Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by LadyStanley, Apr 10, 2011.
Interesting. How frequently can the players vote to use the escalator?
If true, doesn't this put the players in a decent position to not got back the money they put in escrow? Trigger the escalator, and see a decrease in revenue? Doesn't necessarily sound like a good situation. Sounds like the majority of players would be putting salary at risk so a few more can get paid.
Aren't the players already paying like 18-20% in escrow?
I don't know, but it would seem that this situation would put them at risk of some percentage not coming back, regardless.
Escrow went down during the season
The Canadian dollar closed at 1.0445 on Friday.
With the no bonus cushion and no 5% increase,there will be zero player movement next season. Can't have both. The PA has never voted against the 5% increase. The cap was supposed to increase from $56.8M last season to $57M-$58M but it went up to $59.4M. Without the 5%,the cap would have increase by a $150,000-$200,000 this season. The 5% is applied to the midpoint.
The report by Brooks today is what the NHL said in December
The Canadian dollar is trading higher during this season than last season. It's traded close to $1 during the fall and traded over $1 since January. All the way up to nearly $1.05.
eeesh up again
at least the LEAGUE is making money
What would that put the floor at? Assuming that the cap is $62M even.
What's the new cap floor up to?
Did there some reason Brooks put "record" in quotations or does he just not understand basic math? In case he hasn't figured it out last year the NHLPA used their 5% escalator just like they will this year and therefore the revenues DID increase almost 5%, and suggesting the cap would go down if they didn't is a disingenuous, even dishonest way of pretending the league revenues aren't as good as they say.
It's always 16 M less than the cap. So 46 M.
How much has the CAD appreciated from last year to this year?
There's real growth and then there's currency appreciation. Daly addressed that point last year, iirc.
What I never see anyone talk about is the idea that agents should use the cap increase like a COLA or inflation.
Do you mean as in, when the cap goes up by X%, my player's contract will also go up by X%?
(I believe) it's prohibited in the CBA.
I mean in UFA negotiations. Ex. Preds fans are assuming Weber will be 7 million to put him in the top 5 of defenseman pay but he could reasonably ask for 8 million because the cap will go up, rev. sharing will go up and he could compare it to percentage of cap vs. actual dollar amount.
Every year, but the escalator doesn't compound from year to year. Each year they calculate what the cap should be based on the previous season's revenue, then the NHLPA has the option to increase the cap midpoint by 5%. The next year they start from scratch and calculate it again.
Dollars were at par last year this time.
And pretty much the same over this season.
Yet another reason that the lockout was ******ed (mod). A shame we wasted a year of hockey due to this waste of a cap. The upper level will hit 70M soon.
Article says that estimated cap is $62.2m (floor would be $46.2m).
For a number of reasons, even though the escrow is a pain, I can't see the NHLPA not voting in the escalator.
It's the avg annual rate from 1st Jul to 30 jun. Too lazy to look it up but I think last year was roughly .9 or .94-ish.
Why do we have a cap? How are small markets supposed to meet 46m in floor totals? This is ridiculous.
They may acquire a player who has low $$ payout but higher salary cap. (And a prospect and/or good pick in "compensation".)
(Recall that the Sharks got a first round pick for taking on the salary cap hit of a not-retired player from NJ.)
That's kind of the point. They have to keep up with the rest of the league.
Canadian dollar appreciated 4% over last year's average.
The small markets? They were the ones calling for the cap like this and now they are going to have to live with what they got. What, should we cater to them EVEN MORE now? They have gotten tons of concessions from the big market teams -- I don't think they should be entitled to anything more. If they cannot compete where the cap floor is set now, than maybe they should not be in business.
You realize even if it did it would STILL be below some team's payrolls in 2004?
Yeah, of course you did.
Separate names with a comma.