# Percentages of salary to revenue

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by FanSince2014, Feb 15, 2005.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### FanSince2014What'd He Say?

Joined:
Feb 22, 2003
Messages:
3,082
0
Trophy Points:
0
Assuming \$2.1B in revenue (which is tough to assume at THIS point) here is a breakdown of the percentage of revenue that could go to salary in the ranges of caps that the two groups have discussed.

In other words, if every team had their salaries at the cap, the percentage of revenue that would go to player salaries would be as follows:

cap %
40 57%
41 59%
42 60%
43 61%
44 63%
45 64%
46 66%
47 67%
48 69%
49 70%
50 71%
51 73%
52 74%

Joined:
Jan 2, 2005
Messages:
764
41
Trophy Points:
81
I disagree with 2 things.

1. Your scenario, "if every team had their salaries at the cap" is not a realistic scenario therefore aside from it being an interesting statistic, your numbers dont mean squat.

2. Kiss doesn't suck.

3. ### 54FisticuffsRegistered User

Joined:
Jan 10, 2005
Messages:
28
0
Trophy Points:
0
Anyone have any time on their hands? Im busy with work, so I cant do it.

To make getn's post more informative to me ... someone please take last years payrolls on the "open market"? and simply drop any team that is over 52 million down to that level, sum up the totals and compute the percentage based on a 2.1 B in revenue.

Yes, I realize other teams may rise on the bottom as top teams shrink ... but it would mean more to me than the everyone at max cap scenario.

___________________________________
Best solution I have heard of to-date.
Minimum Cap: 30 million
Max Cap: 52 million
\$1 for \$1 luxury tax on anyone spending over 40 million.
Tax collected spread between teams below 40 million.

Incentive to stay at or under 40 million(\$\$\$, your share of the tax collection. More teams over cap = bigger incentive to stay under)

Max League Disparity 22 million vs old CBA ... 50million?

Allows teams to add players in years where they are going for it. Average team payroll ...??