, (D) in-arena revenues, and (E) other revenue sources for all of the Canadian teams from 1999-present as well as a running chart of the exchange rate between the Canadian dollar and the U.S. dollar in that time frame, sure - I or someone else can probably get this narrowed down. Without that kind of information, we both could throw something against the wall and be equally as accurate.

That's just an illustration of how difficult it could be to accurately quantify the impact of the exchange rate.

Fugu - I'll make changes shortly.

-- EDIT: I'm seeing a cap of just under $51 million by my calculations, and that's after the 5% inflation clause.

 

[Fugu]

Has anyone bothered to calculate how much of Bettemens strong business is simply due to increases in the value of the Canadian Dollar?

That's the NHL's best kept secret. Individual Canadian teams may actually do better or worse in transactions for the USD than the single annual rate used to translate the currency for accounting purposes. [As we know, the rates do fluctuate daily.] Basically the CBA requires that the annual average per the Bank of Canada (Jul 1 - Jun 30 or thereabouts) be used in order to tally an NHL total. Canadian teams earn the majority of their revenues in the CAD and pay players throughout the season, thus what rate they get and if they hedge or not... is difficult to say.

It is difficult to know precisely, as IB pointed out, however I'll do a very broad brush stroke here and say it perhaps might be in the neigbhorhood of the following....

If* indeed Canadian teams account for 1/3rd of NHL revenues, then a CAD : USD rate of 0.90 - 0.94 equates to 1/3 x $2.33 billion = USD 769. That's CAD 818 - 854 in the specified f(x) rate.

At 0.70 CAD : USD = US$ 572 - 597
At 0.80 CAD : USD = US$ 654 - 683
At 0.85 CAD : USD = US$ 695 - 725


It is most difficult to compare to pre-lockout levels since adjustments in the values of TV contracts would have to be made, and what is counted as revenue (so that the NHLPA can review) is different. However... my own two cents on this is that pre-lockout revenues were in the $2.2 billion range as of 2003-04. Subtract the previous ESPN deal and substitute with the VS deal, and there may be reasonable cause to say exchange rate gains by the CAD have accounted for up to $100 MM of the current gain. If you compare to pre-lockout levels, or years where the CAD was in the 0.6-0.7, the total gain could be as high as $200 MM... assuming all other things in the 6 Canadian markets are equal. It's just guesswork no matter how many qualifiers I add, but at least I'll put them in!


It is more difficult to compare ticket price hikes since some were lowered after the lockout ended, then increased last season (per the NHL gate receipts document from the Globe and Mail). Earlier reports in the year indicated that price hikes accounted for 4-5% of gains (Mark Spector, National Post and Globe/Mail article), from 2005-06 to 2006-07.




*A figure reported by the Canadian media, as it relates to all NHL revenue, not solely gate receipts. A similar exercise could be done by assuming 50% of all revenues are gate receipts, with another 30% being 'in arena' revenues. Take one third of that and add the Cdn TV monies that go exclusively to the Cdn teams. Apply same f(x) rates to get a range....


(*** heads for Yugoslav-constructed bunker 50 ft below surface w/20ft thick concrete walls ***)

 

[GSC2k2*]

(*** heads for Yugoslav-constructed bunker 50 ft below surface w/20ft thick concrete walls ***)

It does not matter. You will be found, and your transgressions will be dealt with.

Swiftly ...

... IF you are fortunate ...

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I've run numbers several times now with $2.175 billion as the '05-06 revenues ... I don't see how $52 million for an Upper Limit is possible for '07-08 unless revenues for '06-07 end up topping $2.4 billion. I can fudge a few things and get it to $51 million, but that's it.

My guess right now, without additional information: the cap for '07-08 ends up somewhere between $49.8 million and $50.8 million.

 

[Fugu]

I've run numbers several times now with $2.175 billion as the '05-06 revenues ... I don't see how $52 million for an Upper Limit is possible unless revenues end up topping $2.4 billion. I can fudge a few things and get it to $51 million, but that's it.

My guess right now, without additional information: the cap for '07-08 ends up somewhere between $49.8 million and $50.8 million.

I agree. I haven't combed through the CBA yet to find the section that says the league has to use this year's HRR plus any known revenues in excess of the baseline year (e.g., new TV contracts like the CBC and TSN); and if those would be large enough to push it over $2.4 B. So unless the playoffs and the shared revenue from NBC is a pretty chunk of change, it does appear it stays under $2.4 B. Thanks for running the numbers.

 

[bleed_oil]

That's the NHL's best kept secret. Individual Canadian teams may actually do better or worse in transactions for the USD than the single annual rate used to translate the currency for accounting purposes. [As we know, the rates do fluctuate daily.] Basically the CBA requires that the annual average per the Bank of Canada (Jul 1 - Jun 30 or thereabouts) be used in order to tally an NHL total. Canadian teams earn the majority of their revenues in the CAD and pay players throughout the season, thus what rate they get and if they hedge or not... is difficult to say.

It is difficult to know precisely, as IB pointed out, however I'll do a very broad brush stroke here and say it perhaps might be in the neigbhorhood of the following....

If* indeed Canadian teams account for 1/3rd of NHL revenues, then a CAD : USD rate of 0.90 - 0.94 equates to 1/3 x $2.33 billion = USD 769. That's CAD 818 - 854 in the specified f(x) rate.

At 0.70 CAD : USD = US$ 572 - 597
At 0.80 CAD : USD = US$ 654 - 683
At 0.85 CAD : USD = US$ 695 - 725


It is most difficult to compare to pre-lockout levels since adjustments in the values of TV contracts would have to be made, and what is counted as revenue (so that the NHLPA can review) is different. However... my own two cents on this is that pre-lockout revenues were in the $2.2 billion range as of 2003-04. Subtract the previous ESPN deal and substitute with the VS deal, and there may be reasonable cause to say exchange rate gains by the CAD have accounted for up to $100 MM of the current gain. If you compare to pre-lockout levels, or years where the CAD was in the 0.6-0.7, the total gain could be as high as $200 MM... assuming all other things in the 6 Canadian markets are equal. It's just guesswork no matter how many qualifiers I add, but at least I'll put them in!


It is more difficult to compare ticket price hikes since some were lowered after the lockout ended, then increased last season (per the NHL gate receipts document from the Globe and Mail). Earlier reports in the year indicated that price hikes accounted for 4-5% of gains (Mark Spector, National Post and Globe/Mail article), from 2005-06 to 2006-07.




*A figure reported by the Canadian media, as it relates to all NHL revenue, not solely gate receipts. A similar exercise could be done by assuming 50% of all revenues are gate receipts, with another 30% being 'in house' revenues. Take one third of that and add the Cdn TV monies that go exclusively to the Cdn teams. Apply same f(x) rates to get a range....


(*** heads for Yugoslav-constructed bunker 50 ft below surface w/20ft thick concrete walls ***)

Thanks, interesting analysis to say the least

 

[RangerBoy]

Indeed, one PA official told Slap Shots on Friday that Gary Bettman's recent proclamation that 2006-07 revenues would be close to $2.4 billion "is disconnected" from 2007-08 cap reality. Fact is, even if the PA does, as expected, assert its right to build a 5-percent bump into next year's cap (according to a union source, the 5-percent bump is a default number unless waived by both parties) it now appears that next year's upper limit will be no higher than $48.5 million.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0610200..._nhl_expansion_sports_larry_brooks.htm?page=2

 

[Fugu]

From the same Post article:

According to figures supplied to the NHLPA by the league, total 2006-07 NHL payroll amounted to $1,266,388,151 for a total of 791 players. Every time a player goes on the long-term-injury or injured-reserve list and a reinforcement is recalled from the minors, every player in the league pays. When Glen Sather decided to keep Sandis Ozolinsh on NHL IR rather than dispatch him on waivers to Hartford, every player in the league paid for the GM's largesse.

That puts the NHL average at $1.6 MM (if we count all players that actually got paid any NHL money).

Does anyone know if the oft quoted $1.8 MM average salary pre-lockout was based on the same number of players?

If the league payroll of $1.266 billion accounted for approximately 58 percent of the gross available to the players, this means that the league's HRR (plus benefits) was thus in the neighborhood of $2.25 billion. It also reminds us that when league officials announce projected revenue totals, they are citing gross dollars, not those that will necessarily be utilized in the calculation of the cap.

So the players' share should be 55% of $2.25 billion, which is $1.237 billion. That's $29 MM (2.3%) going back to the NHL, no?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

You meant $1.6 million, Fugu - no?