[News] Salary Cap expected to increase

[d_phaneuf]

interesting

Mark Spector ‏@SportsnetSpec 2m
Wondering why a TV deal that kicks in next yr has affected the salary cap after THIS season. There is an up front payment, is why.

I would think PA is a lot happier with that then the league

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I'd be absolutely okay with the Flames overpaying for Stastny/Callahan/Phaneuf this summer... as long as it's only on 2-4 year deals.

Which is unlikely.

If Phaneuf doesn't re-sign in Toronto I can see the greasers making a big (7M+) pitch for him.

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

interesting

I would think PA is a lot happier with that then the league

Would the league care? it's going to be HR revenue one year or the next.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

this has it 1m higher

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...y-cap/3935911/

Quote:
The cap is expected to be around $71 million with a floor of $55 million. The cap was at $64.3 million this season.

If it is $71m, the floor wouldn't be $55m, it would be $52.5m

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

interesting



I would think PA is a lot happier with that then the league

Marc Spector - breaking news that was in the press release since day one like he's a savvy insider.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Marc Spector - breaking news that was in the press release since day one like he's a savvy insider.

Breaking news that isn't even correct. It has nothing to do with there being an up front payment.

The CBA very clearly states that any predictable "significant" increase in revenue expected for the upcoming season will be factored into the cap calculations for that season...

If a significant (i.e., $20 million or more) onetime increase or decrease to League-wide revenues (e.g., by reason of the addition or loss of a national television contract or the scheduled opening of one or more new arenas which is expected to result in a significant increase in League-wide revenues) is anticipated in the next League Year, the parties will endeavor to estimate the expected increase or decrease and incorporate that estimate into the above-stated formula for calculating the Adjusted Midpoint.

This was in the 2005 CBA as well.

[Hockeyboy2]

You just know that if the Salary Cap is 71 Million next year your average fan is going to go "Why the hell was there even a lockout".

The fans that care about the business side (which is the minority) are going to understand that the cap number isn't as relevant as the structure put in place to acheieve that number.

However still your average fan isnt going to care and all they will say is that the lockout is pointless because the salary cap is now back to what it used to be.

[Hells Bells]

Originally Posted by Hockeyboy2

You just know that if the Salary Cap is 71 Million next year your average fan is going to go "Why the hell was there even a lockout".

The fans that care about the business side (which is the minority) are going to understand that the cap number isn't as relevant as the structure put in place to acheieve that number.

However still your average fan isnt going to care and all they will say is that the lockout is pointless because the salary cap is now back to what it used to be.

Pretty sure the proper term for that would be ignorant fan, not average fan.

Average fans know better.

[Hockeyboy2]

Originally Posted by Hells Bells

Pretty sure the proper term for that would be ignorant fan, not average fan.

Average fans know better.

Perhaps you hold the average fan to a higher standard than I do regarding how much they know or care about the business side of the game. Which is quite alright.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Marc Spector - breaking news that was in the press release since day one like he's a savvy insider.

Just think he will probably be doing hot stove lounge for HNIC in the near future.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Hockeyboy2

You just know that if the Salary Cap is 71 Million next year your average fan is going to go "Why the hell was there even a lockout".

The fans that care about the business side (which is the minority) are going to understand that the cap number isn't as relevant as the structure put in place to acheieve that number.

However still your average fan isnt going to care and all they will say is that the lockout is pointless because the salary cap is now back to what it used to be.

Its likely only a matter of time before the NHL cries poor again when teams like Florida and Phoenix can't manage to get up to the cap floor (even after revenue sharing and TV money). Its fine tying wages to revenue, but if the revenue isn't shared equally there are still going to be issues when the cap goes up and up over the years.

So yes, the NHL got salaries tied to revenue but eventually you will get to a point where teams can't spend to the floor without losing significant dollars.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Its likely only a matter of time before the NHL cries poor again when teams like Florida and Phoenix can't manage to get up to the cap floor (even after revenue sharing and TV money). Its fine tying wages to revenue, but if the revenue isn't shared equally there are still going to be issues when the cap goes up and up over the years.

So yes, the NHL got salaries tied to revenue but eventually you will get to a point where teams can't spend to the floor without losing significant dollars.

I disagree.

There is a limit to how much revenue you can generate at the gate. But the sky is the limit for TV revenue.

And the greater the percentage of total revenue that comes from TV (and other shared sources) the healthier the whole league will be.

This is why the NFL is so healthy - TV revenue dwarfs gate receipts. Moving in this direction is inevitable for the NHL as well.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Its likely only a matter of time before the NHL cries poor again when teams like Florida and Phoenix can't manage to get up to the cap floor (even after revenue sharing and TV money). Its fine tying wages to revenue, but if the revenue isn't shared equally there are still going to be issues when the cap goes up and up over the years.

So yes, the NHL got salaries tied to revenue but eventually you will get to a point where teams can't spend to the floor without losing significant dollars.

Dreger commented on twitter:

"Some NHL teams could receive $45 mil when $20 mil in TV rights, $20 mil in rev share + $5 mil in escrow is factored. Floor is $52 mil. Unlikely there would be more than 5 teams that would qualify..."

I'm not really up on my CBA crap, but if I'm understanding Dreger the bottom feeders (Florida/Carolina/Nashville/Columbus/LongIsland) should receive more than enough money from the league to turn a profit.

Should.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Hells Bells

Pretty sure the proper term for that would be ignorant fan, not average fan.

Average fans know better.

aside from being terribly condescending, i think you are flat out wrong.

most people still think that a 2-way contract means a player doesn't have to pass through waivers. even people that are active enough as fans to join message boards believe that. i see it here and other forums all the time. when you consider most fans are even less educated than those that are willing to participate in forums, i think that pretty much removes

most fans just know the lockout was about money. and when they see the league raising the cap so much a year after a lockout it looks bad.

even as an educated fan i still don't see how the league could claim that teams couldn't handle giving the players a larger percentage of the pie when revenues are increasing so much. 12 months ago all we heard from the league was that it was in dire financial shape. now they are claiming the league is as strong as ever. i get that the lockout wasn't technically over the salary cap, but it just feels like all it really was was a difference in semantics.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Hockeyboy2

You just know that if the Salary Cap is 71 Million next year your average fan is going to go "Why the hell was there even a lockout".

The fans that care about the business side (which is the minority) are going to understand that the cap number isn't as relevant as the structure put in place to acheieve that number.

However still your average fan isnt going to care and all they will say is that the lockout is pointless because the salary cap is now back to what it used to be.

At the same time, the average fan will still fork their money over because they want to cheer for their team.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Its likely only a matter of time before the NHL cries poor again when teams like Florida and Phoenix can't manage to get up to the cap floor (even after revenue sharing and TV money). Its fine tying wages to revenue, but if the revenue isn't shared equally there are still going to be issues when the cap goes up and up over the years.

So yes, the NHL got salaries tied to revenue but eventually you will get to a point where teams can't spend to the floor without losing significant dollars.

Not necessarily. On top of the revenue split relatively evenly between the teams, like TV deals and big bulk of merchandise, they revamped their revenue sharing this CBA to help out more teams and increase it overall. So just because the cap goes up it doesn't necessarily mean a small-market team is in a worse or better situation. A team losing money today and paying to the cap floor, even if the cap floor increase 20M they might not be any worse off if they are getting near an additional 20M from those revenues and the revenue sharing. And it's not a completely unlikely situation and remember that simply because of the 50-50 instead of 43-57 split with the players all teams are better off today then they were under the same circumstances last CBA.

I think it's going to remain relatively status quo regardless of the salary cap. It's no secret that Toronto, Montreal and New York have been keeping teams a float in these small markets (and sometimes they fail like Atlanta) and that's probably going to stay the same. These teams barely scraping by will continue to barely scrape by and at one point they might just pull the plug if they don't turn the team around but that doesn't change if the floor was 50M or 70M.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Dreger commented on twitter:

"Some NHL teams could receive $45 mil when $20 mil in TV rights, $20 mil in rev share + $5 mil in escrow is factored. Floor is $52 mil. Unlikely there would be more than 5 teams that would qualify..."

I'm not really up on my CBA crap, but if I'm understanding Dreger the bottom feeders (Florida/Carolina/Nashville/Columbus/LongIsland) should receive more than enough money from the league to turn a profit.

Should.

thats nice, we pay sky high ticket prices and they charge $20 and get bailed out every year

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by dino7c

thats nice, we pay sky high ticket prices and they charge $20 and get bailed out every year

Your point?

We pay high prices because the market commands those prices.

[albertGQ]

Whenever I talk to another hockey fan and they complain about the "strike" last year, I just cringe and try to end the conversation right there.

[FlameZilla]

Didn't see this posted anywhere: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/h...-worry-flames/

BURKE: FLAMES CAN SPEND TO SALARY CAP

On Monday, Calgary Flames president of hockey operation Brian Burke joined the Hockey Central panel on location at the Board of Governors meetings in Pebble Beach, California.

Burke was asked how the increasing salary cap in the National Hockey League – not only next year, but beyond – might change things for the Flames moving forward.

“Well, we’re budgeted to spend to the cap now. I know if you look at where we are now salary-wise, we’ve got cap room. We’re able to make some significant moves here at the trade deadline if they present themselves.

“That being said, Jay hasn’t seen the value yet. We’re not just going to spend money to spend money. But our ownership group is committed to cap dollars. We are prepared to spend to the cap the moment we see value there.

“As the cap goes up, that’s something from a revenue standpoint we should be able to keep pace with. Once we see the value, we intend to be a cap team at all times.”

Not the first we've heard it, but still worth remembering that this team intends to spend to the cap ceiling, not the cap floor.

[AltaGuy]

I really hope this means we spend on some ufas! I want us to trade Stajan, Cammelleri, Stempniak for picks/prospects, and then go hard for some of the big ufas.

Say, Vanek (7 years, 8.5AA), Stastny (7 years, 7AA), Girardi (5 years, 5AA)

We would have bought ourselves a number one line with those two, which is important to maintain imo. We would be a very good team with those guys added.

Probably a pipedream, but I don't think my salaries are out to lunch. It would allow us to shelter Monahan et al for a few more seasons, which is important so that we don't become the Oilers, which is of course my greatest fear!