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

[Strange Brew]

The owners didn’t stock up money for a decade and create a war chest for 18 months of no hockey so the sport could achieve parity. It was almost mostly about controlling costs. The cap floor was a concession they made in collective bargaining.

I’m not sure I agree that the rising cap is only due to large market teams and the falling CAD is factored into league revenues. There is a lag though so continued low dollar could be an issue in the short term.

It’s not all doom and gloom IMO. It’s not like the smaller market Canadian teams have shown they were shrewd cap managers and that it was some kind of competitive advantage.

[Enoch Root]

If it was all about cost controls, that is what it would have achieved.

But revenues have skyrocketed because the league is healthy. And the league is healthy because of the cap, and parity. Without the cap, the rich teams would have continued to outpace the poorer teams on spending, and the declining health of the 1990-2005 era would have continued, to the detriment of many teams.

Cost control is great - many of the teams wanted it, and all are happy with it. Parity saved the league.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by butterfly

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

We literally almost lost the team in the late 90s / early 2000s. Nobody was buying tickets because there was literally no hope of being able to compete with Detroit/Dallas/NYR/etc.

Don't worry about finding stats to defend your position with. A lot of us lived through this period and know first hand how close we were to not having NHL hockey in Alberta (EDM also had issues).

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...2000-1.3054645

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If it was all about cost controls, that is what it would have achieved.

But revenues have skyrocketed because the league is healthy. And the league is healthy because of the cap, and parity. Without the cap, the rich teams would have continued to outpace the poorer teams on spending, and the declining health of the 1990-2005 era would have continued, to the detriment of many teams.

Cost control is great - many of the teams wanted it, and all are happy with it. Parity saved the league.

There’s not much evidence that “parity” is what has caused all the revenue growth. The NHL growth rate is lower than the three other main pro sports leagues in NA, it’s more a case of the rising tide raising all boats.

The league is financially healthy because of the cost control and consumer trends. Parity is a nice benefit but that’s not the driver for the financial health IMO. MLB had the highest revenue growth rate of all major pro sports last year in NA.

[Andrew]

Sportsnet contract is up end of next year?
I wonder how that impacts these forecasts.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

We literally almost lost the team in the late 90s / early 2000s. Nobody was buying tickets because there was literally no hope of being able to compete with Detroit/Dallas/NYR/etc.

Don't worry about finding stats to defend your position with. A lot of us lived through this period and know first hand how close we were to not having NHL hockey in Alberta (EDM also had issues).

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...2000-1.3054645

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...stay-1.4028105
Oilers in '98 too

[metroneck]

Curious to know how/ if these projections account for the absolute trade dispute initiated financial sh** storm we are heading into.

[3thirty]

Why do we have 2 threads on this?

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

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Sportsnet contract is up end of next year?
I wonder how that impacts these forecasts.

No clue, but omg am I ever hoping that Amazon Prime takes over.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

There’s not much evidence that “parity” is what has caused all the revenue growth. The NHL growth rate is lower than the three other main pro sports leagues in NA, it’s more a case of the rising tide raising all boats.

The league is financially healthy because of the cost control and consumer trends. Parity is a nice benefit but that’s not the driver for the financial health IMO. MLB had the highest revenue growth rate of all major pro sports last year in NA.

The league is healthier than it was pre-cap. There were many teams in financial trouble, and many teams had attendance issues. Attendance is better now. We can attribute that to parity, and a better league structure, or to a rising tide.