HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Pittsburgh Penguins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 CBA & Re-alignment: Uncle Gary Threatening Lockout (8-9-12)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-17-2012, 11:14 AM
  #76
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,502
vCash: 500
Does anyone think this is a BS rumor floated by the press? I'm trying to imagine a scenario where:

a) the season is still being played out
b) there are no active negotiations between NHLPA and league, yet we all know there will be
c) the league decides to pick a cap number before one is negotiated and "floats" a rumor to the GMs that they should target 70M anyway.

...I can't see it. Also I thought the consensus not long ago was that the Cap might stay the same or drop a little, but that is equally guesswork probably. The point is I don't think the league has any idea what the cap number will be. Hence no one has told the GMs anything and this is likely an unsubstantiated guess by someone in the press.


Last edited by Darth Vitale: 05-17-2012 at 03:38 PM.
Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 11:29 AM
  #77
sina220*
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 711
vCash: 500
With the record revenues and the new tv deal its highly unlikely the cap goes down.

As someone said revenues are up 400 mil from 2.8 billion to 3.2, thats a 14.2% increase in revenue. Even if the players share drops from 57% to 50%, 57% of 2.8 bil is 1.596 bil. 50% of 3.2 bil is 1.6 bil. The actual amount of money to the players increases a bit even if it's a smaller percentage by 7 points.

No reason for the cap to go down as long as revenue stays high, which it almost undoubtedly will barring a lockout.


Im honestly expecting the ceiling to raise a few mil after the new cba and the cap floor to raise several mil. Closing that 16 mil upper-to-lower gap down to 10-12 mil.

sina220* is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 11:34 AM
  #78
DockEllisExperience
Registered User
 
DockEllisExperience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 3,064
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sina220 View Post
With the record revenues and the new tv deal its highly unlikely the cap goes down.

As someone said revenues are up 400 mil from 2.8 billion to 3.2, thats a 14.2% increase in revenue. Even if the players share drops from 57% to 50%, 57% of 2.8 bil is 1.596 bil. 50% of 3.2 bil is 1.6 bil. The actual amount of money to the players increases a bit even if it's a smaller percentage by 7 points.

No reason for the cap to go down as long as revenue stays high, which it almost undoubtedly will barring a lockout.


Im honestly expecting the ceiling to raise a few mil after the new cba and the cap floor to raise several mil. Closing that 16 mil upper-to-lower gap down to 10-12 mil.
Thanks for the information, I wouldn't have guessed revenue went up that much, hence why I said the cap could go down in my previous post. Guess the new TV deal helps out tremendously, I forgot that kicks in next season.

DockEllisExperience is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 12:38 PM
  #79
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
HFBoards
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 14,491
vCash: 500
If we're headed to a $70 million dollar cap, whats next? 80 Million? 100 million?

What was the whole reason for the lockout then and salary roll backs?

__________________
Homeland Security is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 12:49 PM
  #80
Superstar Shane
Registered User
 
Superstar Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 Min Misconduct View Post
If we're headed to a $70 million dollar cap, whats next? 80 Million? 100 million?

What was the whole reason for the lockout then and salary roll backs?
Because without the lockout, the Rangers and Red Wings and whomever else would be spending $200M on player salaries by now.

Superstar Shane is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 12:56 PM
  #81
JTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Sierra Leone
Posts: 38,682
vCash: 500
It is still heading to a place I'm not real fond of though. How long will the cap rise until all but 3 or 4 teams are operating on a budget v. spending to the cap?

JTG is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 12:59 PM
  #82
Shady Machine
Registered User
 
Shady Machine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTG View Post
It is still heading to a place I'm not real fond of though. How long will the cap rise until all but 3 or 4 teams are operating on a budget v. spending to the cap?
Yeah It needs to stop. I think it's getting to the point where the Pens may become a budget team. 70 million is a large payroll for the Pittsburgh market. We would need to make the conference finals every year to make a decent profit.

Shady Machine is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 01:09 PM
  #83
PenguinTommy
Registered User
 
PenguinTommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Zvolen
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 1,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sina220 View Post
With the record revenues and the new tv deal its highly unlikely the cap goes down.

As someone said revenues are up 400 mil from 2.8 billion to 3.2, thats a 14.2% increase in revenue. Even if the players share drops from 57% to 50%, 57% of 2.8 bil is 1.596 bil. 50% of 3.2 bil is 1.6 bil. The actual amount of money to the players increases a bit even if it's a smaller percentage by 7 points.

No reason for the cap to go down as long as revenue stays high, which it almost undoubtedly will barring a lockout.


Im honestly expecting the ceiling to raise a few mil after the new cba and the cap floor to raise several mil. Closing that 16 mil upper-to-lower gap down to 10-12 mil.
I assume, it should go up. By going up, it would increase the cap and decrease the floor.

GMs from wealthy teams want higher cap and budget teams want lower floor. If you close the gap, neither would happen.

Even if it stays the same, 16 million gap (understand 8 up and 8 down from the midpoint), you can use basic math and you have 53.3M midpoint, so the cap hit would be 61.3M and the floor would be 45.3M.

Just imagine if the gap goes down as you said, cap hit would be 58.3M and 45.3M cap floor. There's no way NHLPA would agree with this. I read some CBA proposals where the gap could go to 20M... 10 up and 10 down from the midpoint.

But it's been all speculations. It will be very interesting summer, but I think PA would not back up by any means.


EDIT: It's all based on if player's share is 50%.

PenguinTommy is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 01:30 PM
  #84
Superstar Shane
Registered User
 
Superstar Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTG View Post
It is still heading to a place I'm not real fond of though. How long will the cap rise until all but 3 or 4 teams are operating on a budget v. spending to the cap?
That's a fair point, but you'd think a decent revenue sharing system would be a relatively simple solution.

Superstar Shane is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 02:36 PM
  #85
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PenguinTommy View Post
I assume, it should go up. By going up, it would increase the cap and decrease the floor.

GMs from wealthy teams want higher cap and budget teams want lower floor. If you close the gap, neither would happen.

Even if it stays the same, 16 million gap (understand 8 up and 8 down from the midpoint), you can use basic math and you have 53.3M midpoint, so the cap hit would be 61.3M and the floor would be 45.3M.

Just imagine if the gap goes down as you said, cap hit would be 58.3M and 45.3M cap floor. There's no way NHLPA would agree with this. I read some CBA proposals where the gap could go to 20M... 10 up and 10 down from the midpoint.

But it's been all speculations. It will be very interesting summer, but I think PA would not back up by any means.


EDIT: It's all based on if player's share is 50%.
The PA I can't imagine will back off 57% and why should they? The owners were patting themselves on the back after this CBA was announced seven years ago. They also assured the fans this deal would provide cost certainty.

With the cap being tied to profits, good luck trying to cry poor. The public will not be backing the owners like they did in '05.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 03:33 PM
  #86
MtlPenFan
Registered User
 
MtlPenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
The PA I can't imagine will back off 57% and why should they? The owners were patting themselves on the back after this CBA was announced seven years ago. They also assured the fans this deal would provide cost certainty.

With the cap being tied to profits, good luck trying to cry poor. The public will not be backing the owners like they did in '05.
Apparently this time out, the owners aren't exactly seeing eye to eye on a lot of issues like they were last time.

I've always been on the side of the owners in any "labor" dispute in pro sports, but this is one time I'm going to take the players' side.

MtlPenFan is online now  
Old
05-17-2012, 03:42 PM
  #87
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sina220 View Post
With the record revenues and the new tv deal its highly unlikely the cap goes down.

As someone said revenues are up 400 mil from 2.8 billion to 3.2, thats a 14.2% increase in revenue. Even if the players share drops from 57% to 50%, 57% of 2.8 bil is 1.596 bil. 50% of 3.2 bil is 1.6 bil. The actual amount of money to the players increases a bit even if it's a smaller percentage by 7 points.

No reason for the cap to go down as long as revenue stays high, which it almost undoubtedly will barring a lockout.


Im honestly expecting the ceiling to raise a few mil after the new cba and the cap floor to raise several mil. Closing that 16 mil upper-to-lower gap down to 10-12 mil.

Good info / good points. Thanks for posting those. You'd think the journalists out there would have some numbers like this in their stories but that would require actual research / investigation into the process.

Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 04:38 PM
  #88
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtlPenFan View Post
Apparently this time out, the owners aren't exactly seeing eye to eye on a lot of issues like they were last time.

I've always been on the side of the owners in any "labor" dispute in pro sports, but this is one time I'm going to take the players' side.
The biggest point of contention is revenue sharing.

Some owners feel certain peers are just spending to the floor and raking in profits because of revenue sharing.

Should be interesting, unfortunately.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 04:49 PM
  #89
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,463
vCash: 500
Here is a good article from the 16th about where Fehr stands:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sport...730/story.html

Quote:
he appeared to draw a line in the sand when he told Sports Business Daily's Liz McMullen that the players would fight any attempt to cut their share of hockey related revenue

I think it is fair to say that if the approach is what many are predicting, that the owners come in and say we have to shave five, 10, 15, 25, 30 - pick a number - points off the percentage of revenues in the cap that players receive, there may be a lot of players who say: 'Wait a minute, we already gave at the office,' " Fehr said.

"We made massive concessions last time that were designed to fix your so-called problems," he continued. "If it has not fixed your so-called problems, we need to have a long, hard discussion about what those problems are and what we should do about it."

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 05:00 PM
  #90
MtlPenFan
Registered User
 
MtlPenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Here is a good article from the 16th about where Fehr stands:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sport...730/story.html
Hence my selfishness. I desperately want the cap to keep going up with no rollbacks, just so we can keep all our players.

MtlPenFan is online now  
Old
05-17-2012, 05:02 PM
  #91
JTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Sierra Leone
Posts: 38,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanMoranFanclub View Post
That's a fair point, but you'd think a decent revenue sharing system would be a relatively simple solution.
You would think...

JTG is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 05:14 PM
  #92
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtlPenFan View Post
Hence my selfishness. I desperately want the cap to keep going up with no rollbacks, just so we can keep all our players.
I see a lot of ppl stating the NFLPA revenue sharing was 50%, but they got 54 or 55% this season.

I can't speak for the NBA because I ****ing hate basketball to my core.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 05:28 PM
  #93
PenguinTommy
Registered User
 
PenguinTommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Zvolen
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 1,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
The PA I can't imagine will back off 57% and why should they? The owners were patting themselves on the back after this CBA was announced seven years ago. They also assured the fans this deal would provide cost certainty.

With the cap being tied to profits, good luck trying to cry poor. The public will not be backing the owners like they did in '05.
I agree, I think the same. The PA won't agree with reducing player's share. But if it stays the same, 60M midpoint will be there..it's basically 68M cap hit and 52M cap floor.

It won't be so easy as it seems. Bettman and the owners can say no way, the PA as well, and we will have another lockout very easily.

PenguinTommy is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 05:42 PM
  #94
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 Min Misconduct View Post
If we're headed to a $70 million dollar cap, whats next? 80 Million? 100 million?

What was the whole reason for the lockout then and salary roll backs?
A lot of reasons, but I think your point is that inflation is happening then and now. Well, that's expected. The problem before was RUNAWAY inflation, which is not present now, not general inflation, which is unavoidable.

billybudd is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 08:45 PM
  #95
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
HFBoards
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 14,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanMoranFanclub View Post
Because without the lockout, the Rangers and Red Wings and whomever else would be spending $200M on player salaries by now.
Thats a good point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
A lot of reasons, but I think your point is that inflation is happening then and now. Well, that's expected. The problem before was RUNAWAY inflation, which is not present now, not general inflation, which is unavoidable.
That's something I didn't take into account.

Homeland Security is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 10:05 PM
  #96
froods
Millerrrrrrr!!!
 
froods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
I see a lot of ppl stating the NFLPA revenue sharing was 50%, but they got 54 or 55% this season.

I can't speak for the NBA because I ****ing hate basketball to my core.
You don't think watching one player dribble for 15 seconds then take it to the hoop himself is exciting??? Get out.

froods is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 10:37 PM
  #97
Illinest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Harrisburg
Country: United States
Posts: 1,134
vCash: 500
I'm not sure if I did the math right but it seems that if the percentage stayed the same and the players share stayed the same then the cap would have to go up by about 7 million.

Might mean that some of the low spenders would have to throw money around like a drunken Hilton just to reach the floor.

Illinest is offline  
Old
05-17-2012, 11:11 PM
  #98
Flat Stanley
Registered User
 
Flat Stanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,241
vCash: 500
Isn't it a good indication that the salary cap in the next CBA will be $70 million since teams are told to use that as a salary cap? Because teams that spend up to the cap will use that money.

Flat Stanley is offline  
Old
05-18-2012, 07:33 AM
  #99
PenguinTommy
Registered User
 
PenguinTommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Zvolen
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 1,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinest View Post
I'm not sure if I did the math right but it seems that if the percentage stayed the same and the players share stayed the same then the cap would have to go up by about 7 million.

Might mean that some of the low spenders would have to throw money around like a drunken Hilton just to reach the floor.
It's easy, here's the formula:

NHL revenue X players share
_________________________ = salary cap midpoint .... add 8 Millions and you've got the cap hit and subtract 8M and you've got the cap floor
30 teams


-------------
So if the league revenue is 3.2B as it was rumored...

3.2B X 57%
___________ = 60.8 M midpoint = (+8M) = 68.8M cap hit AND (-8M) 52.8M cap floor
30


NOTE: In this CBA - If the league revenue (HRR) is higher than 2.7B, you can add 5% of the midpoint.

(I doubt it will stay in the new CBA, if yes, you can add those 5% of salary midpoint)


Last edited by PenguinTommy: 05-18-2012 at 07:40 AM.
PenguinTommy is offline  
Old
05-30-2012, 07:24 PM
  #100
PenguinTommy
Registered User
 
PenguinTommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Zvolen
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 1,281
vCash: 500
Today, Bettman said, the NHL did 3.3B this year !!!

Some interesting facts ... just imagine the current CBA would not expire this year but would be valid one more year.

Based on players would agree on 5% growth factor (they did every year), the Salary Cap (Upper Limit) for the next season would be 71.3M and the Cap Floor (Lower Limit) would be 55.3M

Cap : 71.3M
Floor : 55.3M

Unbelievable ... new negotiations would be very interesting

PenguinTommy is offline  
Closed Thread

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 12:54 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.