[News] Cap Estimates for next three years; '27-'28 - $111.5M

[BigThief]

[Roof-Daddy]

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=198267

[Enoch Root]

For those that don't want to do the math, those increases are:

8.5%
8.9%
9.1%
and the 3-yr increase is 29%

The challenge with it increasing that rapidly, is some teams won't be able to afford to spend to the cap, because their revenues aren't growing that rapidly.

And the other challenge is the currency. CDN teams have CDN dollar revenues, but pay USD salaries to players. In the last 4 years, the CAD has dropped 20%. That means the cost of salaries have risen 20% ON TOP of the increases in the cap over that time.

Add a 30% increase in the cap to a very weak CAD, and some of the CDN teams are going to be unable to compete with the wealthier teams. The purpose of the cap is to have a level playing field where all teams can compete because they are all spending about the same amount on salaries. But we are going to see teams have internal budgets, and start spending much less than the cap. This will mean we are back to the rich team / poor team scenario we had, prior to the cap.

[Icantwhisper]

This league is going to be have and have nots with in three years. Cap is getting too high and there will be at least two tiers of teams. Long term I think this is bad news for all the Canadian teams outside of Toronto and Montreal.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

This league is going to be have and have nots with in three years. Cap is getting too high and there will be at least two tiers of teams. Long term I think this is bad news for all the Canadian teams outside of Toronto and Montreal.

At least until the currency improves.

At a 1.25 dollar, all of the Canadian teams (with the possible exception of WPG) are in the top half of the league, financially.

But at a 1.45 dollar, only TOR and MTL are.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

This league is going to be have and have nots with in three years. Cap is getting too high and there will be at least two tiers of teams. Long term I think this is bad news for all the Canadian teams outside of Toronto and Montreal.

I'm with Enoch.... I'm expecting that the BoG will have to look at some form of revenue sharing to equalize the haves and the have nots. Otherwise the NHL will look like MLB in terms of disparity. A flat cap only works when all teams have the wherewithal to spend to or near the cap.

[getbak]

There already is revenue sharing, and has been in place since the 2005 CBA.

The 10 highest-revenue teams contribute to the fund, also, up to 35% of all playoff ticket sales goes into the fund, and the have-not teams can also get a bigger piece of league revenue than a simple 32 way split.

[DoubleK]

It needs to change beyond that, the cap structure is going to start killing teams.

Dreger was talking about it in his pod.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

I’ve always found it weird when Canadian hockey fans think growing the business and raising the cap are good things.

Every step the NHL makes towards being a bigger money league, is another step towards the small market Canadian teams moving to the USA.

[Calgary]

Wolf is going to get paid.

[Jason14h]

The purpose of a cap is not parity . It’s cost control for owners

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

The purpose of a cap is not parity . It’s cost control for owners

The purpose is parity.

Lots of teams would love to spend more.

And a few teams wouldn't mind spending less than the floor

[Manhattanboy]

Canadian teams could be in big trouble as the Cdn$ falls.

[Fire]

I think people are over reacting about internal caps and Canadian teams not being able to compete. Cap is going up because revenues are going up, I don't think it's all coming from the American teams. If anything the CDN dollar being weak is preventing the cap from going up higher. Plus there is revenue sharing. Not something as a Flames fan I'm worried about unless I hear some better reasons why I should care.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The purpose is parity.

Lots of teams would love to spend more.

And a few teams wouldn't mind spending less than the floor

Riiggghhht . So the owners , who according to you don’t want a cap for cost controls , locked players out to get … a cap

You don’t think the Leafs and NYR prefer paying their stars 10 million in 2025 vs what players were getting 20 years ago ??

Sure a few owners who just want to win and have unlimited resources may prefer no cap - but overall the owners didn’t lock the players out for parity , it was to control their costs

[Jay Random]

It was both. Without some degree of parity, the poorer teams can never win, and fans won't pay to see a guaranteed loser. Without cost control, the poorer teams can't keep what talent they have. If you want to have a 32-team league, you have to have a business model that is viable for all 32 franchises, not just the biggest markets.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It was both. Without some degree of parity, the poorer teams can never win, and fans won't pay to see a guaranteed loser. Without cost control, the poorer teams can't keep what talent they have. If you want to have a 32-team league, you have to have a business model that is viable for all 32 franchises, not just the biggest markets.

It's cost certainty. They invented parity with pity points. Who made the finals before cap implementation? Vancouver, Florida, Buffalo, New Jersey, Carolina, Anaheim, Calgary, Tampa Bay. Edmonton after the cap. There was no issue with small market teams competing.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by butterfly

It's cost certainty. They invented parity with pity points. Who made the finals before cap implementation? Vancouver, Florida, Buffalo, New Jersey, Carolina, Anaheim, Calgary, Tampa Bay. Edmonton after the cap. There was no issue with small market teams competing.

You can't be serious

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by dino7c

You can't be serious

How many of those teams didn't make the finals from 94-04?

[BigThief]

Vancouver was in '94, before the gap truly started to widen between have and have not teams. Buffalo, Calgary, Florida were considered "Cinderella" runs. And you trying to sneak the California based, Disney owned Mighty Ducks in that list is wild. From 1993-1997 the NHL had four franchises move in those five years, the Edmonton Oilers were nine hours away from losing their team to Texas in 1998. Ottawa and Pittsburgh were both in Bankruptcy protection prior to the lockout. We've seen two franchises relocate in the 20 years since. One moving to Winnipeg of all places.

Post 2004 lockout Edmonton, Ottawa or Pittsburgh were featured in in each of the next four cup finals.

So whatever point you're making is just wrong.