HFBoards

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

45 million cap for next year

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-15-2005, 04:00 PM
  #1
flyersrock1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 609
vCash: 500
45 million cap for next year

We might have lots of room now
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=147082&hubname=

flyersrock1 is offline  
Old
12-15-2005, 04:38 PM
  #2
RJ8812*
Hellooooo ladiiiies
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,092
vCash: 500
if the cap goes up, does that mean that the highest salary an individual player can earn will also go up? i think it's at what? $6.7mil? if it goes up to $45mil, thats probably $7mil+

RJ8812* is offline  
Old
12-15-2005, 04:46 PM
  #3
markzab
Registered User
 
markzab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA.
Country: United States
Posts: 4,450
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to markzab
I don't get it. They're gonna keep changing the cap every year? What happens if the cap is high one year so you sign contracts with player to meet that cap and then the next year it goes back down? You have to move those players? Thats a little ******** no?

markzab is offline  
Old
12-15-2005, 05:10 PM
  #4
phlacheesesteak
Registered User
 
phlacheesesteak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markzab79
Thats a little ******** no?
speaking of ******** i have two words for you.

Bett Man!!!


dont worry everything is under control, his condition is not, i repeat not contagious

remedy: NEW COMISH NOW!!

phlacheesesteak is offline  
Old
12-15-2005, 05:28 PM
  #5
Synthetic
Registered User
 
Synthetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Columbia, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 1,894
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Synthetic Send a message via MSN to Synthetic
Bettman is good for the game. If he hadn't had the lockout then then the NHL would still be losing money.

Synthetic is offline  
Old
12-15-2005, 05:31 PM
  #6
MojoJojo
Registered User
 
MojoJojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 9,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markzab79
I don't get it. They're gonna keep changing the cap every year? What happens if the cap is high one year so you sign contracts with player to meet that cap and then the next year it goes back down? You have to move those players? Thats a little ******** no?
Every player has a small part of their pay held in escrow until the end of the year. If revenue drops, each player gets paid a little less. In this way the cap is guaranteed to be based on 54% of league wide revenue.

MojoJojo is offline  
Old
12-15-2005, 05:56 PM
  #7
phlacheesesteak
Registered User
 
phlacheesesteak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gesthar
Bettman is good for the game. If he hadn't had the lockout then then the NHL would still be losing money.
No way is bettman good for the game. yeah if there wasnt a lockout the last year they would of probably lost money and this year they probably would have lost it too. but the lockout was inevitable its not like he chose that this was the right time to have a lockout..I cant believe there are still people who support bettman, it makes me sick

phlacheesesteak is offline  
Old
12-15-2005, 06:06 PM
  #8
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markzab79
I don't get it. They're gonna keep changing the cap every year? What happens if the cap is high one year so you sign contracts with player to meet that cap and then the next year it goes back down? You have to move those players? Thats a little ******** no?
The cap is set at a percentage of revenue, so yes, it will change every year. The NFL cap goes up every year due to increased revenue.

It stands to reason to expect that league-wide revenues will increase almost every year via inflation if nothing else.

i am dave is offline  
Old
12-15-2005, 06:06 PM
  #9
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
I think what a lot of people need to recognize is that revenue streams are up this year because of the strong Canadian dollar. It actually hasn't been much to do with the U.S. market at all. I will say though, that in defense, the salary cap has been a big bonus. But it has to be stressed that the Canadian dollar has helped generate revenue in a big way. A lot of the Canadian owners are paying less out of their pocket for American salaries and that's going to be big. When you consider that at one time, the Canadian dollar was only worth 67 cents American and now it's nearly 90 cents American, that's a big chunk of change that Canadian owners are saving.

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline  
Old
12-15-2005, 06:16 PM
  #10
markzab
Registered User
 
markzab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA.
Country: United States
Posts: 4,450
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to markzab
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitkanenPower
The cap is set at a percentage of revenue, so yes, it will change every year. The NFL cap goes up every year due to increased revenue.

It stands to reason to expect that league-wide revenues will increase almost every year via inflation if nothing else.
Ok, but the main question is:

Lets say in the offseason the flyers sign everyone to multi-year contracts. After signing, lets say they're right under the new cap at (lets say) 41m. The 06/07 season end (with the flyers winning the cup of course) and everyone is happy. All of a sudden in the offseason we find out that the new cap will be 38m for the 07/08 season. We're automatically over it now. Would we have to trade players to get under it or because we had the contracts in place while the cap was 41m, would it be allowed?

Sorry if thats confusing.

markzab is offline  
Old
12-15-2005, 07:23 PM
  #11
lynchmob450
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfphillystyle
No way is bettman good for the game. yeah if there wasnt a lockout the last year they would of probably lost money and this year they probably would have lost it too. but the lockout was inevitable its not like he chose that this was the right time to have a lockout..I cant believe there are still people who support bettman, it makes me sick
I'll tell you one thing...i was 100% behind Bettman during the lockout. His stance was the right stance. The game's finances called for MAJOR changes...and he promised everyone (owners, players and fans) that he would deliver. THAT is exactly what he did.

While i don't think he has been perfect, please don't dare say he has been horrible. If you compare him to the commissioners of the other major sports, only Taglibue (sp?) and Bettman have been able to stand up and crush their respective unions (well over due!). And what has this "crushing" done for the NHL?? The popularity of league will go through the roof in the coming years because all teams are equally capable of WINNING (only the NFL can say the same thing). If only MLB had the balls to stand up to their union...then you wouldn't know who will be playing in the playoffs 5 years before it happens!

lynchmob450 is offline  
Old
12-15-2005, 08:25 PM
  #12
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markzab79
Ok, but the main question is:

Lets say in the offseason the flyers sign everyone to multi-year contracts. After signing, lets say they're right under the new cap at (lets say) 41m. The 06/07 season end (with the flyers winning the cup of course) and everyone is happy. All of a sudden in the offseason we find out that the new cap will be 38m for the 07/08 season. We're automatically over it now. Would we have to trade players to get under it or because we had the contracts in place while the cap was 41m, would it be allowed?

Sorry if thats confusing.
I wouldn't think we'd have to trade players. If something like that were to take place, I'm thinking that's where the escrow comes into play.

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline  
Old
12-15-2005, 08:43 PM
  #13
phlacheesesteak
Registered User
 
phlacheesesteak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynchmob450
I'll tell you one thing...i was 100% behind Bettman during the lockout. His stance was the right stance. The game's finances called for MAJOR changes...and he promised everyone (owners, players and fans) that he would deliver. THAT is exactly what he did.

While i don't think he has been perfect, please don't dare say he has been horrible. If you compare him to the commissioners of the other major sports, only Taglibue (sp?) and Bettman have been able to stand up and crush their respective unions (well over due!). And what has this "crushing" done for the NHL?? The popularity of league will go through the roof in the coming years because all teams are equally capable of WINNING (only the NFL can say the same thing). If only MLB had the balls to stand up to their union...then you wouldn't know who will be playing in the playoffs 5 years before it happens!
I detest Bettman, the way he presents himself, he isnt a very good leader and in the end I doubt he will be held in the same prestige as the previous commissiioners in the NHL. I'm sure we can agree to disagree on that, with that said, I hope the new cap news means that it will be easier for Clarke to sign Gagne at the end of the season! (as well as some others)

phlacheesesteak is offline  
Old
12-15-2005, 09:17 PM
  #14
Flukeshot
Hextall Activate!
 
Flukeshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Milton, Ont
Country: Orkney Islands
Posts: 2,148
vCash: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Flyers_
if the cap goes up, does that mean that the highest salary an individual player can earn will also go up? i think it's at what? $6.7mil? if it goes up to $45mil, thats probably $7mil+
What is the maximum percent a player can be again? I think it's 20% so right now a player can be 7.8mil. So under $45m it would be 9mil allowed for one player. Big time UFA's will have to start higher market evaluators to decide on the length of new contracts. If you are a top UFA and can get the max one year, and you sign a long term deal, the cap could rise and you miss out on potential money OR the cap could lower and you win big because your salary can't be decreased.

However $45m IS the high estimate. What the actual amount will be is still far away. Anyone know if playoff revenues are counted, or are those just split separately? ALSO most importantly does anyone know when the NFL releases their annual Cap number? Is it early in the offseason so that teams know exactly what they will be allowed to spend? I'd presume the NHL number each year would have to be figured out before the UFA season began.

Flukeshot is offline  
Old
12-15-2005, 10:08 PM
  #15
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markzab79
Ok, but the main question is:

Lets say in the offseason the flyers sign everyone to multi-year contracts. After signing, lets say they're right under the new cap at (lets say) 41m. The 06/07 season end (with the flyers winning the cup of course) and everyone is happy. All of a sudden in the offseason we find out that the new cap will be 38m for the 07/08 season. We're automatically over it now. Would we have to trade players to get under it or because we had the contracts in place while the cap was 41m, would it be allowed?

Sorry if thats confusing.

I think the stories coming out of the CBA were pretty clear that you can't be over the cap...ever. So if the cap were to drop - something that i believe would be highly unlikely - then teams exceeding your hypothetical cap would be stuck trying to dump salary.

i am dave is offline  
Old
12-15-2005, 10:38 PM
  #16
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitkanenPower
I think the stories coming out of the CBA were pretty clear that you can't be over the cap...ever. So if the cap were to drop - something that i believe would be highly unlikely - then teams exceeding your hypothetical cap would be stuck trying to dump salary.
Well, isn't that what the salary escrow is all about? If salaries exceed revenue, then all the escrow goes back to the owners?

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline  
Old
12-16-2005, 12:08 AM
  #17
Don Draper
Registered User
 
Don Draper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ottawa
Posts: 3,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16
I think what a lot of people need to recognize is that revenue streams are up this year because of the strong Canadian dollar. It actually hasn't been much to do with the U.S. market at all. I will say though, that in defense, the salary cap has been a big bonus. But it has to be stressed that the Canadian dollar has helped generate revenue in a big way. A lot of the Canadian owners are paying less out of their pocket for American salaries and that's going to be big. When you consider that at one time, the Canadian dollar was only worth 67 cents American and now it's nearly 90 cents American, that's a big chunk of change that Canadian owners are saving.
that has something to do with it, but its been reported the biggest increase has been through the southern states who are drawing record numbers, and the large jump in attendance is being attributed to the Souths stellar numbers.

Don Draper is offline  
Old
12-16-2005, 01:40 AM
  #18
bure94
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 717
vCash: 500
escrow is right.

If you go for 40m to 38m cap, all the players have their salaries reduced by that %, so a 4m player will only aget 3.8m that year.

The NHL is taking escrow each paycheque, think of it as income tax.

bure94 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 04:31 AM.

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.