HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Los Angeles Kings (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=42)
-   -   Rumor: Salary Cap Going Up to $70.3M (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1199763)

Ziggy Stardust 05-31-2012 06:31 PM

Salary Cap Going Up to $70.3M
 
Source: Bob McKenzie
http://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/st...23705372295169
Quote:

Keeping in mind there's a new CBA coming (hopefully), upper limit of salary cap for next season (technically speaking) is $70.3M.
Capgeek has updated its site to adjust the upper limit for the 2012-13 season to $70.3M. This rumored increase in the cap would give the Kings a little over $16M in cap space, which is plenty of room to sign Quick to a lucrative contract extension and to re-sign most of the impending unrestricted free agents (if Lombardi chooses to do so).

kingsfan28 05-31-2012 06:44 PM

Remember when it was at 39 million? So what's the floor going to be, 50 million?

KINGS17 05-31-2012 06:45 PM

I think the cap is going to be reduced in the new CBA. The NHL owners look at the reduction in the percentage of revenues that were given to NBA players and NFL players in their current CBAs (around 50%) and the NHL owners want the same thing.

I believe the NHL CBA currently has approximately 57% of revenues going to player salaries. There are also a lot of small market teams that want the loophole of dumping unwanted player contracts to the minors eliminated.

We'll see, but I think negotiations are going to get pretty heated before it's all over.

kingsfan28 05-31-2012 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KINGS17 (Post 50370205)
I think the cap is going to be reduced in the new CBA. The NHL owners look at the reduction in the percentage of revenues that were given to NBA players and NFL players in their current CBAs (around 50%) and the NHL owners want the same thing.

I believe the NHL CBA currently has approximately 57% of revenues going to player salaries. There are also a lot of small market teams that want the loophole of dumping unwanted player contracts to the minors eliminated.

We'll see, but I think negotiations are going to get pretty heated before it's all over.

Forbes is already predicting the NHL's doom once again.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybro...ould-kill-nhl/

Ziggy Stardust 05-31-2012 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsfan28 (Post 50370203)
Remember when it was at 39 million? So what's the floor going to be, 50 million?

The floor would be $54.3M. As KINGS17 stated, I'm sure an adjustment to how the cap is determined will be made in the upcoming CBA.

kingsfan28 05-31-2012 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust (Post 50370465)
The floor would be $54.3M. As KINGS17 stated, I'm sure an adjustment to how the cap is determined will be made in the upcoming CBA.

can some teams even afford that?

Ziggy Stardust 05-31-2012 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsfan28 (Post 50370565)
can some teams even afford that?

Only nine teams with salaries committed towards next year meet or exceed the floor of $54.3M, which is preposterous. Which is why the CBA needs to be renegotiated and the cap calculation be readjusted.

KingPurpleDinosaur 05-31-2012 07:10 PM

if we lose even 1 game to a lockout, shame on the NHL and the players. They are the only losers to cancel a whole year and it'll be incredible to see them fall into the same mistake again.

Nex06 05-31-2012 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KINGS17 (Post 50370205)
There are also a lot of small market teams that want the loophole of dumping unwanted player contracts to the minors eliminated.

Please make it happen. So unfair to punish fiscally responsible GM's.

KINGS17 05-31-2012 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsfan28 (Post 50370321)
Forbes is already predicting the NHL's doom once again.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybro...ould-kill-nhl/

The big market owners really need to cave on more revenue sharing. The successful model is out there. It is the NFL.

Tadite 05-31-2012 07:14 PM

It's nothing short of amazing to me that we lost a whole season and the NHL still couldn't get a deal signed that doesn't kill 1/3 of the league.

20 million dollar difference! Good god! That's with more then half the league losing money!

KingPurpleDinosaur 05-31-2012 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nex06 (Post 50371051)
Please make it happen. So unfair to punish fiscally responsible GM's.

agreed. i would like it if they moved the UFA back up a few years as well. And I hope they also close the Wheeler and Schultz loophole, players shouldn't become UFA that early. I don't know how the NHL is going to get all this stuff without giving anything back. They should offer a contraction or concessions. Kind of pick your poison type thing.

Ziggy Stardust 05-31-2012 07:37 PM

Items I'd like to see in the next CBA:

1) Some type of provision restricting the amount of years/dollars distributed in "second contracts" after a players' entry level contract expires.

2) A limitation on the length of all contracts. Say, 7 years being the maximum length of any contract.

3) Players signed to one-way contracts will still have a portion of their salary count towards the cap. So the Rangers won't get away with hiding Wade Redden in the minors and not be penalized for it. Teams should be held accountable for their irresponsibility, not be given a loophole to hide from it.

4) Eliminate recall waivers. It seems that some players are punished for having to be subject to waivers.

5) Allow teams to assign 19-20 year old CHL prospects to the AHL. Some prospects are too advanced to be playing in juniors by the time they reach 19 or 20, like we saw with Brayden Schenn being stuck in the WHL and had accomplished all there is to accomplish in juniors.

KingLB 05-31-2012 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust (Post 50371939)
Items I'd like to see in the next CBA:

1) Some type of provision restricting the amount of years/dollars distributed in "second contracts" after a players' entry level contract expires.

2) A limitation on the length of all contracts. Say, 7 years being the maximum length of any contract.

3) Players signed to one-way contracts will still have a portion of their salary count towards the cap. So the Rangers won't get away with hiding Wade Redden in the minors and not be penalized for it. Teams should be held accountable for their irresponsibility, not be given a loophole to hide from it.

4) Eliminate recall waivers. It seems that some players are punished for having to be subject to waivers.

5) Allow teams to assign 19-20 year old CHL prospects to the AHL. Some prospects are too advanced to be playing in juniors by the time they reach 19 or 20, like we saw with Brayden Schenn being stuck in the WHL and had accomplished all there is to accomplish in juniors.

Ummm those are all bad things for the players....why would they wanna give up any of that? Plus what is probably over a 100 mil a year (if you drop the percentage another couple of percent)?

The last one isn't the NHL's choice its the CHL's and you can assign 20 yo's to the AHL.

To me, if I'm in the room I try to get the percentage to around ~53%, but the keep the cap the same as it is this year, and the cap stays flat until the 53% number is hit then it continues rising like it was before. That way no "current" player is gonna have to give back any money and no teams are effected by a cap jumping one way or another, thus killing all planning they had.

kingsfan28 05-31-2012 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KINGS17 (Post 50371077)
The big market owners really need to cave on more revenue sharing. The successful model is out there. It is the NFL.

True, but the NFL has a multi billion dollar tv contract that subsidizes any losses. The NHL isnt afforded that luxury. I dont think there's a NFL team that loses money. Wasn't the main sticking point during nfl lockout how the billions we're going to be divided?

KopitarFAN 05-31-2012 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsfan28 (Post 50372465)
True, but the NFL has a multi billion dollar tv contract that subsidizes any losses. The NHL isnt afforded that luxury. I dont think there's a NFL team that loses money. Wasn't the main sticking point during nfl lockout how the billions we're going to be divided?

Pretty much.

Their were smaller issues, but that was the big one.

KINGS17 05-31-2012 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsfan28 (Post 50372465)
True, but the NFL has a multi billion dollar tv contract that subsidizes any losses. The NHL isnt afforded that luxury. I dont think there's a NFL team that loses money. Wasn't the main sticking point during nfl lockout how the billions we're going to be divided?

The NHL owners have to work with what they have. The biggest portion of their pie is made up of gate revenues. If the big boys don't want to share their gate revenues then there will be contraction. I think initially down to around 24 teams, unless they can move a few to Canadian cities where gate revenues might be better, but there are only so many markets in Canada with large enough populations to support a NHL team.

Point is for the NHL to be healthy, there shouldn't be an NHL team that loses money either. At least not if you want to have a 30 team league.

BTW, I am fine with contraction down to something like 24 teams, but I doubt that the players want to lose 120 NHL jobs and even more in the minors.

KingPurpleDinosaur 05-31-2012 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KINGS17 (Post 50373165)
The NHL owners have to work with what they have. The biggest portion of their pie is made up of gate revenues. If the big boys don't want to share their gate revenues then there will be contraction. I think initially down to around 24 teams, unless they can move a few to Canadian cities where gate revenues might be better, but there are only so many markets in Canada with large enough populations to support a NHL team.

Point is for the NHL to be healthy, there shouldn't be an NHL team that loses money either. At least not if you want to have a 30 team league.

BTW, I am fine with contraction down to something like 24 teams, but I doubt that the players want to lose 120 NHL jobs and even more in the minors.

revenue sharing is key. But at the same time, I can understand why big market teams hate it. They work hard for what they get, then they have to share it with some team who doesn't manage their team well? Or a team who doesn't put in a lick for marketing and just lives off the shared profits?

Another thing I'd like to be in the CBA. Money in contracts must be distributed evenly throughout duration of the contract. If they say 7 years $49 mil, then that's $7 a year. I don't mind the long terms, I just don't like the obvious circumventions.

KopitarFAN 05-31-2012 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingPurpleDinosaur (Post 50373843)
revenue sharing is key. But at the same time, I can understand why big market teams hate it. They work hard for what they get, then they have to share it with some team who doesn't manage their team well? Or a team who doesn't put in a lick for marketing and just lives off the shared profits?

Another thing I'd like to be in the CBA. Money in contracts must be distributed evenly throughout duration of the contract. If they say 7 years $49 mil, then that's $7 a year. I don't mind the long terms, I just don't like the obvious circumventions.

I agree. Luongo, Kovalchuk, B. Richards and probably Parise being prime examples.

bobafettish* 05-31-2012 08:52 PM

how does the cap go up 6 million when you have so many teams with financial problems. a cup finalist being one of them.

Ziggy Stardust 05-31-2012 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobafettish (Post 50374887)
how does the cap go up 6 million when you have so many teams with financial problems. a cup finalist being one of them.

The league as a whole generated over $3B in revenues. If the players get 57% of that, they're receiving $1,710,000,000 of that and the rest is going to the league. That's a large percentage going to the players. Which is why I think the concessions I suggested earlier is a fair swap if the players wish to receive more than a 50% stake in league wide revenues.

Master Yoda 05-31-2012 11:11 PM

There also needs to be a change in the cap floor. It cannot increase dollar for dollar with the cap. It doesn't make any sense at all as the cap increases, the gap from cap teams to floor teams decrease.

They have to have the floor set at a percentage of the cap like it was in the beginning. Something like 60% so for example next year the cap would be $70million and the floor would be $42million.

I think this could be another one of the major topics for the next cba.

Sybil227 06-01-2012 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust (Post 50371939)
Items I'd like to see in the next CBA:

1) Some type of provision restricting the amount of years/dollars distributed in "second contracts" after a players' entry level contract expires.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingLB (Post 50372227)
Ummm those are all bad things for the players....why would they wanna give up any of that? Plus what is probably over a 100 mil a year (if you drop the percentage another couple of percent)?

The last one isn't the NHL's choice its the CHL's and you can assign 20 yo's to the AHL.

To me, if I'm in the room I try to get the percentage to around ~53%, but the keep the cap the same as it is this year, and the cap stays flat until the 53% number is hit then it continues rising like it was before. That way no "current" player is gonna have to give back any money and no teams are effected by a cap jumping one way or another, thus killing all planning they had.

I don't think Ziggy's 1st example is necessarily bad for the players. It doesn't change the size of the pie - just how it's cut up. If the owners say they don't want to spend huge amounts on young guys who've barely had a chance to prove themselves, when they'd rather spend it on proven vets - but they don't want to just lose a guy they've developed, the players might agree with that. It might be a case of veterans vs. young players. Who gets that slice of the pie - and who deserves it?

johnjm22 06-01-2012 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsfan28 (Post 50370321)
Forbes is already predicting the NHL's doom once again.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybro...ould-kill-nhl/

There was a similar article in Bloomberg recently.

These articles talk about NHL teams losing money, but a high percentage of professional sports teams all over the world lose money. Even European Premier League soccer teams lose money.

The NHL will probably have to restructure, but there's nothing wrong with that. The league is as healthy as ever IMO. Although I do think they need to improve the on ice product.

Herby 06-01-2012 01:40 AM

Hard to take money from the under 27 crowd as they are the ones dominating the league on the ice and putting butts in the seats.

Stop paying stiffs like Gomez, Redden and Smyth insane amounts of money and go from there.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:53 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.