2016/17 Salary cap projected to be between $71.5 million to $74.5 million

[sureLoss]

Elliotte Friedman @FriedgeHNIC
Range on salary cap given out, with high number of $74.5M.

Elliotte Friedman @FriedgeHNIC
That would include the inflator and best possible outcome.

Elliotte Friedman @FriedgeHNIC
Most GMs will tell you they are budgeting less than that to be safe

[doncherry]

I hope our dollar doesn't stay in the toilet for much longer......could get painful for ownership.

[sureLoss]

Renaud Lavoie @renlavoietva
Cap between 71.5 ans 74.5M next season according to Gary Bettman. #tvasports

[FBI]

What is it this year again? 69? 71?

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by FBI

What is it this year again? 69? 71?

Google says 71.4.

[FBI]

So for all the paranoia talk, it is still going to go up yet again.

[heep223]

Surprising given the Canadian dollar

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by FBI

So for all the paranoia talk, it is still going to go up yet again.

Looks like it's because of the escalator clause. It will be more telling what it ends up the year after.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FBI

So for all the paranoia talk, it is still going to go up yet again.

This year, the cap actually would have gone down 2 percent – but the NHLPA invoked the escalator clause. Next year, the cap will go down anywhere from zero to 5 percent – but the NHLPA is expected to invoke the escalator clause.

But sure, saying that the cap doesn't always go up is ‘paranoia talk’. Whatever.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by FBI

So for all the paranoia talk, it is still going to go up yet again.

It will never, ever go down. Its a union establishment. Unions dont take pay cuts.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Locke

It will never, ever go down. Its a union establishment. Unions dont take pay cuts.

Tell that to the people who worked for Canadian Airlines.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Tell that to the people who worked for Canadian Airlines.

I dont have to, by the time they realized the burden the whole thing went belly up.

[FBI]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This year, the cap actually would have gone down 2 percent – but the NHLPA invoked the escalator clause. Next year, the cap will go down anywhere from zero to 5 percent – but the NHLPA is expected to invoke the escalator clause.

But sure, saying that the cap doesn't always go up is ‘paranoia talk’. Whatever.

I'm just saying, I'm always hearing talk about teams worried that the cap is going to go down, yet it never actually does. Even with the way the economy is and the canadian dollar etc.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont have to, by the time they realized the burden the whole thing went belly up.

Exactly.

Now, what are the odds that Gary Bettman will allow the NHLPA to pull the same stunt?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Exactly.

Now, what are the odds that Gary Bettman will allow the NHLPA to pull the same stunt?

His hands are tied on that. Theres a reason that they made sure that they have an escalator clause.

Has the NHLPA ever not used it?

If, considering the current states of the North American Economy, the Canadian Dollar and various other factors, the escalator clause can still outweigh any economic imbalances in order to still increase the cap it would take a depression of serious magnitude to see the cap go down.

Its all built into the structure.

Unions do not take wage cuts.

[getbak]

As always, the thing to remember is that the escalator is only applied to the previous season's actual revenues, not the previous season's projected revenue.

If this year's cap was set for a projected revenue of $4 billion, but the actual revenue was $3.5 billion, next year's cap would be set for a projected revenue of $3.675 billion, not $4.2 billion. So, in that situation, the cap would go down even with the escalator applied.

If next year's cap is the same as this year's, that would mean that this year's revenue is about the same as last year's.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Locke

His hands are tied on that. Theres a reason that they made sure that they have an escalator clause.

The escalator clause is for a fixed five percent. If HRR drops year-to-year by more than five percent, the cap goes down even with the escalator.

Has the NHLPA ever not used it?

Not that I know of. So what?

If, considering the current states of the North American Economy, the Canadian Dollar and various other factors, the escalator clause can still outweigh any economic imbalances in order to still increase the cap it would take a depression of serious magnitude to see the cap go down.

It's an open question whether that will be the case next year. The *expectation* is that the cap will not be less than $71.5m. That is not a certainty.

Its all built into the structure.

Right. And the possibility of the cap going down is also built into the structure.

Unions do not take wage cuts.

So when every player in the league had his wages cut by 24 percent after the '04-05 lockout, that was not a wage cut? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

[CroFlames]

Plenty of room for Gio's deal now. No worries.

[Erick Estrada]

Thanks to Rogers and that ridiculous TV deal I supposed the NHL can tread water in these times. Looking at the empty seats in a lot of US and even some Canadian cities it's hard to imagine the cap reaching that $80 million dollar mark that was speculated a few years back any time soon.

[Stay Golden]

All about the T.V deals it certainly isn't a growth in attendance. So many US markets are horrendous for attendance.