Mirtle's Salary cap projections

[sureLoss]

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/...service=mobile

A brief explanation of how to arrive at these revenue figures. This season’s HRR total is exactly 8 per cent more than $3.3-billion, which is in-line with what people around the league are expecting.

Next season is a simple 5 per cent jump from that. And the “TV deal boost” I’ve included is the $375-million from the new Rogers deal the NHL gets next season (including the up front $150-million split over two years) minus $190-million (the old national TV contract) and converted to Canadian dollars.

That’s how the NHL will become a nearly $4-billion business and have a salary cap of almost $75-million in less than two years.

His projections for the next few seasons in chart form http://t.co/GmP2N4lfj8

[Northendzone]

wow are the players ever getting screwed......

[Enoch Root]

I think his projection is very low for next year - I would guess $70m +

Wasn't the 12/13 cap going to be $70m-ish before the lockout and the arbitrary setting?

I would think that the vast majority of teams would have higher revenues now than they did 2 years ago.

[GreenLantern2814]

Oh my goodness... In a decade we'll have a 100M cap. I don't know how to comprehend that...

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Oh my goodness... In a decade we'll have a 100M cap. I don't know how to comprehend that...

Just think, the average salary will be close to $5M. 4th line players will be earning $2.5-$3M. Top players could be making $15M.

5% annual growth. We'll see how it goes.

[indes]

Yikes some teams are going to be in trouble with the lack of revenue sharing among teams. Not enough for the Panthers of the world to handle a 70M floor.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Oh my goodness... In a decade we'll have a 100M cap. I don't know how to comprehend that...

Not likely. There's a CBA to negotiate before then

[GreenLantern]

In a decade whats the inflation on those salaries though?

What were guys making in 2003?

Average payroll was 42 mill in 2003 according to Wikipedia.. two years ago it was 58 mill.

edit: I just made myself feel old by realizing 2003 was a decade ago :/

[d_phaneuf]

I think he's too low on next year

Wasn't last years revenue pro-rated much higher than a 48 game season should have been, he even said it was a conservative estimate

that is only 5% growth in most years. Last CBA, league HRR grew at 7.1% a season.

my guess is we see at least 1-2m higher for next year than what he has, then it's 75+ from new tv deal the year after

[Jacks]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004%E2...05_NHL_lockout

After these negotiations failed, on Wednesday February 9, Bettman declared that if the lockout was not resolved by the weekend, there would be no hope of saving the season. When talks broke off between the NHL and the NHLPA the next day, there had been no progress in negotiations. On February 14, the union offered to accept a $52 million salary cap under the condition that it was not linked to league revenues. The league proposed a counteroffer with a $40 million cap plus $2.2 million in benefits, which the players association refused. The next day, Bettman sent Goodenow a letter with a final proposal of a $42.5 million cap plus $2.2 million in benefits, setting a deadline of 11:00 am the next day to accept or refuse the offer. The NHLPA presented a counter-offer involving a $49 million cap, which the league rejected.

Probably Bettman's biggest mistake. The players should be building a shrine for him.

[Bertuzzied]

$8mill/per for Matt Moulson please! Thanx Feaster.

[Parallex]

I think his projection for next year is low.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I think his projection for next year is low.

Yeah that is Wei Tu Lo. I'm thinking $71mil minimum.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Jacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004%E2...05_NHL_lockout
Probably Bettman's biggest mistake. The players should be building a shrine for him.

If the player's are building him a shrine the owners are building him a temple.

The old CBA the players received 57 percent of league revenue. Now the owners and players split 50-50. The owners welcome a higher cap, for the most part, since it's a result of higher revenue. They are making out just as good. And it wasn't like the players would have stuck with an unchanging cap after the latest lockout.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

If the player's are building him a shrine the owners are building him a temple.

The old CBA the players received 57 percent of league revenue. Now the owners and players split 50-50. The owners welcome a higher cap, for the most part, since it's a result of higher revenue. They are making out just as good. And it wasn't like the players would have stuck with an unchanging cap after the latest lockout.

Hard to say for sure how things would have turned out but I can't see how the players would be in a better position if they had accepted a $49M hard cap that wasn't tied to league revenues.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

Wasn't last years revenue pro-rated much higher than a 48 game season should have been, he even said it was a conservative estimate

That was to be expected though because a disproportionate amount of the league's revenue is generated after the Super Bowl and during the playoffs, so they lost the part of the season that usually generates lower revenue while also losing a lot of the expenses that are spread more evenly throughout the season (like players' salaries).

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Hard to say for sure how things would have turned out but I can't see how the players would be in a better position if they had accepted a $49M hard cap that wasn't tied to league revenues.

The first 4 years the cap was 39M, 44M, 50.3M, 56.7M (average of 47.5M). A 49M cap likely would have been favourable for the NHL players if we just look at the average and assume there was no give and take (which there obviously was).

If we also assume the term of the CBA was the same as it ended up being, at that point the NHLPA would have just opted out of it. The old CBA had an opt-out clause that the NHLPA could have used after 4 years. It was unanimously voted against in 2009 since the players were happy with the way things ended up being, but if the cap was still 49M at that point they wouldn't have done so.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

If we also assume the term of the CBA was the same as it ended up being, at that point the NHLPA would have just opted out of it. The old CBA had an opt-out clause that the NHLPA could have used after 4 years. It was unanimously voted against in 2009 since the players were happy with the way things ended up being, but if the cap was still 49M at that point they wouldn't have done so.

Then we would probably have had another lock out, the players don't win in that scenario either. Anyway, it's impossible to say how things would have played out but they ended up getting a pretty good deal.

[kermitology]

This is going to cripple a couple of franchises.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Then we would probably have had another lock out, the players don't win in that scenario either. Anyway, it's impossible to say how things would have played out but they ended up getting a pretty good deal.

Yeah, and obviously the players were happy with this CBA enough to extend it until 2013. However, I don't feel that Bettman or the league made a huge mistake with that decision.

Originally Posted by kermitology

This is going to cripple a couple of franchises.

But the reason for the cap increasing is increased revenues. You're throwing in an additional 430M on average into the HRRR from the new TV deal alone. And on top of the money the American teams get from it the teams that benefit from revenue-sharing are getting an even bigger piece of that pie. When Mirtle's using the 5B+ HRRR to calculate the later caps, over 6% or 300M+ of that is going into the revenue sharing pot. Despite the cap implications the struggling teams are more than happy with the TV deal.

So I don't think you can just look at the increasing salary floor and call it a death knell. Struggling teams not capable of putting fans in the stands will still be in the red, but that's no different than today and if it's the same teams in 10 years from now it's about time to call it quits with them anyways.