shnagle
Registered User
You are right only 6 teams are below the current salary floor. However, my point was that the league is trying to ensure the profitability of all 30 teams. Their claim is cost certainty is the answer. My only point is that cost certainty without revenue certainty is a false claim. If you believe in either the Levitt report or the Forbes report I think we can all agree that the Forbes report gives us a "best case scenario" for the state of the NHL. The numbers used in their report are from the 02-03 season same as Levitt report. If you believe the Levitt report these numbers would actually be worse. Here is the scenario for the following teams with a 32 mil. cap:CarlRacki said:It clearly does not make it worse. It cheapens the labor pool, allowing these teams to keep top-tier players they otherwise could not. How is that a bad thing?
The usual argument one gets around here is that the cap floor will force some teams to spend more than they're currently spending, thus hurting them. in most cases that's complete bunk.
Right now, that floor is $32 million. Only six NHL teams were below that last year. Two of those teams - Chicago and Minnesota - clearly have the markets and resources to exceed it. Atlanta certainly has the market for it. Pittsburgh has been well over that amount in the past and likely will in the future with a new arena and all the revenue streams that come as a result.
So, that leaves us with Nashville and Florida. Would the league be much worse off if these franchises couldn't cut it even with a cap? I think not.
Team...................Payroll(mil)............02-03 Profit(mil).........32 mil cap Profit(mil)
Anaheim.................. 39.0 ........................-10.8 ....................... -3.8
Atlanta ....................26............................ -0.9..........................-5.1
Buffalo.....................31.1.................. ........-5.3..........................-6.2
Calgary ...................33.3..........................-5.8..........................-4.5
Carolina...................39.2................... .......-13.0.........................-5.8
Edmonton.................30.9..................... .....-0.1..........................-1.2
Florida.....................32.7.................. .........-9.4.........................-8.7
Nashville...................25.2.................. ........-2.8..........................-9.6
Ottawa....................30.3.................... .......-2.0..........................-3.7
Phoenix....................44.3................... .......-22.1........................-10.1
Tampa.....................28.9.................... .......-0.7.........................-3.8
My only point is that without meaningful revenue sharing or a new source of revenue like a major tv contract is that a cap does not guarantee profitability for these franchises. Does it give them a more level playing field in which to compete, I think it does but if these franchises are still losing money then I don't see how a cap actually helps them survive long term. Just my two cents.