HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Daly: 2017-18 salary cap as high as 75.5-76 M if PA wants it

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-08-2017, 10:21 AM
  #1
Marc the Habs Fan
Moderator
 
Marc the Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longueuil
Country: Canada
Posts: 71,585
vCash: 723
Daly: 2017-18 salary cap as high as 75.5-76 M if PA wants it


Marc the Habs Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2017, 11:18 AM
  #2
Irishguy42
Registered User
 
Irishguy42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Bayside
Country: United States
Posts: 9,240
vCash: 500

Irishguy42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2017, 08:51 PM
  #3
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 17,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishguy42 View Post
Escrow will always be the deciding factor here.
In my opinion it should be a deciding factor for the PA, but hasn't turned out that way in recent years.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 12:16 AM
  #4
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
In my opinion it should be a deciding factor for the PA, but hasn't turned out that way in recent years.
Frank Seravalli at TSN wrote this piece on escrow.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-players-set-as...scrow-1.590263

Big swing from the 3 seasons of 2012-2013 to 2014-2015 compared to 2009-2010 to 2011-2012

4% total lost over 3 years compared to almost 38% lost over 3 years.

But, if the players vote for the escalator, it's their choice. Just means more escrow will be with held.

Street Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 11:15 AM
  #5
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 17,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
Frank Seravalli at TSN wrote this piece on escrow.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-players-set-as...scrow-1.590263

Big swing from the 3 seasons of 2012-2013 to 2014-2015 compared to 2009-2010 to 2011-2012

4% total lost over 3 years compared to almost 38% lost over 3 years.

But, if the players vote for the escalator, it's their choice. Just means more escrow will be with held.
Those numbers are in-line with what I've seen historically reported except for 2009-10. Seravalli says the players only lost 1.1% to escrow, while other articles claim they lost 9.4%. It's also a little misleading to use the 2009-10 to 2011-12 seasons as a comparison for a few reasons.

- 2008-09 saw the players lose nearly 13% to escrow.

- 2012-13 to 2014-15 is the first three years of the new CBA. Which included provisions that the salary cap would not be reduced below the 2011-12 amount of $64.3m. Despite the switch from 57% to 50% HRR share. Plus the compliance buyouts which count against HRR. So it was already heavily tilted towards high escrow clawbacks, with the expectation it should smooth out some over future seasons.

- The players received $100m extra from the NHL following each of the 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 seasons. That extra $100m is not included in the escrow calculations--so the actual amount players truly lost each of those seasons is offset by that $100m. The effects of that payment:

2013-14: -10.2% escrow; effective rate with payment is -5.24%
2014-15: -12.95% escrow; effective rate with payment is -8.36%


Last edited by mouser: 03-09-2017 at 11:25 AM.
mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2017, 09:18 AM
  #6
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 17,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
Frank Seravalli at TSN wrote this piece on escrow.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-players-set-as...scrow-1.590263

Big swing from the 3 seasons of 2012-2013 to 2014-2015 compared to 2009-2010 to 2011-2012

4% total lost over 3 years compared to almost 38% lost over 3 years.

But, if the players vote for the escalator, it's their choice. Just means more escrow will be with held.
So, just curious here, if the revenue projections are hit, then the players get all of their escrow money back, right?

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2017, 10:13 AM
  #7
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,072
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
So, just curious here, if the revenue projections are hit, then the players get all of their escrow money back, right?
Only if teams around the league collectively also don't spend to the cap ceiling(I believe. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.)

Edit: Although the spending is based on dollars not cap hit so having any front loaded contracts will exceed this amount automatically. It would be almost impossible for the players not to pay escrow barring some ridiculous jump in HRR.


Last edited by dechire: 03-12-2017 at 10:19 AM.
dechire is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2017, 10:15 AM
  #8
USAUSA1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
I think the pa should not raise it but they probably will.

USAUSA1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2017, 10:22 AM
  #9
Slush
Registered User
 
Slush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Calgary, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 706
vCash: 500
The salary cap is fine how it is.

Slush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2017, 01:14 PM
  #10
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 17,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
So, just curious here, if the revenue projections are hit, then the players get all of their escrow money back, right?
There really isn't a "revenue projection". All the cap formula does is set the midpoint according to the previous season's revenue. Then the escalator increases that midpoint by 5%, presumably as a default estimate for season over season "growth".

So if league revenue does grow 5% season over season does that mean all the escrow gets refunded? Nope, because on average the 30 NHL teams spend higher then the cap midpoint.

Based on historical numbers it has required 10-12% season to season revenue growth for the players to avoid losing a portion of their paychecks to escrow. The cap formula+escalator is simply set too high, and should be reduced IMO.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2017, 10:24 PM
  #11
Kane One
Registered User
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,330
vCash: 1425
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAUSA1 View Post
I think the pa should not raise it but they probably will.
And then afterwards they'll complain about the escrow.

__________________


Glass from Girardi is practically a mathematical impossibility. I'm glad to have witnessed this great Rangers moment. -Bob Richards
I'd hate to know what the toilet facilities look like after a game with the way this team aims... -Megustaelhockey
Kane One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2017, 06:45 AM
  #12
theaub
34-38-61-10-13-15
 
theaub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,333
vCash: 50
Not raising it basically screws over the FA class this year, and its tough for the union to limit some players earning power on their hypothetical big payday over a consistent league-wide escrow payment.

I'd be surprised if the escalator wasn't used.

theaub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2017, 11:13 AM
  #13
Preds33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 8,442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaub View Post
Not raising it basically screws over the FA class this year, and its tough for the union to limit some players earning power on their hypothetical big payday over a consistent league-wide escrow payment.

I'd be surprised if the escalator wasn't used.
Due to expansion, wouldn't this be the one year it wouldn't hurt this year's FA class? Vegas has to sign players and teams need to sign players to replace those lost to expansion. There's an extra 70M+ available this year simply due to expansion.

Preds33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2017, 11:19 PM
  #14
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 30,248
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preds33 View Post
Due to expansion, wouldn't this be the one year it wouldn't hurt this year's FA class? Vegas has to sign players and teams need to sign players to replace those lost to expansion. There's an extra 70M+ available this year simply due to expansion.
That's how I see it. Vegas fills the gap, adds about 3.3% more cash to player's cash pool. Some of that 3.3% comes with more players but they are generally the cheap type. If they don't skip the inflator this year I'm not sure when they would. The NHLPA could well find themselves going into the next CBA pushing for a 10-15% cap decrease to get the escrow back under control, which would be an ugly complication.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2017, 06:28 AM
  #15
theaub
34-38-61-10-13-15
 
theaub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,333
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preds33 View Post
Due to expansion, wouldn't this be the one year it wouldn't hurt this year's FA class? Vegas has to sign players and teams need to sign players to replace those lost to expansion. There's an extra 70M+ available this year simply due to expansion.
Never thought of that - makes sense to me.

theaub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2017, 09:43 AM
  #16
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,022
vCash: 500
I've said this many times before but not using the escalator is not as easy a decision as it seems. By not invoking the escalator they are asking for a small group of their members to pay a big price (possibly even with their jobs) for excesses resulting from previous salary negotiations by the rest. This is a great way to fracture a union.

Now this year may be somewhat special with the addition of LV. Vets who might otherwise have been out on the street in favour of younger and cheaper players might feel that they have a safety net in Vegas. Similarly Vegas provides a market for UFA's to get paid when otherwise tight cap space may have hit them hard. So if there is a year where I could see the PA push for a reset it is this year.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.