1997 expansion approval
View Single Post
12-21-2012, 03:53 PM
Join Date: Jul 2003
Originally Posted by
Here's an interesting thought... if you contracted a rich team like Toronto ($200 million/year revenue according to Forbes), the salary cap would drop by $200 million * 0.57 / 31 = $3.68 million per team. This move would push 3 teams that are currently losing money (Capitals, Sharks, Predators) into the black.
If you also contracted the Rangers & Canadiens ($368 million/year in revenue), the cap would drop another $368 million * 0.57 / 29 = $7.23 million per team. This would make the Wild, Ducks, Sabres, Hurricanes & Blues profitable.
So we've basically saved 8 franchises by eliminating the 3 richest franchises. That's kind of messed up when you think about it.
Forbes NHL valuations:
You don't save anyone by eliminating franchises but by lowering the cap. NHL has proposed a less messy way to do it, by lowering the player share to 50% of HRR.
For example if NHL found a way to cancel the TV deal revenue would go down and the cap would be lower. That doesn't mean any teams would be saved by it.
Revenue is tied to cost in a cap system. Nothing weird about it.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Freudian