2023-24 NHL salary cap UPD Set at $83.5m, floor $61.7m
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
It should be. Heck, I'd argue that it should be set by the time the window opens for buyouts in late June.
Big market owners want a higher cap since they've been working with a $2 mill increase since the 19-20 season. $2 mill increase in a span of 5 seasons. Those teams are feeling the crunch.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 22,826
- 11,145
Digital Kid
Registered User
So the loss or potential loss of those TV networks has had no effect on salary cap numbers? (see other thread)
LadyStanley
Registered User
Eventually. But most teams received contracted payments for 22-23 season.
Next season, the $$s may be different as some teams have to find a new entity.
mouser
Business of Hockey
Absent Covid and paying back the Escrow Balance, my rough estimate is the 2023-24 salary cap would be $88m-$90m.
I tried to include multiple changes in the modeling:
- Elimination of the cap escalator
- Change to using the Lag Formula cap calculation in the 2020 MOU
- Increase from 31 to 32 teams
- Likely increase in non-salary benefits in the 2020 MOU plus non salary benefit inflation.
I tried to include multiple changes in the modeling:
- Elimination of the cap escalator
- Change to using the Lag Formula cap calculation in the 2020 MOU
- Increase from 31 to 32 teams
- Likely increase in non-salary benefits in the 2020 MOU plus non salary benefit inflation.
At the very latest 23-24 is the final bit of any payback. So, 24-25 the cap should be pushing $90 mill.
mouser
Business of Hockey
I would guess the 2024-25 cap exceeds $90m. A lot of that may depend on how the RSN bankruptcy revenue falls out.
Absent that, 4% growth is a reasonable default based on historical growth and NHL revenue these last two seasons. If my $88m-$90m estimate is correct that would give us $91m-$93m in 2024-25.
The exact amount of the Escrow Balance remaining to be paid off wouldn’t change those numbers.
Last edited:
You’d think if it was to get as high as you say then I can see why the nhl would be trying to get the players to increase the cap for 23-24. Kind of borrow from 24-25 cap to bump up 23-24.
If $90 mill is say the safe target for 24-25, then maybe bump 23-24 to $85 mill and have 24-25 only at $88 mill then $92 mill or whatever for 25-26.
Rather than a $1 mill increase following by a $6-7 mill increase.
mouser
Business of Hockey
Yeah, I think the NHL and PA would be better off staggering this upcoming large cap bump over the next two seasons.
Reportedly the NHL wants concessions from the PA to do a 2023-24 cap bump over $1m
If the only concession the NHL wants is increasing Escrow withholding above 6% for 2023-24 I think that’s an entirely reasonable tradeoff. Depending on the cap increase number there’s a good probability final escrow ends up less than 6% when everything is settled.
If the NHL wants some different concession from the PA my default reaction would be the NHL is overreaching. That’s without even knowing what PA concession the league wants.
Reportedly the NHL wants concessions from the PA to do a 2023-24 cap bump over $1m
If the only concession the NHL wants is increasing Escrow withholding above 6% for 2023-24 I think that’s an entirely reasonable tradeoff. Depending on the cap increase number there’s a good probability final escrow ends up less than 6% when everything is settled.
If the NHL wants some different concession from the PA my default reaction would be the NHL is overreaching. That’s without even knowing what PA concession the league wants.
Nhl should point to the nba when they had their massive bump several years ago. A lot of average players got insane money for what they brought but teams have to get to a floor so they spent it.
Nfl and nba caps are already 13-14% higher than it was back in 19-20 and 2020 Covid years. But they handled the return to play differently.
Nfl and nba caps are already 13-14% higher than it was back in 19-20 and 2020 Covid years. But they handled the return to play differently.
If the cap is going to be any higher than the projected $83.5 mill for next season they do need to finalize that number soon. Buyout windows opens up in late June so 4 weeks to go before then.
It does make more sense to level the cap increases vs having just a $1 mill increase followed by a $7 mill increase to $90 mill or so.
It does make more sense to level the cap increases vs having just a $1 mill increase followed by a $7 mill increase to $90 mill or so.
I think the NHLPA needs to sign off on things like schedule length. And given that a possible change to an 84 game season is one of the other things to be discussed when the NHL and PA meet, could the league be looking for an agreement on that in exchange for a larger cap increase this year?
LadyStanley
Registered User
Buyout window opens 48 hours after Cup awarded. With June 1 (VGK wins game 5) or June 3 for start of SCF, it could start as soon as June 10 or as late as June 21.
Fourier
Registered User
I completely agree. I think there is a good chance your estimate of $88-90M is perhaps even slightly conservative. So with a 4% growth in revenue we would be looking at revenue this year that would generate a midpoint of about $82-84M next year on the conservative side. Barring some calamity I doubt that escrow would be over 6% even if they set the cap at $87M.
In the end I don't know why the NHL would even need concessions in this case. It's not like the flat cap has caused no issues for its members. Frankly a big one time jump in the cap is far more disruptive for teams than a potential slight escrow issue that is unlikely to happen.
The NHL doesn’t NEED concessions; the NHL WANTS concessions. By taking the stance that they are willing to go with $1M cap increase, they have more or less forced the PA into asking for a greater increase this year as per the 2020 agreement. Thus, they are are doing something for the PA and want something in return. My guess is that it may be an 84 game season.
Not quite related to the cap, as it is revenue based only. BUT do we have any idea if NHL team's profitability has increased? A lot of inflation, increased revenue does not necessarily translate into increase profits given all their non-player expenses would have increased 10+%.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 22,826
- 11,145
Not sure
But the best answer for fans can be found at sportrac or Forbes annual NHL numbers.
Last edited:
mouser
Business of Hockey
Maybe not linear, but there’s correlation between team profitability and franchise values. Over the longer term since the cap was introduced in 2005 and the change to a 50/50 split in 2013 operating profit margins have increased substantially.
Over the shorter term, e.g. since Covid, no idea how operating margins have changed. If I had to guess I’d go with the general principle that the top revenue generating teams are maintaining or increasing their profit margins. While the lower revenue teams are at best maintaining margins, but a flat margin could still mean a larger net operating profit with increased revenue.
Team_Spirit
95% Elliotte
- Jul 3, 2002
- 37,763
- 17,681
Will something be done about taxes disparity?
3 out of 4 of the final 4 teams have no state income taxes.
Toronto pays 39M after taxes vs 51M for Dallas/Panthers/Bolts/Knights
3 out of 4 of the final 4 teams have no state income taxes.
Toronto pays 39M after taxes vs 51M for Dallas/Panthers/Bolts/Knights
Is that just a hockey thing?
LA, Denver, Boston, Mia were you final 4 in the NBA (1 no state income tax in NBA)
KC, Cin, Phi, SF were your final 4 in the NFL (none for NFL)
Hou, NY, Phi, SD were your final 4 in the MLB for 2022. (1 no state income tax in MLB)
Fourier
Registered User
The tax issue is way more complicated than the level of state income tax since players are also taxed where they play on the road. It's an advantage but how to quantify it is just about impossible to do I'd say.
Even in Toronto your numbers are not the same for every player. For example take Tavare's contract: His salary is almost all signing bonuses. Since he was a US resident for tax purposes whne he signed he had the opportunity to maintain that status and as such his signing bonus would only be taxed at 15%. So he would pay taxes at a much lower rate than say Marner might. Alternatively, he could take advantage of a Retirement Compensation Agreement if he did not want to maintain his residence in the US and forego owning property in Canada. How do you account for this?
How John Tavares could save on taxes and how you can too | Planswell
John Tavares has been traded to the Toronto Maple Leafs! With his new $77 million dollar contract, find out how he's saving on Ontario taxes.
planswell.com
mouser
Business of Hockey
The tax issue is way more complicated than the level of state income tax since players are also taxed where they play on the road. It's an advantage but how to quantify it is just about impossible to do I'd say.
Even in Toronto your numbers are not the same for every player. For example take Tavare's contract: His salary is almost all signing bonuses. Since he was a US resident for tax purposes whne he signed he had the opportunity to maintain that status and as such his signing bonus would only be taxed at 15%. So he would pay taxes at a much lower rate than say Marner might. Alternatively, he could take advantage of a Retirement Compensation Agreement if he did not want to maintain his residence in the US and forego owning property in Canada. How do you account for this?
How John Tavares could save on taxes and how you can too | Planswell
John Tavares has been traded to the Toronto Maple Leafs! With his new $77 million dollar contract, find out how he's saving on Ontario taxes.
Yup, same thing with Matthews, he's a U.S. resident for tax purposes, with 94% of his contract being paid in signing bonuses.
Tavares gets 92% of his contract in signing bonuses.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Bettman did not announce any agreement with NHLPA to allow cap to rise more than $1m this summer
