Salary cap next year could increase to a possible $72M
Apparently, on Friday night, Elliotte Friedman on CBC Hot Stove reported that the cap could rise to as high as $72M next season, with the expected range being from $68-$72M? Did anybody see or hear this particular Hot Stove piece?
If this is indeed true, two parter:
- What does this say for the league? Remember the good ol' post-lockout days, of $39M being the cap ceiling in 05-06? This is nearly double that...and is almost approaching the area of 'defeating the purpose of the lockout'.... Phoenix is owned by the league... the Panthers had to spend like mad men to get over the floor...and now it's going to rise again?
But more importantly, for our board...
- What does this mean for us, in your minds, given the deeper pockets we have in compared to seasons prior? Spend to it? Try to squeeze in that marquee UFA?
The bigger question is... Will there even be a 2012-2013 season?
CBA expires in September .... Yikes!
There is certainly more parity post-lockout. The league is doing exponentially better in terms of monetary value, marketing, visibility, etc...the rebranding of Versus to NBCSP is a ****ing gigantic help to the league as well, and that aspect doesn't get touched on much.
I don't see much struggle this time around....is that being naive or tunnel-visioned?
Yes, he did say that the upper limit could possibly be up to $72m.
However, that would only be in effect under the current CBA, which expires on September 15th.
If the player's share decreases from 57% (more like when, not if) in the new CBA, the upper limit will be lower.
If I was Darcy, I'd continue using the current upper limit of $64.3m, as it is unlikely that the player's share will drop low enough to go under that (a 50/50 split would be $64.1m).
If the new upper limit is higher than that, so be it.
This team should not be spending to the cap right now, as it is not ready to compete.
Yes, he did say that the upper limit could possibly be up to $72m.
However, that would only be in effect under the current CBA, which expires on September 15th.
If the player's share decreases from 57% (more like when, not if) in the new CBA, the upper limit will be lower.
If I was Darcy, I'd continue using the current upper limit of $64.3m, as it is unlikely that the player's share will drop low enough to go under that (a 50/50 split would be $64.1m).
If the new upper limit is higher than that, so be it.
This team should not be spending to the cap right now, as it is not ready to compete.
But it's easy to argue that, with a rise in the cap of such significance, spending to its limit could put us where we need to be to compete.
I'm not saying I want to take that approach, or see Regier travel that route - I don't...I'm just curious if you guys would think it wise to buy some more free agents and couple that with some trades of current roster guys, or operate under a bit of a budget and only bring in salaries that take displaced players' spots.
Still, even when the players' share decreases, the cap should be going up a couple million, no? It has obviously been trending upwards, and there won't be too much foot-dragging in any pending negotiations IMO.... you see a chance that the cap stays at 64?
itd be wise to not spend too far outside our current means. That said i see us having a big draft day and having to sign some big draftees, i see us bringing goose back(idk just a hunch)...ennis gets a raise...maybe we add a 4th line fighter type and thats all...we wont win a parise sweepstakes and there is no center worth spending money on....a month ago i suggested konpoka and jackman while standing put...if we can add goose to those additions somehow I guess Id settle...ive come to realize big signings arent happening
Still, even when the players' share decreases, the cap should be going up a couple million, no? It has obviously been trending upwards, and there won't be too much foot-dragging in any pending negotiations IMO.... you see a chance that the cap stays at 64?
The upper limit is not a hard number; it is based off of hockey related revenues.
It's a little advanced to explain, but as it stands now, if the player's share decreases, the upper and lower limits also decrease because the midpoint decreases (upper limit = midpoint + $8m, lower limit = midpoint - $8m).
If the temporary upper limit is apparently up to $72m, that'd mean that HRR increased from ~$3.08b last year to ~$3.84b this year.
At 50% instead of 57%, that's about the same as the current upper limit.
The upper limit is not a hard number; it is based off of hockey related revenues.
It's a little advanced to explain, but as it stands now, if the player's share decreases, the upper and lower limits also decrease because the midpoint decreases (upper limit = midpoint + $8m, lower limit = midpoint - $8m).
If the temporary upper limit is apparently up to $72m, that'd mean that HRR increased from ~$3.08b last year to ~$3.84b this year.
At 50% instead of 57%, that's about the same as the current upper limit.
There is certainly more parity post-lockout. The league is doing exponentially better in terms of monetary value, marketing, visibility, etc...the rebranding of Versus to NBCSP is a ****ing gigantic help to the league as well, and that aspect doesn't get touched on much.
I don't see much struggle this time around....is that being naive or tunnel-visioned?
Lets call it wishful thinking. The players don't have Donald Fehr on board to make nice with the owners. They already took their shot across the bow by shooting down the divison re-alignment the owners came up with.
To the thread topic, next year's (upper limit) wont be known until the new CBA is worked out. The 72mil is the upper limit until Sept 15th and really isn't the upper limit for next season.
To the thread topic, next year's (upper limit) wont be known until the new CBA is worked out. The 72mil is the upper limit until Sept 15th and really isn't the upper limit for next season.
Understood, but that's why I used the speculation tag. What if we do see a rise, even with the new CBA ? To us and to the league?
Lets call it wishful thinking. The players don't have Donald Fehr on board to make nice with the owners. They already took their shot across the bow by shooting down the divison re-alignment the owners came up with.
Good point with the bolded and the one that follows it as well. I just - I guess - "wishfully think" that there won't be as much of a standoff or foot drag, particularly from the players, because the owners really have the upper hand in every aspect of the negotiations (do they not? jfb?)
The upper limit is not a hard number; it is based off of hockey related revenues.
It's a little advanced to explain, but as it stands now, if the player's share decreases, the upper and lower limits also decrease because the midpoint decreases (upper limit = midpoint + $8m, lower limit = midpoint - $8m).
If the temporary upper limit is apparently up to $72m, that'd mean that HRR increased from ~$3.08b last year to ~$3.84b this year.
At 50% instead of 57%, that's about the same as the current upper limit.
Where did you get your HRR figures? I'd love to see a ton of those statistics for my own personal knowledge.
Bettman took the stage at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics in Boston to talk about how well the 2004-05 lock-out had worked for NHL owners.
He said the NHL recovered from the work stoppage on the same day that it re-opened for business in August 2005, and has been pulling in record revenues since then. NHL revenue will hit $3.2 billion this year, a 50 percent increase in seven years since the lock-out wiped out a full season.
If you meant that my math sucks, upon further examination, it does.
I was off by ~$100,000,000 in revenue because of rounding and such, but I don't think that anyone was ever going to double check my math besides myself.
If you meant that my math sucks, upon further examination, it does.
I was off by ~$100,000,000 in revenue because of rounding and such, but I don't think that anyone was ever going to double check my math besides myself.
If you meant that my math sucks, upon further examination, it does.
I was off by ~$100,000,000 in revenue because of rounding and such, but I don't think that anyone was ever going to double check my math besides myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull
I get the sense he meant math in general
He definitely did. LOL. jfb is a tough cookie... but nobody was dissecting your math, brother. We (at least I) turn to you as a good source for the financial/cap aspect as well as the draft/prospect aspect as they pertain to our organization. I asked you how you're so privvy to all of this at the youthful age of 21, and you simply said "because I enjoy it". My man
Where did you get your HRR figures? I'd love to see a ton of those statistics for my own personal knowledge.
Preliminary HRR figures are usually released by Bill Daly late in the season while the cap is usually finalized in late June.
If you want to figure out the cap from HRR, it'd go like this:
((((Preliminary HRR * Player's Share) - Preliminary Benefits)/Number of Teams) * Escalator) = midpoint
I have last year's HRR pegged at ~$2,980,000,000, so it'd end up like this:
(($2,980,000,000 * 57%) - $90,000,000 (I don't believe they release this number, so I just go with the last number I can find, which is $90m)/30 = $53,620,000
The players can also opt for up to a 5% escalator, which they agreed to last year, so:
$53,620,000 * 5% = $56,301,000
$56,301,000 + $8,000,000 = $64,301,000 = upper limit (off by $1,000)
$56,301,000 - $8,000,000 = $48,301,000 = lower limit (again, off by $1,000)
Unless I am overlooking something, you cannot reverse engineer the HRR from the upper/lower limits, so it's just guess and check.
If the upper limit ends up at $72m this year (assumed to be with the escalator), HRR would be ~$3,375,000,000.
Take that number and apply 50% player's share instead of 57% and you get right around $64,000,000 as the upper limit, so yeah, I'd work with the existing upper limit just to be safe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jBuds
He definitely did. LOL. jfb is a tough cookie... but nobody was dissecting your math, brother. We (at least I) turn to you as a good source for the financial/cap aspect as well as the draft/prospect aspect as they pertain to our organization. I asked you how you're so privvy to all of this at the youthful age of 21, and you simply said "because I enjoy it". My man
I know, I was just using it to acknowledge the fact that the numbers were wrong in case someone actually did double check it for me.
I think the owners are going to have a very tough time getting the roll back they want (57% to 50%). I also doubt they will have the same unity they had going into the last negotiations nor the fan suport they enjoyed then as well. The real issue is revenue sharing not being adequate enough to preserve the smaller markets viability. That is something the owners need to work out among themselves but likely wont. They will try and get rollbacks from the players instead.
I think the owners are going to have a very tough time getting the roll back they want (57% to 50%). I also doubt they will have the same unity they had going into the last negotiations nor the fan suport they enjoyed then as well. The real issue is revenue sharing not being adequate enough to preserve the smaller markets viability. That is something the owners need to work out among themselves but likely wont. They will try and get rollbacks from the players instead.
Well summarized, Thanks. The owners should've tackled the small market viability issue themselves.
