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.

Brooks claims PA will not use escalator, expect flat cap for 2017-18 (upd: $75m cap)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-12-2017, 01:35 PM
  #26
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
In terms of actual payout to players? ie the players will be receiving greater than 50% of HRR if Vegas doesn't contribute enough revenue?
Unknown. I was just speculating on one possible implementation. Alternatively it could just mean the cap can't go down due to Vegas but HRR/escrow remain unchanged.

BTW, the PA has been receiving more then 50% most of the current CBA. The owners paid the players an additional $100m above and beyond 50% of HRR in 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Do you have more info on this?

That's quite surprising, as it will start eating away at the expansion fee quite quickly. Add to that any revenue sharing that the franchise will receive.

No wonder the league was so wary to move into Quebec right now.
I saw a blurb on it in the media a year or so ago, haven't been able to find the link since then. Again, it was very brief and without detail. Just that the NHL/PA had agreed Vegas wouldn't negatively impact the PA financially.

It's common for expansion franchises in the major sports to be excluded from or have a diminished portion of revenue sharing for some period of time. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case with Vegas.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2017, 01:40 PM
  #27
Its a Trap
Space Fish
 
Its a Trap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: The side of a Hill
Country: United States
Posts: 244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Has the salary cap really brought in parity? 4 different teams have won the last 9 Stanley cups. 6 different teams won the 9 prior to the salary cap.
Good question really, especially when you consider that before the Cap from 95-05 New Jersey, Detroit and Colorado combined to win 8 cups with the only outliers being Dallas and Tampa Bay, whereas since 2008 Pittsburgh, Los Angeles and Chicago have combined to win the 8 of the last 10 Cups, outliers being Detroit and Boston. And yet the league seems more popular then ever.

What exactly has the salary Cap done?

Its a Trap is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2017, 03:55 PM
  #28
Flukeshot
Hextall Activate!
 
Flukeshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brampton, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,693
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Has the salary cap really brought in parity? 4 different teams have won the last 9 Stanley cups. 6 different teams won the 9 prior to the salary cap.
Primarily I mean parity in spending. And if the Cap were stagnant for longer I believe we'd see more player movement and talent re-distribution. The continuously increasing cap has allowed for teams to keep most their players.

Looking Pre-Cap vs Post, the numbers do support your claim, but I don't think just viewing Cup winners or even finalists is enough. (For the record, 12 yrs cap era and the 12 yrs preceding both have 7 winners and 9 different finalists who did not win in that time).

Flukeshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2017, 04:20 PM
  #29
sbjnyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
I agree with you. Brooks failed to mention this in the article and instead used the flat cap to bash Bettman and the NHL. Brooks' real problem is he wants the NYR to be allowed to outspend every other team other than Toronto by $30M.

Too bad. The NHL has been a much better league since the hard salary cap was instituted.
To be fair, the rangers have been a much better team since they (Sather) haven't been allowed to sign every washed up big-name FA out there.

sbjnyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2017, 05:13 PM
  #30
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 21,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris Zubov View Post
Give it up. The league has 10 teams still losing money. That's the real issue.
Brooks has been whining about the hard salary cap since its inception.

The NHL could propose contraction, but the players and owners don't want to contract. I guess the NYR stuck trying to manage the cap like every other organization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbjnyc View Post
To be fair, the rangers have been a much better team since they (Sather) haven't been allowed to sign every washed up big-name FA out there.
Quite true.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2017, 05:18 PM
  #31
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
I think Bob may be making a mistake assuming a 0% escalator would mean a flat $73m cap. Using his math a full 5% escalator would mean a cap of $76.6m. Higher then the $75.5m to $76m estimated by Daly a few months ago.

A $75.5m cap would mean HRR grew 3.3% year over year. While a $76.0m cap would be HRR growth of 4.0%.

An escalator >0% would be necessary just to keep the cap from shrinking.
Wasn't there a more recent number suggesting $77M with the escalator? I think one GM even mentioned a $77M cap impact on his decision. But of course I could be wrong and if so it would be at least the third time.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2017, 06:18 PM
  #32
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,459
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
Wasn't there a more recent number suggesting $77M with the escalator? I think one GM even mentioned a $77M cap impact on his decision. But of course I could be wrong and if so it would be at least the third time.
Bettman recently said it would be in a range from 73m(no escalator)-77m (escalator). He definitely rounded those numbers so it's hard to guess what the exact numbers would be.

dechire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2017, 06:26 PM
  #33
Caeldan
Moderator
Whippet Whisperer
 
Caeldan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,455
vCash: 100
I'm sure someone's familiar with this, but how many years in a row now is this that the cap is effectively flat without the use of the escalator?
Feels like it's been several.
And prior to that I believe cap growth was directly tied to the strength of the Canadian dollar against the US dollar was it not?

So how long has it been since the league actually saw 'real' growth, and not just artificial increases due to currency valuations or the PA negotiated escalator?

Caeldan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2017, 06:44 PM
  #34
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caeldan View Post
I'm sure someone's familiar with this, but how many years in a row now is this that the cap is effectively flat without the use of the escalator?
Feels like it's been several.
And prior to that I believe cap growth was directly tied to the strength of the Canadian dollar against the US dollar was it not?

So how long has it been since the league actually saw 'real' growth, and not just artificial increases due to currency valuations or the PA negotiated escalator?
Zero. The escalator applies to the prior season's actual revenue, not the prior season's salary cap.

So when they say "the cap will be flat if the PA doesn't use the escalator" what that means is HRR grew 5% year over year from 2015-16 to 2016-17. That's real 5% growth.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2017, 07:05 PM
  #35
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,205
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Its a Trap View Post
Good question really, especially when you consider that before the Cap from 95-05 New Jersey, Detroit and Colorado combined to win 8 cups with the only outliers being Dallas and Tampa Bay, whereas since 2008 Pittsburgh, Los Angeles and Chicago have combined to win the 8 of the last 10 Cups, outliers being Detroit and Boston. And yet the league seems more popular then ever.

What exactly has the salary Cap done?
It has caused a build through the draft.

Pitt, Chi, LA were all pretty terrible over a stretch to build their championship teams and even Boston to some extent.

You cannot win by buying a team now or keeping it together forever, so you have to draft smart and manage assets shrewdly. The quality of the hockey people now mean more than the size of the owners wallet.

ottawah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2017, 07:46 PM
  #36
Boris Zubov
Registered User
 
Boris Zubov's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Brooks has been whining about the hard salary cap since its inception.

The NHL could propose contraction, but the players and owners don't want to contract. I guess the NYR stuck trying to manage the cap like every other organization.
Brooks has been whining about the cap remaining flat, not the hard cap. His point is usually along the lines of the stagnant cap inhibiting contending teams like Chicago from keeping their rosters together. Exactly what happened to the Rangers with Hagelin.

http://nypost.com/2017/06/11/nhl-los...-a-hard-place/

His article yesterday blames the NHL for not growing hockey related revenue. Which goes back to what I said about the small market teams losing money.

Boris Zubov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2017, 09:32 PM
  #37
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 21,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris Zubov View Post
Brooks has been whining about the cap remaining flat, not the hard cap. His point is usually along the lines of the stagnant cap inhibiting contending teams like Chicago from keeping their rosters together. Exactly what happened to the Rangers with Hagelin.

http://nypost.com/2017/06/11/nhl-los...-a-hard-place/

His article yesterday blames the NHL for not growing hockey related revenue. Which goes back to what I said about the small market teams losing money.
Revenue is not profit and losses. The primary reason revenue in U.S. dollars has not seen growth recently is the decline of the Canadian dollar.

Brooks was a big proponent of the luxury tax. He has never liked the hard cap. Too bad!!

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 11:06 AM
  #38
Tom ServoMST3K
Eff the DH
 
Tom ServoMST3K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Just off 75
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,940
vCash: 949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aavco Cup View Post
This could be announced later today. I believe that is using a 2.5% escalator.

Relevant tweet shared from the Jets Board.

Tom ServoMST3K is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2017, 11:36 AM
  #39
Shwag33
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Revenue is not profit and losses. The primary reason revenue in U.S. dollars has not seen growth recently is the decline of the Canadian dollar.

Brooks was a big proponent of the luxury tax. He has never liked the hard cap. Too bad!!


I'm shocked someone from NYC would be supportive of a luxury tax system like MLB....

Shwag33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2017, 02:33 PM
  #40
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 67,539
vCash: 500

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2017, 07:08 PM
  #41
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 67,539
vCash: 500

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2017, 11:24 AM
  #42
tony d
Irish Spring Soap
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 57,480
vCash: 500
Good to see the cap go up a little. Shows growth in the game.

__________________


Celebrating 10 yrs. at hfboards today. Thanks everyone for making the past decade so memorable. Here's to 10 more years.
tony d 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 11:23 PM.

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.