View Single Post
Old
01-10-2009, 09:47 AM
  #59
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Plus, the cap doesn't HAVE to go down even if the revenues do. There is a 'kicker' provision, that the NHLPA and NHL can make whatever they agree on. If the cap based on the normal calculation would be $48M, the NHL/NHLPA could agree to increase the kicker to keep the cap at $55M. The money wouldn't actually be spent that way ... it would go back to the owners via escrow if the revenue came in low. The opponents of this idea would be players like Richards and Ovechkin that are locked in at a salary for a long time, and the teams that need the floor to drop (although, their actual cash expenditures would drop, because the escrow would increase, though if the big markets grew before the small markets, they could be in an even deeper hole after the recovery). I don't think either of those groups are large enough to block it from happening. If the recession continues for somewhere in the 2-4 year range, then MOST of the NHL players are going to be FA in the depressed period, and would rather sign a deal based on the artifically high cap, knowing they have built in raises as the escrow goes down from the revenues recovering.

MountainHawk is offline   Reply With Quote