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
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.

NHL Payrolls..2001 -> 2004

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-21-2004, 03:41 AM
  #1
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
NHL Payrolls..2001 -> 2004

NHL PAYROLLS 2001-2004

Anaheim- $28 430 000 -> $53 269 750

Atlanta- $17 818 175 -> $28 547 500

Boston- $31 875 576 -> $46 569 000

Buffalo- $38 690 416 -> $32 954 250

Calgary- $26 542 500 -> $36 402 575

Carolina- $32 473 250 -> $35 908 738

Chicago- $29 700 000 -> $30 867 502

Colorado- $51 692 500 -> $63 382 458

Columbus- $18 287 400 -> $34 000 000

Dallas- $50 050 000 -> $68 578 885

Detroit- $55 107 500 -> $77 856 109

Edmonton- $25 050 000 -> $33 375 000

Florida- $32 450 000 -> $26 127 500

Los Angeles- $34 557 500 -> $55 833 800

Minnesota- $11 737 500 -> $27 200 500

Montreal- $26 529 200 -> $38 857 000

Nashville- $18 437 500 -> $21 932 500

New Jersey- $39 151 118 -> $48 931 658

NY Islanders- $23 354 760 -> $40 865 500

NY Rangers- $56 887 037 -> $76 488 716

Ottawa- $29 086 250 -> $39 590 000

Philadelphia- $40 932 500 -> $68 175 247

Phoenix- $34 626 833 -> $39 249 750

Pittsburgh -$33 677 333 -> $23 400 000

San Jose- $42 070 000 -> $34 455 000

St. Louis- $47 092 500 -> $61 675 000

Tampa Bay- $17 989 000 -> $34 065 379

Toronto- $41 003 187 -> $62 458 140

Vancouver- $24 703 750 -> $42 074 500

Washington- $41 275 000 -> $50 895 750

And the NHL system now isn't inflationary? I know there were some salary dumps so this looks like it is the payrolls fromt he start of last season.

Source:http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/hocke...s/default.aspx

here's another site that goes further back:

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

 
Old
12-21-2004, 08:44 AM
  #2
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,566
vCash: 500
WOW!!! When you see it on paper like that, it's no wonder we have a work stoppage...at this point I am still on side with the owners for some sort of cost certainty or cost controls, but at the same time you have to the union some credit for the 24% rollback, and although their rollback doesn't address the systemic issues the league talks about, it was still a large hit for the players.

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 08:49 AM
  #3
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Or if you look at it a different way...

Anaheim- 87% increase

Atlanta- 60% increase

Boston- 46% increase

Buffalo- 15% decrease

Calgary- 37% increase

Carolina- 10% increase

Chicago- 4% increase

Colorado- 22% increase

Columbus- 86% increase

Dallas- 37% increase

Detroit- 41% increase

Edmonton- 33% increase

Florida- 20% decrease

Los Angeles- 61% increase

Minnesota- 131% increase

Montreal- 46% increase

Nashville- 19% increase

New Jersey- 25% increase

NY Islanders- 75% increase

NY Rangers- 34% increase

Ottawa- 36% increase

Philadelphia- 66% increase

Phoenix- 13% increase

Pittsburgh - 31% decrease

San Jose- 18% decrease

St. Louis- 31% increase

Tampa Bay- 89% increase

Toronto- 52% increase

Vancouver- 70% increase

Washington- 23% increase

Conversely, wages for the average American have seen a trend of a 2.2% increase over the same time frame. The players are so hard done by.


Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 10:24 AM
  #4
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,330
vCash: 500
Total payrolls in 2001: $1,001,278,285
Total payrolls in 2004: $1,333,987,707

The overall difference, an increase in 25%.

The NHLPA's 24% rollback proposal would essentially rollback the spending to 2001, and even at 2001 there were teams in trouble and the problem was well pronounced.

Guest is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 11:18 AM
  #5
chiavsfan
Registered User
 
chiavsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 4,426
vCash: 500
I am on the owners side in this dispute...but at the same time, I would like to see the revenue as well as the payroll increases. For example, I know with Chicago's 4 percent increase, that they make a lot more money. That's always been the critisism of Bill Wirtz

chiavsfan is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 11:22 AM
  #6
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey_Nut99
And the NHL system now isn't inflationary? I know there were some salary dumps so this looks like it is the payrolls fromt he start of last season.

Nobody is saying that the current system isn't inflationary, although league GM's & owners play a huge role in that.

Offers being made are re-setting the market, and also trying to eliminate, or drastically reduce the inflationary aspects of the previous CBA (arbitration, qualifying offers).

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 11:22 AM
  #7
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
Total payrolls in 2001: $1,001,278,285
Total payrolls in 2004: $1,333,987,707

The overall difference, an increase in 25%.

The NHLPA's 24% rollback proposal would essentially rollback the spending to 2001, and even at 2001 there were teams in trouble and the problem was well pronounced.
The NHL want a cap on total player costs, not just payroll. These totals do not include app. 10% in player costs dealing with medical, per diem, pension etc. or up to 7 million per team in payroll bonus money. I'm sure these numbers will start getting more press as more information becomes available.

Suprised Bettman didn't use these figures in his speach last week. The numbers more than back up what he was saying and back up the owners need for a link between revenue and player costs.

eye is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 11:28 AM
  #8
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
Hey Hockey Nut & Iconoclast, nicely done.
-H

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 12:05 PM
  #9
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
Total payrolls in 2001: $1,001,278,285
Total payrolls in 2004: $1,333,987,707

The overall difference, an increase in 25%.

The NHLPA's 24% rollback proposal would essentially rollback the spending to 2001, and even at 2001 there were teams in trouble and the problem was well pronounced.
So teams that were in trouble then or now should not have unreasonable expectations of revenue growth, and should therefore realize the importance of living within their budget.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 12:08 PM
  #10
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
Atlanta- 60% increase
Columbus- 86% increase
Minnesota- 131% increase
Nashville- 19% increase
The 4 most recent expansion teams should be taken out of the mix when talking about changes in payroll.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 12:48 PM
  #11
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
The 4 most recent expansion teams should be taken out of the mix when talking about changes in payroll.
Fair enough then. Here are the teams that saw a 20% increase in salary costs alone (almost 10 times the cost of living). This does not include the payroll costs that the owners pay above and beyond that.

Anaheim- 87% increase, Boston- 46% increase, Calgary- 37% increase, Colorado- 22% increase, Dallas- 37% increase, Detroit- 41% increase, Edmonton- 33% increase, Florida- 20% decrease, Los Angeles- 61% increase, Montreal- 46% increase, New Jersey- 25% increase, NY Islanders- 75% increase, NY Rangers- 34% increase, Ottawa- 36% increase, Philadelphia- 66% increase, St. Louis- 31% increase, Tampa Bay- 89% increase, Toronto- 52% increase, Vancouver- 70% increase, Washington- 23% increase.

That is unbelievable. Almost every team in the league has been subjected to a 20% or worse bump in salaries. No business survives that type of inflation in their human resources. These is a very good reason for the game being in the shape it is. BOTH sides are to blame. The owners have admitted that they didn't show enough sack and were afraid of being sued for collusion. Its time for the players to admit their portion of the responsibility and work toward a solution that guarantees success for both sides of the partnership. A guarantee of 55% of revenues is a pretty fair offer IMO, no matter what type of business you are in.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 01:24 PM
  #12
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,556
vCash: 500
Rangers payroll should be around a 25-30% decrease from 2001. And if you did the increase/decrease from the start of the 2003 season to the end it would be like a 50% decrease.

The title should read 2001-2003 since those salaries are from Oct 2003.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 01:27 PM
  #13
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
The title should read 2001-2003 since those salaries are from Oct 2003.
Which covers salaries for the 2003-2004 season. Is the obvious sometimes too difficult to see?


Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 08:11 PM
  #14
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,593
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Nobody is saying that the current system isn't inflationary, although league GM's & owners play a huge role in that.

Offers being made are re-setting the market, and also trying to eliminate, or drastically reduce the inflationary aspects of the previous CBA (arbitration, qualifying offers).

There is nothing the players offer that will do it, they knocked a few hundred thousand off rookies but kept the bonuses (which can be double the salary rate). They agreed to curb qualifying raises but that doesn't help much when most raises (and player inflation) are much higher than the 10% any way.

Unless the players agree to lock abitration awards to the equivalent of 2003-2004 less 24% for the live of the CBA there is now genuine way to guarantee to keep prices down. And Bob knows this.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 08:13 PM
  #15
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,593
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Rangers payroll should be around a 25-30% decrease from 2001. And if you did the increase/decrease from the start of the 2003 season to the end it would be like a 50% decrease.

The title should read 2001-2003 since those salaries are from Oct 2003.
Where did those salaries go? They didn't disappear in a puff of smoke. They got shifted to other teams. Net effect is that some other team went up when the Rangers went down. It makes little difference to the whole rate of inflation even if it does make the Rangers look marginally better at the end of the season because some other team now looks even worse.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 08:50 PM
  #16
roast
Registered User
 
roast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 858
vCash: 500
The Rangers numbers "should" be lower, but only due to massive salary dumping. In a few weeks.

roast is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 09:28 PM
  #17
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
Total payrolls in 2001: $1,001,278,285
Total payrolls in 2004: $1,333,987,707

The overall difference, an increase in 25%.

The NHLPA's 24% rollback proposal would essentially rollback the spending to 2001, and even at 2001 there were teams in trouble and the problem was well pronounced.

Do you have the REVENUS in 2001 & in 2004 ? Because thoses numbers doesn't mean anything without it. a 24% rollback in salary , is there a 24% rollback in revenues ?

This is like reading the Inquire with showoff titles but with little info on it.

I don't blame you on this, I could have taken the 1st post instead.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 10:31 PM
  #18
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 34,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Nobody is saying that the current system isn't inflationary, although league GM's & owners play a huge role in that.

Offers being made are re-setting the market, and also trying to eliminate, or drastically reduce the inflationary aspects of the previous CBA (arbitration, qualifying offers).

I see the Owner's position consisting of two prongs. You addressed prong number one. Rolling back some of the worst elements of the last CBA that have allowed the game to teeter on the brink of ruin. I think that the players seems to be on board to one degree or another with prong one, as shown by their proposal.

But the league also seems to be looking forward as well, and this is prong two. They see that leagues that have instituted parity and Caps of some form or another are thriving and want to go that direction. To be honest I am not entirely sure why the players would cry so many tears over this attempt, NFL players are hardly starving, NBA players have salaries that would put the best compensated hockey player to shame. Keep the excitement leaguewide all year long with each team meaningfully active in the FA market every year, and as well, yes, having to make painful choices on who to keep, who to let go. Grow the pie overall, and everyone wins.

Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 07:38 AM
  #19
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
But the league also seems to be looking forward as well, and this is prong two. They see that leagues that have instituted parity and Caps of some form or another are thriving and want to go that direction. To be honest I am not entirely sure why the players would cry so many tears over this attempt, NFL players are hardly starving, NBA players have salaries that would put the best compensated hockey player to shame. Keep the excitement leaguewide all year long with each team meaningfully active in the FA market every year, and as well, yes, having to make painful choices on who to keep, who to let go. Grow the pie overall, and everyone wins.
The NHL owners and Gary Bettman want absolutely nothing to with an NBA style cap.

26 of the 29 teams in the NBA are over the cap, and some teams by as much as $40 million. I've heard Bettman twice on the radio flat out say he does not want an NBA style cap. Bettman wants a hard cap like the NFL.

I think you would find the NHLPA very receptive to the NBA CBA.


BTW: - the NBA is headed for a lockout next year as well, as their CBA is also up.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 08:17 AM
  #20
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
...leagues that have instituted parity and Caps of some form or another are thriving and want to go that direction. To be honest I am not entirely sure why the players would cry so many tears over this attempt...
If they accept a cap, the union loses half it's reason for being. Goodenow becomes a figurehead, instead of a kingmaker, and players become more accountable for their performance on the ice. Worker accountability, and control of capital outlay by management; these are goals that unions are universally opposed to.

-HckyFght!

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 09:05 AM
  #21
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 115,055
vCash: 1045
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
players become more accountable for their performance on the ice.

What does a cap have to do with this? All of the things you said can equally be turn the other way and can be used as owners need a safety net because they don't know how to spend their money? That has nothing to do with a union. If you want you can just say that you beleive the owners are God and the players a trash (its not like some people haven't already blindly done that already

GKJ is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 09:13 AM
  #22
It Kills Me
Registered User
 
It Kills Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
The NHL owners and Gary Bettman want absolutely nothing to with an NBA style cap.

26 of the 29 teams in the NBA are over the cap, and some teams by as much as $40 million. I've heard Bettman twice on the radio flat out say he does not want an NBA style cap. Bettman wants a hard cap like the NFL.

I think you would find the NHLPA very receptive to the NBA CBA.


BTW: - the NBA is headed for a lockout next year as well, as their CBA is also up.
Didn't the NBA extend their CBA? Because owners often own a NHL and NBA team.

It Kills Me is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 09:16 AM
  #23
Johnnybegood13
Registered User
 
Johnnybegood13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 6,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Do you have the REVENUS in 2001 & in 2004 ? Because thoses numbers doesn't mean anything without it. a 24% rollback in salary , is there a 24% rollback in revenues ?

This is like reading the Inquire with showoff titles but with little info on it.

I don't blame you on this, I could have taken the 1st post instead.
Why? the PA doesn't want to link salaries with revenues..remember!

Anyway i'm sure you can find your numbers here

Johnnybegood13 is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 11:11 AM
  #24
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
How did garunteeing Jagr 12 million in accordance with the CBA make him accountable for his quality of play?
-HckyFght

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 04:15 PM
  #25
HF2002
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
The NHL want a cap on total player costs, not just payroll. These totals do not include app. 10% in player costs dealing with medical, per diem, pension etc. or up to 7 million per team in payroll bonus money. I'm sure these numbers will start getting more press as more information becomes available.

Suprised Bettman didn't use these figures in his speach last week. The numbers more than back up what he was saying and back up the owners need for a link between revenue and player costs.
He probably has something quite similar:

- flies first class, stays at 5 star hotels
- big salary, nice pension
- full medical
- every meal is a "business meal" as soon as he says the word hockey just once
- hourly pinyata parties down at NHL HQs
- a lifetime supply of the official forehead polish of the NHL

HF2002 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 11:59 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.