After the CBA and new American TV deal, will the cap go up substantially ? Estimates ?

[The Iceman]

We had one.

We let him go.

Because Shannahan.

And why hasn't this one found work since he left?

 

[Drytoast]

And why hasn't this one found work since he left?

Lou is in Long Island.

But if you are referring to Hunter, he is happy being king bee in London and they win every year and that region creates the most NHL talent out of all of Ontario's region.

 

[CDN24]

Point’s automatic option is $9mx1. No way he forgoes that leverage for only $10.5mx8.

Then he takes his QO at 9 M plus 3 years at 6.75M so a total of 4 years that costs 29.25M vs Marner's cumulative cap hit for those 4 years at 43.57M. Tampa after 4 years is ahead 14.32M. Do you actually think that Point will get enough on his next contract that Leafs get the better deal over the 6 years of Marner's existing contract. The break-even point is $36.1M over those last 2 years. Point would need to be at 18M on his UFA contract for it to be equivilant- not happening.

Its worse if you compare to Matthews contract as it has 1 UFA year.

Does Point take the QO and bail as a UFA? Doubtful he had no interest in signing an offer sheet this year. Stamkos and Kucherov didn't bail and signed for between 11.6% and 12% of the Cap and so will Point.

The numbers that Dubas gave out would have been on the high end but understandable on 8 year deals. You may have had the benefit you expect on the back end then. On 5 and 6 year deals he overpaid significantly. And despite the fact he overpaid significantly giving higher comparables for the othe RFA's Tampa/Jets/Colorado still got theres done for less. Rantannen got the same 6 year term at 9.25M probably a tad to high but Rantennan's agent had the Marner comparable. Conner while not at Rantennan/Marner level took 7 years at 7.1M

 

[thewave]

We can't. But he would ask for exactly that. Seeing as how we just signed a winger to the second highest contract in the nhl who hasn't won anything and his highest point total was 94 points.

So pretending to believe what future stars on this team will demand and what we will have in and give them as being something remotely reasonable is ignorant.

Remember when we all reasonably put AM At 10.5, MM at 8.5 and Willie at 6.5? Because I do.

Those were on 7 to 8 year terms too! They would have been fair!

 

[Drytoast]

Those were on 7 to 8 year terms too! They would have been fair!

Yeah he will likely ask for less then 7.

Because Toronto.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Do you actually think that Point will get enough on his next contract that Leafs get the better deal over the 6 years of Marner's existing contract.

Do you actually think that Tampa signs players on an equal financial playing field? Try and use the field of comparables, not just cherry picking one where it's well documented there are financial advantage for players in Florida.

The deals are fair for both sides. Move on.

 

[The Iceman]

To the no tax advantage.
Are players paid in US $$$?

If yes then that gives them a 30%+ raise living in Canada.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

I have heard that the new US TV deal could net 800-1B annually. I think the current deal is worth about 200M.

Even a 600M increase will increase the cap by ~9.4M.

I've been looking for more articles / insight on this as well.

My educated guess says we will see a cap of >100M in the next 3 yrs based largely on the US TV deal as well as the bump from gambling revenues.

Where did you hear that? Yes, the current NBC deal is $200 million annually for 10 years.

Curious as to why some people think the new deal(s) would be 4 to 5 times larger than the existing one?

I too am just curious about the subject and have been trying to dig up info. I did see some articles about how the NHL is considering potentially splitting its media rights among multiple partners, but have not seen anything that mentions numbers.

I have seen some reports that the Rogers deal with the NHL has not turned out as well as expected. One source reported: "there’s been substantial talk about if that’s been worth it for them. The ratings often haven’t been great, and the company’s made plenty of cuts".

Another source had this to say about the Rogers/NHL deal:

"Disastrous.
That’s probably the best word to describe the outcome of the gamble. With the announcements the past few weeks that a significant slice of the on-air talent was being let go (apparently for economic reasons), it’s now clear that Rogers’ plans – shepherded by then-Rogers Media president Keith Pelley and his second in command Scott Moore – are an embarrassing failure."

 

[HoweHullOrr]

When does the league get Seattle dollars? A lump sum or any early installments?

I'm not sure if your talking about the expansion fee, but expansion fees are not included in HRR and HRR is used to calculate the salary cap limit each year.

If Seattle generates the league average in terms of revenue, it will represent about a 3% increase in HRR.

 

[thewave]

Where did you here that? Yes, the current NBC deal is $200 million annually for 10 years.

Curious as to why some people think the new deal(s) would be 4 to 5 times larger than the existing one?

I too am just curious about the subject and have been trying to dig up info. I did see some articles about how the NHL is considering potentially splitting its media rights among multiple partners but have not seen anything that mentions numbers.

I have seen some reports that the Rogers deal with the NHL has not turned out as well as expected. One source reported: "there’s been substantial talk about if that’s been worth it for them. The ratings often haven’t been great, and the company’s made plenty of cuts".

Another source had this to say about the Rogers/NHL deal:

"Disastrous.
That’s probably the best word to describe the outcome of the gamble. With the announcements the past few weeks that a significant slice of the on-air talent was being let go (apparently for economic reasons), it’s now clear that Rogers’ plans – shepherded by then-Rogers Media president Keith Pelley and his second in command Scott Moore – are an embarrassing failure."

5m Canadian fans regularly watch. 10m US fans regularly watch. Canada pays 400m and it's a massive failure @ that amount even today. So the American Network is going to pay 800m to 1B for merely double the audience of Canada which is paying 400m and it's failing.

Lets do some logical thinking here... Ok lets flip the numbers next time around 200m CANADA and 400m for USA. Suddenly we can assume both are still profitable ventures. So how do we get to 1B again from just the US side?

 

[CDN24]

Do you actually think that Tampa signs players on an equal financial playing field? Try and use the field of comparables, not just cherry picking one where it's well documented there are financial advantage for players in Florida.

The deals are fair for both sides. Move on.

Actually read up on Retirement Compensation Arrangements that are only available to Cdn teams. Resaearch why the NBA doesn`t allow them. Hint they do not want the Raptors to have an unfair tax advantage over the US based teams. There is much more to taxes than the basic rate that a working stiffs like ourselves pay.

Funny that that big Florida tax advantage seems to apply in Tampa but not the rest of the state.... see Bobs contract.

Winnipeg can`t have the same tax advantages as Tampa right. How do their star RFA signings compare

Laine 2 yr bridge at 6.75M looks a lot like Points deal. Yes 1 year less but does not have the 9.0M qualifying offer.
Conner (yes he is not Point or Marner) but he got long term at $7.1M again no supersized tax overpay in Canada.

Only one team is paying its stars coming of ELC in the top 10 highest AAV in the league on less than max term. Its the Leafs.

Only 3 players have signed for over $10M out of ELC, one who incidentally had 5 points last night signed for the max 8 year term. The other 2, 5 yrs and 6 yrs.

 

[CDN24]

I'm not sure if your talking about the expansion fee, but expansion fees are not included in HRR and HRR is used to calculate the salary cap limit each year.

If Seattle generates the league average in terms of revenue, it will represent about a 3% increase in HRR.

But will have no impact on Cap has the HHR is divided over 1 more team. It is revenue greater or less than the average from Seattle that will affect the cap. Also players are not happy with escrow and will probably push for smaller cap increases or a freeze to get the escrow % back down.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Yes, expansion fees do not get included as HRR and thus has no impact on salary cap limit. That's what I said in my post. And yes, whatever additional hockey related revenue Seattle generates will have to be divided by 32 teams versus 31. That additional 3% could be best case but it depends on what Seattle can do. The number will turn out to whatever it will be, but the main point was that Seattle entering the league won't mean a huge increase in revenue.

 

[thewave]

Actually read up on Retirement Compensation Arrangements that are only available to Cdn teams. Resaearch why the NBA doesn`t allow them. Hint they do not want the Raptors to have an unfair tax advantage over the US based teams. There is much more to taxes than the basic rate that a working stiffs like ourselves pay.

Funny that that big Florida tax advantage seems to apply in Tampa but not the rest of the state.... see Bobs contract.

Winnipeg can`t have the same tax advantages as Tampa right. How do their star RFA signings compare

Laine 2 yr bridge at 6.75M looks a lot like Points deal. Yes 1 year less but does not have the 9.0M qualifying offer.
Conner (yes he is not Point or Marner) but he got long term at $7.1M again no supersized tax overpay in Canada.

Only one team is paying its stars coming of ELC in the top 10 highest AAV in the league on less than max term. Its the Leafs.

Only 3 players have signed for over $10M out of ELC, one who incidentally had 5 points last night signed for the max 8 year term. The other 2, 5 yrs and 6 yrs.

You know your stuff, yet we are blasted with disinfo in TO about it. Why? Is it to cover for the mismanagement? I don't know, don't know if I want to know why.

 

[Ifittex il Verita]

You know your stuff, yet we are blasted with disinfo in TO about it. Why? Is it to cover for the mismanagement? I don't know, don't know if I want to know why.

What else would it be for?
The same talking heads will spout the same propaganda over and over again but your average fan will never take the time to learn the intricate details like CDN24 has.
It's a little ironic how we have our very own contradiction to this with our other big franchise in the Raptors. I'm not expecting Mr. Bored Brandon Pridham to address this though.
If it was as simple as people thought it was, Vegas would be right there with Tampa. You pay a measley .85% more on sales tax in Nevada than you do in Florida, and everything other then that is completely equal. There's no personal income tax, corporate tax, no franchise tax, and no inventory tax.

 

[ORRFForever]

"Disastrous.
That’s probably the best word to describe the outcome of the gamble. With the announcements the past few weeks that a significant slice of the on-air talent was being let go (apparently for economic reasons), it’s now clear that Rogers’ plans – shepherded by then-Rogers Media president Keith Pelley and his second in command Scott Moore – are an embarrassing failure."

Pelley is a smart man. How did he ever think this deal could work?

Looks good on Rogers. I just feel bad for all the people who lost their jobs.

TSN - slow and steady wins the race.

 

[The CyNick]

Most analysts suggest a minimum doubling of the rights fees to $400M per year from $200M. Best case is likely in the $1B range. EPL was able to go from $250M to $1B in their last negotiation. There's likely a belief EPL has more room for growth, but it's not a prime time property. Most people I talk to say $600-800M is the range they expect the number to end up.

The x factor is digital. It's unclear what the NHL will do with respect to digital. Do they include it as part of the overall rights deal, or do they treat it separately. Digital rights fees are becoming a bigger deal. If the deal is ten years again, I would expect the NHL to get a pretty penny for digital. So the total deal could end up higher.

As for Rogers, their deal is fine if the right teams are winning. Currently they are not.

 

[thewave]

Most analysts suggest a minimum doubling of the rights fees to $400M per year from $200M. Best case is likely in the $1B range. EPL was able to go from $250M to $1B in their last negotiation. There's likely a belief EPL has more room for growth, but it's not a prime time property. Most people I talk to say $600-800M is the range they expect the number to end up.

The x factor is digital. It's unclear what the NHL will do with respect to digital. Do they include it as part of the overall rights deal, or do they treat it separately. Digital rights fees are becoming a bigger deal. If the deal is ten years again, I would expect the NHL to get a pretty penny for digital. So the total deal could end up higher.

As for Rogers, their deal is fine if the right teams are winning. Currently they are not.

The Rogers deal is anything but fine, even if they are winning. They can't even break even, what do you think they want to make deals to score 5pts annually in the best case scenario? It's a waste of their freaking resources and time. The Rogers deal will be dialed back below 300m next go. I think 400-500m is the absolute BEST case scenario for Hockey USA.

Just look at the growth. So they add a couple markets, great. A bunch of them aren't even worth putting on TV because nobody cares. There are teams in the USA that should be folded and the Networks know it's freak dead weight.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Most analysts suggest a minimum doubling of the rights fees to $400M per year from $200M. Best case is likely in the $1B range. EPL was able to go from $250M to $1B in their last negotiation. There's likely a belief EPL has more room for growth, but it's not a prime time property. Most people I talk to say $600-800M is the range they expect the number to end up.

The x factor is digital. It's unclear what the NHL will do with respect to digital. Do they include it as part of the overall rights deal, or do they treat it separately. Digital rights fees are becoming a bigger deal. If the deal is ten years again, I would expect the NHL to get a pretty penny for digital. So the total deal could end up higher.

As for Rogers, their deal is fine if the right teams are winning. Currently they are not.

Can you provide more detail on the "most people you talk to"? Its kind of a vague statement that's hard to put much stock in to unless its coming from people with credentials & subject matter expertise.

I know Roger did poorly (a 16% decline) in year 1 and 2 and saw "healthy increases" (those were the words being reported) in 2017. Don't think Rogers did well in the 2019 playoffs due to the lack of Canadian teams which then led to a reduction in the increase of the salary cap relative to expectations. That's one good year, three bad ones and one unknown year.

Just seeking info here on a topic I find interesting. Even at $600 - $800 m, that's 3 or 4 times larger, which seems high given Roger's experience. But maybe in this environment its realistic & can be expected? Again, just seeking info.

 

[The CyNick]

Can you provide more detail on the "most people you talk to"? Its kind of a vague statement that's hard to put much stock in to unless its coming from people with credentials & subject matter expertise.

I know Roger did poorly (a 16% decline) in year 1 and 2 and saw "healthy increases" (those were the words being reported) in 2017. Don't think Rogers did well in the 2019 playoffs due to the lack of Canadian teams which then led to a reduction in the increase of the salary cap relative to expectations. That's one good year, three bad ones and one unknown year.

Just seeking info here on a topic I find interesting. Even at $600 - $800 m, that's 3 or 4 times larger, which seems high given Roger's experience. But maybe in this environment its realistic & can be expected? Again, just seeking info.

For the record, I'm not concerned about my credibility on here (although it's very high). Forbes had an article on the subject. I would suggest reading that. It's pretty much in line with my thoughts/ understanding on the subject.

Sports properties are still hot in terms of rights fees. If you look at the most watched programming in a given week, it'll be filled with sports. Sports is the only DVR proof thing left on television. It caters to the most sought after demo in advertising. Digital streaming services will help drive up the price tag as well.

Most TV numbers for sports are down, even the NFL. But everyone is fighting for the same shrinking pie of eyeballs that watch TV. Advertisers still see it as a superior channel to deliver their message vs online properties like YouTube.

Anything can happen, but I would say 3-4 times the current deal on a five year deal is most likely. The longer the deal, likely the higher the percentage will be. And the wildcard is the DAZNs of the world.

 

[The CyNick]

The Rogers deal is anything but fine, even if they are winning. They can't even break even, what do you think they want to make deals to score 5pts annually in the best case scenario? It's a waste of their freaking resources and time. The Rogers deal will be dialed back below 300m next go. I think 400-500m is the absolute BEST case scenario for Hockey USA.

Just look at the growth. So they add a couple markets, great. A bunch of them aren't even worth putting on TV because nobody cares. There are teams in the USA that should be folded and the Networks know it's freak dead weight.

Rogers wanted to be able to advertise Sportsnet as the #1 sports property in Canada. They were able to accomplish that because of hockey the Jays. On top of that there are ancillary benefits that can be realized. More promotion of their core business may lead to more customers and more downstream revenue. The trouble is it's hard to tie any increases to ownership of the sports properties.

They likely did overpay, but they had to in order to get exclusivity and shut out TSN.

If the Leafs and Oilers were meeting in Cup Finals the numbers would look a lot better. Unfortunately you can't control when dead markets make it far in the playoffs.

 

[supsens]

Most analysts suggest a minimum doubling of the rights fees to $400M per year from $200M. Best case is likely in the $1B range. EPL was able to go from $250M to $1B in their last negotiation. There's likely a belief EPL has more room for growth, but it's not a prime time property. Most people I talk to say $600-800M is the range they expect the number to end up.

The x factor is digital. It's unclear what the NHL will do with respect to digital. Do they include it as part of the overall rights deal, or do they treat it separately. Digital rights fees are becoming a bigger deal. If the deal is ten years again, I would expect the NHL to get a pretty penny for digital. So the total deal could end up higher.

As for Rogers, their deal is fine if the right teams are winning. Currently they are not.

I thought most suggested doubling not a minimum of doubling but 1 billion is way way above any projections. I would guess between 400-500 million best case. NBA and NFL sponsorship dwarf the NHL so advertising revenue for the station is a major stumbling block in what they can realistically pay for rights. Just because it’s sports does not mean it’s worth a fortune

 

[hector morrison]

To the no tax advantage.
Are players paid in US $$$?

If yes then that gives them a 30%+ raise living in Canada.

I also mentioned this ...seems not many see it as an advantage,not sure why. U.S. currency is a difference maker where I live!

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Forbes had an article on the subject.

Thanks for the suggestion. I had searched and read various articles on this subject a few times before, but did not come across the Forbes article.

The English Premier League deal doubled the money being paid to the league (the previous deal was 3 years, the new one was 6 years, so that needs to be factored into the calculation). The new NBA deal was 186% larger than the previous one. MLB had a much more modest increase in their new contract, around 25%.

I have no idea if the NBA would be a good indicator or a good comparison to the NHL. Still, even if the NHL's new deal were double the existing one, that would be very good for the NHL.

 

[The CyNick]

Thanks for the suggestion. I had searched and read various articles on this subject a few times before, but did not come across the Forbes article.

The English Premier League deal doubled the money being paid to the league (the previous deal was 3 years, the new one was 6 years, so that needs to be factored into the calculation). The new NBA deal was 186% larger than the previous one. MLB had a much more modest increase in their new contract, around 25%.

I have no idea if the NBA would be a good indicator or a good comparison to the NHL. Still, even if the NHL's new deal were double the existing one, that would be very good for the NHL.

Cheers.

The NHL deal was also considered more undervalued because it was ten years ago. Rights fees have exploded multiple times since then. I still think $600M is a just okay number for the NHL given what else has been different on sports rights recently. But we'll see.