View Single Post
Old
12-12-2012, 10:11 AM
  #11
Ace Rimmer
Moderator
What a guy!
 
Ace Rimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mimas Test Facility
Country: Bermuda
Posts: 9,726
vCash: 24405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
I'm not sure about how great of a change that is. Project that out a few years. At 5% growth (and ignoring the damage done by the lockout/missed games) it would look something like this:

2012: 61m MP, 73.2m/48.8m, 24.4m separation
2013: 67.2m MP, 80.6m/53.7m, 26.8m separation
2014: 69.7m MP, 83.7m/55.8m, 27.9m separation
2019: 107.6m MP, 129.1m/86.0m, 43.0m separation

How does having 25-40m difference between the highest spenders and the lowest spenders help parity in the league? What would that do to the on-ice product of the cap floor teams? And how would that impact the revenue of those teams?

I don't think it's an easy question. They don't want teams in the red if they don't need to be, but neither do they want teams to suck which would mess with the perceived parity that we currently have.
A few things

- I don't think you've adjusted for 50% of HRR for the player's share (wouldn't the new MP be around 55mm? I could be wrong though) and adjusted revenue sharing will certainly help some of the weaker teams.

- Is growth going to continue indefinitely, or will it eventually hit a ceiling and stop? I have to think there's only so much "sports entertainment money" in the average household, and the NHL will still be #4 of the major sports leagues in North America. The 2019 scenario (assuming 30 teams) puts NHL revenues at $6.46 billion, which just seems abnormally high for a gate driven league.

Ace Rimmer is offline   Reply With Quote