Zadorov just requested a trade. 😢

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

With next year's cap increase, expect top pairings on fresh UFA contracts to be paid at least $16-17M. You can't compare next year's contracts with previous years, the increase is going to be substantial.

I am starting to doubt that it will be substantial, I know with Escrow being paid off there should be a bump in the neighborhood of 4-5mil, however, with attendance down in several markets and then if you consider Arizona might make the playoffs, that is a lot of money lost in gate admissions when a lot of the profit is made. Especially if Arizona was to make it into round 2 or deeper.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

$8M for a bottom pairing is way too much.

Absolutely too much. Bottom 3 should cost no more than 6.5 combined

3.5
2
League min

Troy Stetcher was the perfect bottom line d man

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

I am starting to doubt that it will be substantial, I know with Escrow being paid off there should be a bump in the neighborhood of 4-5mil, however, with attendance down in several markets and then if you consider Arizona might make the playoffs, that is a lot of money lost in gate admissions when a lot of the profit is made. Especially if Arizona was to make it into round 2 or deeper.

https://youtu.be/AUTBCkTaC-4?t=509

Here around the 8:30 mark John Bean discusses escrow and cap increases. He mentions that based on the league's revenues last year, the cap(players' share) should go up to ~$100M. However, that won't happen in one increment, but in several increments of $4-5M.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by MrMike

Absolutely too much. Bottom 3 should cost no more than 6.5 combined

3.5
2
League min

Troy Stetcher was the perfect bottom line d man

There are only 2 dmen in your bottom 3rd pairing.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

There are only 2 dmen in your bottom 3rd pairing.

+your #7 guy in the pressbox. Don't forget about him.

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

https://youtu.be/AUTBCkTaC-4?t=509

Here around the 8:30 mark John Bean discusses escrow and cap increases. He mentions that based on the league's revenues last year, the cap(players' share) should go up to ~$100M. However, that won't happen in one increment, but in several increments of $4-5M.

Thanks for the link some good info in there, I hadn't seen that before.

I certainly do not think I am a cap expert, this is my understanding so please correct me if I am wrong.
Cap is set based off current Revenue cut in half Owners and players and divided by 32 teams is where they set the cap.

If in the year of the cap being set at 100 million, the league doesn't generate enough revenue to cover that projected cost then the players have to pay back the owners share in escrow.

Which when covid happened that is why there is such a huge escrow debt.

So last year the league was in good shape and estimated to be at 100 mil, but due to escrow debt not being paid off cap couldn't go up.

Now if Revenue's are down this year due to lower attendance, etc. since the cap isn't already at 100 mil, doesn't mean it has to be set at 100 mil. maybe that portion this year is only 84 million, wouldn't that mean the cap would only get adjusted to 84 mil?

If they set it to 87-100 the players would just end up having to pay back escrow unless the league overperformed projections.

appoligies for a thread derail on this if it happens

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

Thanks for the link some good info in there, I hadn't seen that before.

I certainly do not think I am a cap expert, this is my understanding so please correct me if I am wrong.
Cap is set based off current Revenue cut in half Owners and players and divided by 32 teams is where they set the cap.

If in the year of the cap being set at 100 million, the league doesn't generate enough revenue to cover that projected cost then the players have to pay back the owners share in escrow.

Which when covid happened that is why there is such a huge escrow debt.

So last year the league was in good shape and estimated to be at 100 mil, but due to escrow debt not being paid off cap couldn't go up.

Now if Revenue's are down this year due to lower attendance, etc. since the cap isn't already at 100 mil, doesn't mean it has to be set at 100 mil. maybe that portion this year is only 84 million, wouldn't that mean the cap would only get adjusted to 84 mil?

If they set it to 87-100 the players would just end up having to pay back escrow unless the league overperformed projections.

appoligies for a thread derail on this if it happens

Here's how I understand it:
1. The league projects its revenues based on the previous year.
2. It sets the midpoint based on NHL-revenues * 0.5 (player's share) / 32 teams
3. From the midpoint the salary floor and cap are set as 85% and 115% of the midpoint respectively
4. At the end of the year they balance the scale so both the owners and the players get 50% of the revenues.

- If the players made more than 50%, because all the teams are capped out then they pay escrow.
- If the players made less than 50% I would assumed the owners would have to pay escrow back to the players, probably proportional to their salary.

COVID seasons:
5. Due to lost revenue the owners and players agreed to still pay they players but with a cap on escrow. There was a $1.1 Billion Escrow debt as a result.
6. Before this season 93% of that debt was paid, so the players only owe ~$70M.
7. There was an agreement to only increase the cap by $1M each year until that debt was paid.
8. In order to save the GMs from themselves it was agreed that the cap shouldn't go up by more than $4-5M/year.
9. This will likely result in the owners owing the players money at the end of the 2024-25 season. Which will be paid as a percent increase to each players salary at the end of that season.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Which will be paid as a percent increase to each players salary at the end of that season.

I assume a percent increase based on their cap, not their actual salaries?

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I assume a percent increase based on their cap, not their actual salaries?

I personally have no idea, as far as I know it was always the players that owed the owners. I think it should be based on salary, just like player escrow is.

Also because performance bonuses are excluded from escrow, I assume a guy like Huberdaeu pays a lot less escrow(3.5 salary, 7 SB), and would receive a smaller cheque if the players' share was below 50%.

The current CBA is based on a 50-50 split between the NHL and the players. The split is based on the total amount of Hockey Related Revenue (“HRR”) and players’ salaries. HRR accounts for operating revenue including: concessions, merchandise, ticket sales, parking, and TV revenue. Accountants use a forecasted HRR to determine what the salary cap will be for the coming season. Following the season, actual HRR is determined and if the players’ salaries are more than the 50-50 split under the CBA, the escrow account is used to even it out. Under this system, when players’ salaries exceed HRR, money in the escrow account is paid back to the teams until the parties reach the agreed upon 50-50 split. Whatever is left in the escrow account after the split is reached is returned to the players. Signing bonuses and player performance bonuses are excluded from escrow. It has never worked out that players are the ones owed money back from the owners.

[Fourteen FTW]

C’mon Dube!

[getbak]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I personally have no idea, as far as I know it was always the players that owed the owners. I think it should be based on salary, just like player escrow is.

Also because performance bonuses are excluded from escrow, I assume a guy like Huberdaeu pays a lot less escrow(3.5 salary, 7 SB), and would receive a smaller cheque if the players' share was below 50%.

I'm not sure where that quote came from, but it's not correct. Escrow is paid on all player compensation, including bonuses.

Originally Posted by CBA 50.4.d.i

Each Club shall withhold from each Player who is party to an SPC with that Club (and current Players who retire or otherwise cease playing in the NHL to the extent such Players continue to be paid under an SPC with that Club, including, without limitation, Players who were party to SPCs that have been bought out) an amount of each payment of the Player's Player Salary and Bonuses for that League Year. The amount of each payment to be so withheld shall be calculated by multiplying the portion of each Player's Player Salary and Bonuses to be paid during a pay period by the applicable Escrow Percentage that is then in effect during that pay period.

The players have received a bonus payout at the end of the season at least once, after the 2005-06 season. Some other years, the final escrow amount was almost zero.

All end-of-season calculations for the players' share of revenue use the players' actual salaries for that season, not their cap hits.