NHLPA: 11-12 cap ~$62M; late May Daly: ~$63.5M cap;
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
Finlandia WOAT
js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
- May 23, 2010
- 24,166
- 23,798
MaskedSonja
Registered User
The way it's going, looks like we'll be hitting a cap FLOOR of 50 million in a couple of seasons.
Any wagers on high the floor/ceiling will go? Any chance we see something close to a 70 mil cap FLOOR within 10 years? Or are we going to be seeing some serious number renegotation in the next CBA? Possible removal/adjustment of floor?
Any wagers on high the floor/ceiling will go? Any chance we see something close to a 70 mil cap FLOOR within 10 years? Or are we going to be seeing some serious number renegotation in the next CBA? Possible removal/adjustment of floor?
Is there a solid guesstimate for where the cap would be if, hypothetically, the six lowest revenue teams were contracted?
LadyStanley
Registered User
Thinking that there may be a "spread" of the floor/cap, not a strict $16m difference, in the next CBA.
Perhaps something like 75% of cap max for floor? So a cap of $50m would have a floor of $37.5m Cap of $60m would have floor of $45m.
Perhaps something like 75% of cap max for floor? So a cap of $50m would have a floor of $37.5m Cap of $60m would have floor of $45m.
LadyStanley
Registered User
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=564502
Daly @ State of the League: "at least $60m", perhaps as high as $63m. Mainly due to new US TV deal.
Daly @ State of the League: "at least $60m", perhaps as high as $63m. Mainly due to new US TV deal.
Every year I think the cap is becoming more poinltess... Just keeps going up and up and only the money makers can spend to the top. Just like old times.
Like old times, when the spread in salaries was ~$60 million?
Not like old times at all.
As an aside, it never fails to amaze me why people are surprised about the cap going up. Did they think NHL revenues were going to remain the same forever? Did they not have faith that their favourite sport would draw more dollars in more markets as the league evolved?
There are only two ways to solve the "problem" of rich teams spending more than the others:
1. Greater degree of revenue sharing, so cap increases largely driven by revenue growth from the rich teams are mitigated by sharing that revenue with everyone.
2. Higher percentage of revenue coming from centralized sources. That means big tv deals and other (new?) central revenue sources.
1 is unlikely to happen, because the rich owners control the board. 2 depends on the growth of the game on the Usa and internationally as well as significant innovation to try to find more central revenue sources.
1. Greater degree of revenue sharing, so cap increases largely driven by revenue growth from the rich teams are mitigated by sharing that revenue with everyone.
2. Higher percentage of revenue coming from centralized sources. That means big tv deals and other (new?) central revenue sources.
1 is unlikely to happen, because the rich owners control the board. 2 depends on the growth of the game on the Usa and internationally as well as significant innovation to try to find more central revenue sources.
And simultaneously putting a drag on the franchise values of the teams that are in the upper echelons.
I keep asking this question and no one wants to answer it.
These are businesses after all. Let's say you keep taking money out of the big money maker teams and putting it elsewhere. When/how does that translate into some return on the investment for the owners that give up cold hard cash today? Also note that most teams change ownership within a decade to maybe two decades at most. What's in it for the owner that bought at a higher figure based on the local market potential to then transfer money out of that market to lower valued markets? The owner of the lower valued teams gets an artificial boost and cashes out. Why should he be so lucky?
The problem with growth at the central level is that it's supposed to be shared 30 ways. Let's say the league received a billion dollar contract for 'something'. So the Leafs get $30-sh MM from central funds, as do the Coyotes.
How does this help the Coyotes wrt to player costs that are 57% of total HRR?
The issue always was and continues to be not about total league HRR or total league costs (30 team aggregate), but about local revenues. The teams with problems cannot match the real growth that keeps happening at the central and high revenue team levels.
LadyStanley
Registered User
ColdSteel2
Registered User
- Aug 27, 2010
- 34,759
- 3,578
I'll answer your question. Take a look at MLB. Chicago Cubs, L.A. Dodgers, N.Y. Mets, Philly, etc. all losing money and gathering debt. Revenue sharing run amuck and it's taking league wide attendance and interest down the toliet.
No thanks to that, give me a higher cap, not a 3 or 4 headed monster like pre-cap but a 9 or 10 headed monster (Pens, Hawks, Wings, Philly, NYR, Boston, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, L.A., etc.) Other teams can join in if they want to spend. I agree with the ceiling, no need to see all star teams created every trade deadline, but let the best organizations be the best every year.
Haven't read the thread, apologies if it's answered in here.
What date will next year's cap be announced?
What date will next year's cap be announced?
Marc the Habs Fan
Moderator
Alpha190
Registered User
- Feb 3, 2007
- 391
- 0
I hope everybody knows that the cap going up every year is partially because of the inflation in the economy as well. Not many take that into consideration.
Marc the Habs Fan
Moderator
ColdSteel2
Registered User
- Aug 27, 2010
- 34,759
- 3,578
Do you expect inflation to stop any time soon? It may never stop. Economic rules are basically null and void these days because the principles have been proven false.
saffronleaf
Registered User
Easy there, Adam Smith.
All he said was to keep inflation in mind. If inflation is not factored in, you'll get the figures for nominal growth rather than real growth. The latter is obviously more meaningful. You don't need to be Joseph Stiglitz to understand that.
Last edited:
