October BOG 2023; estimated 24-25 cap $87-88m

[edog37]

Never say never.

I don’t have to, Jeremy Jacobs did.

 

[TheLegend]

I don’t have to, Jeremy Jacobs did.

Jacobs has given up control of the Bruins and is backing away from the NHL. He's not going to live forever.

 

[eojsmada]

Jacobs has given up control of the Bruins and is backing away from the NHL. He's not going to live forever.

Agree. And I think if the NHL is truly interested in having 4 more teams, that QC will end up being one of the 4. QC would be Atlantic, ATL would be Metro, Houston would be Central, SLC would be Pacific. Of course this is based on the current "favored" folks who have shown greater than normal interest.

 

[LadyStanley]

SLC may go to Central and Arizona go to Pacific.

But you never know.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

Ignoring the $150m to $250m in non-salary benefits is going to leave any cap estimates off by roughly $5m to $7m. So it's a pretty significant difference.

Weird how it's generally been accurate in the past, then.

You keep missing the part it’s based off the previous 2 seasons as well now.
Also less RSN money now.

No. You missed my acknowledgment of that factor before you even posted. Kinda weird though... Considering this was right in the post you quoted.

1. I actually didn't know this. So it'd be based on roughly $6B revenue rather than $6.2B.

 

[Tawnos]

Ignoring the $150m to $250m in non-salary benefits is going to leave any cap estimates off by roughly $5m to $7m. So it's a pretty significant difference.

Doesn’t that 150-250m number represent more like 2.5-4.5m in difference?

Or is it that the 150-250m actually represents 300-500m in HRR?

 

[Tawnos]

Interesting, thank you.

Then you’d guess, at least to me, that all parties would be interested in bumping it as close to what HRR dictates is the cap ought to be as possible.

It’s theoretically possible as mouser points out, but reverse escrow isn’t happening any time soon. Remember, the cap doesn’t represent 50% of HRR. The cap is 15% above a midpoint that does. This year’s midpoint is somewhere around $72m. At the moment, according to CF, there is only one team below that number.

Now, cap hit and actual salary aren’t the same thing, but it gives us the rough idea that the league is spending well over 50% of HRR on player salaries at the moment (which gets clawed back in regular escrow). Some of that is a result of the near flat cap, but even before that way more teams were spending above the midpoint than below it. As long as that’s the case, it’s extremely unlikely the reverse escrow scenario comes into play.

 

[mouser]

Doesn’t that 150-250m number represent more like 2.5-4.5m in difference?

Or is it that the 150-250m actually represents 300-500m in HRR?

The non-salary benefits go 100% to the players, counting fully against the player 50/50 split of HRR.

So, yup it represents $300m to $500m in HRR.

 

[edog37]

Jacobs has given up control of the Bruins and is backing away from the NHL. He's not going to live forever.

Doesn’t matter. League isn’t in smaller markets which don’t move the needle.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

The non-salary benefits go 100% to the players, counting fully against the player 50/50 split of HRR.

So, yup it represents $300m to $500m in HRR.

Historically, the calculation has been lower than what the cap was set at.

17-18 revenue: $4.86B/2/31 = $78.4M. 18-19 cap was $79.5M
16-17 revenue: $4.43B/2/31 = $71.5M. 17-18 cap was $75M.
15-16 revenue: $4.1B/2/30 = $68.3M. 16-17 cap was $73M.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Historically, the calculation has been lower than what the cap was set at.

17-18 revenue: $4.86B/2/31 = $78.4M. 18-19 cap was $79.5M
16-17 revenue: $4.43B/2/31 = $71.5M. 17-18 cap was $75M.
15-16 revenue: $4.1B/2/30 = $68.3M. 16-17 cap was $73M.

Now include the PA inflator % number each year.

 

[Tawnos]

Historically, the calculation has been lower than what the cap was set at.

17-18 revenue: $4.86B/2/31 = $78.4M. 18-19 cap was $79.5M
16-17 revenue: $4.43B/2/31 = $71.5M. 17-18 cap was $75M.
15-16 revenue: $4.1B/2/30 = $68.3M. 16-17 cap was $73M.

$78.4m would represent the midpoint in that first calculation, not the cap which is 15% above that. The midpoint in 18-19 was somewhere around ~$69m, which points to the cap being built off a ~$4.3B starting number. That jives with mouser talking about $500m being subtracted from HRR before the cap is calculated.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

Now include the PA inflator % number each year.

Now go over how my calculation was actually an underestimation while you're arguing in the other thread that it's an overestimate.

 

[Golden_Jet]

$78.4m would represent the midpoint in that first calculation, not the cap which is 15% above that. The midpoint in 18-19 was somewhere around ~$69m, which points to the cap being built off a ~$4.3B starting number. That jives with mouser talking about $500m being subtracted from HRR before the cap is calculated.

I explained that in another thread, good luck. Got crickets after.

 

[TheLegend]

Doesn’t matter. League isn’t in smaller markets which don’t move the needle.

Salt Lake Cirty isn’t what I would consider a large market either but they’re seriously considering it.

 

[Headshot77]

QC isn’t getting a team.

If QC could get the Yotes, and you expand to Atlanta and 3 western conference teams you end up at 18/18 in each conference and 4/4 in Canada. I like that.

I'd pick Houston, San Diego, and Arizona 2 personally. And give an AHL franchise to Austin, SLC, and idk maybe Reno?

 

[Squiffy]

It’s theoretically possible as mouser points out, but reverse escrow isn’t happening any time soon. Remember, the cap doesn’t represent 50% of HRR. The cap is 15% above a midpoint that does. This year’s midpoint is somewhere around $72m. At the moment, according to CF, there is only one team below that number.

Now, cap hit and actual salary aren’t the same thing, but it gives us the rough idea that the league is spending well over 50% of HRR on player salaries at the moment (which gets clawed back in regular escrow). Some of that is a result of the near flat cap, but even before that way more teams were spending above the midpoint than below it. As long as that’s the case, it’s extremely unlikely the reverse escrow scenario comes into play.

Right, thanks.

So if we are guessing at $5.7B HRR, which I saw suggested somewhere round these parts, plug in @mouser’s estimate of non-salary benefits right down the middle at $200m, we’re spitting out a mid-point around $83m and a cap of $95m for 24-25 based on HRR.

MoU currently only allows, if mutually agreed, a bump to not quite $92m.

Could it be that the PA winds up preferring a cap that is closer to the mid-point to limit escrow, I wonder?

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

I explained that in another thread, good luck. Got crickets after.

Speaking of crickets...

Now go over how my calculation was actually an underestimation while you're arguing in the other thread that it's an overestimate.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Speaking of crickets...

we’re done, listed 4 points that you do wrong on your cap calculation in the other thread, that you just ignore, you’re just being obtuse,
No idea what you’re yammering about on over/under calculation, got the wrong poster, I’m the one explaining what goes into the calculation.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

we’re done, listed 4 points that you do wrong on your cap calculation in the other thread, that you just ignore, you’re just being obtuse,
No idea what you’re yammering about on over/under calculation, got the wrong poster, I’m the one explaining what goes into the calculation.

You keep claiming I ignore shit that I clearly address and it's absolutely hilarious.

Matter of fact, you claimed that I ignored something mentioned by Mouser here, and when I quoted the part where I clearly responded, you ignored that.

 

[LadyStanley]

On Monday Jeff Marek show, Friedman hearing cap at $87.7m is trending

 

[Golden_Jet]

On Monday Jeff Marek show, Friedman hearing cap at $87.7m is trending

Works out to the exact 5% in the MOU.

 

[mouser]

Right, thanks.

So if we are guessing at $5.7B HRR, which I saw suggested somewhere round these parts, plug in @mouser’s estimate of non-salary benefits right down the middle at $200m, we’re spitting out a mid-point around $83m and a cap of $95m for 24-25 based on HRR.

MoU currently only allows, if mutually agreed, a bump to not quite $92m.

Could it be that the PA winds up preferring a cap that is closer to the mid-point to limit escrow, I wonder?

In general I’d ignore any CBA/MOU clauses which place limitations on decisions that require mutual agreement.

If the NHL and PA can mutually agree to a 10% increase they could also agree to a 10%+ bump. So long as the NHL and PA are in mutual agreement—and the agreement doesn’t violate any laws (including labor laws)—they can alter or agree to one-off exceptions to the CBA/MOU whenever they want.

The 5% default cap increase does not require mutual agreement of course. It’s the default cap increase absent a mutual agreement to another figure.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Jacobs has given up control of the Bruins and is backing away from the NHL. He's not going to live forever.

 

[edog37]

If QC could get the Yotes, and you expand to Atlanta and 3 western conference teams you end up at 18/18 in each conference and 4/4 in Canada. I like that.

I'd pick Houston, San Diego, and Arizona 2 personally. And give an AHL franchise to Austin, SLC, and idk maybe Reno?

QC isn’t getting Arizona either. They’ll get an arena deal sorted out this year.

Salt Lake Cirty isn’t what I would consider a large market either but they’re seriously considering it.

Salt Lake City has an NBA team, QC doesn’t.