Cap Going up to 48-49

Bettman said he expects league revenues to have increased between 6.5-7 per cent this season, which means the $44-million salary cap will likely rise to between $48 million or $49 million for next season;

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=209177&hubname=nhl

so basically we lost a whole season for nothing, since back in january 2 years ago the players wanted a cap at 50 million and the league wanted it at 45 million and they couldnt agree on a nuber in between

thanks for nothing NHL and NHLPA

this is good news for the devils however, gives us alittle breathing room so we dont have to be right up against the cap all year (hopefully)

so basically we lost a whole season for nothing, since back in january 2 years ago the players wanted a cap at 50 million and the league wanted it at 45 million and they couldnt agree on a nuber in between

thanks for nothing NHL and NHLPA

this is good news for the devils however, gives us alittle breathing room so we dont have to be right up against the cap all year (hopefully)

Ummm, no. Revenue sharing is a big thing. And players get a fixed percent of it so I don't see a problem. If anything, the fans are feeling it from the high ticket prices.

So we've got a lot of cap space then? Hell Buffalo might even be able to pull off Drury and Briere. The max a player can make is 9.6 at 48 million or 9.8 at 49 million :shakehead there goes salaries again.

Here's a question: If the cap goes down a significant amount after next year, do players' salaries go down too?

The article didn't quote Bettman on the cap increase. If he did say that it was going up 6.5%-7% that would make the cap approximately $47M (44 * 1.07), not 48-49. I think either the reporter was a little overzelous with his calculation or the 6.5-7% figure is wrong.

What the reporter actually said was that "Bettman said he expects league revenues to have increased between 6.5-7%." The cap increase may go up by the same amount or the league and the PA might decide on something higher or lower. Who really knows?

Here's a question: If the cap goes down a significant amount after next year, do players' salaries go down too?
No.

The article didn't quote Bettman on the cap increase. If he did say that it was going up 6.5%-7% that would make the cap approximately $47M (44 * 1.07), not 48-49. I think either the reporter was a little overzelous with his calculation or the 6.5-7% figure is wrong.

What the reporter actually said was that "Bettman said he expects league revenues to have increased between 6.5-7%." The cap increase may go up by the same amount or the league and the PA might decide on something higher or lower. Who really knows?

I think there's a clause where if league revenues go over a certain point, the players get a higher percentage of them. That probably exsplains the difference.

The article didn't quote Bettman on the cap increase. If he did say that it was going up 6.5%-7% that would make the cap approximately $47M (44 * 1.07), not 48-49. I think either the reporter was a little overzelous with his calculation or the 6.5-7% figure is wrong.

What the reporter actually said was that "Bettman said he expects league revenues to have increased between 6.5-7%." The cap increase may go up by the same amount or the league and the PA might decide on something higher or lower. Who really knows?

I think the "48-49 mil" figure comes from this:

Q. Gary, do you have the exact number for the salary cap for next
season?
COMMISSIONER BETTMAN: Not yet, but you can do a projection as
follows. The cap is linked to revenues. Revenues this year will grow
between 6.5 and 7 percent. So you can do your own math and expect the
growth at least in that range.

Q. I can't do math, so what would that be (laughter)?
COMMISSIONER BETTMAN: Somewhere in the $48 to $49 million range.
And that assumes we don't put in a kicker and project additional revenue
growth next year as well. But that's the vicinity of where we think we'll
be.

thats an excerpt from the transcript of the conference on hockeybuzz:

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=7768

The article didn't quote Bettman on the cap increase. If he did say that it was going up 6.5%-7% that would make the cap approximately $47M (44 * 1.07), not 48-49. I think either the reporter was a little overzelous with his calculation or the 6.5-7% figure is wrong.

What the reporter actually said was that "Bettman said he expects league revenues to have increased between 6.5-7%." The cap increase may go up by the same amount or the league and the PA might decide on something higher or lower. Who really knows?

I think there's a clause where if league revenues go over a certain point, the players get a higher percentage of them. That probably exsplains the difference.
Correct.

The players had a 54% share in revenues the past two years. If league revenues are between $2.2B and $2.4B the players receive between 55% and 56%. Between $2.4B and $2.7B the players receive between 56% and 57%. Over $2.7B and the players receive 57%.

This is in the CBA in section 50.4b.

I believe the NHL made around $2.1B last year (correct me if I'm wrong) so a 7% increase would take that to $2.247B.

so basically we lost a whole season for nothing, since back in january 2 years ago the players wanted a cap at 50 million and the league wanted it at 45 million and they couldnt agree on a nuber in between

thanks for nothing NHL and NHLPA

this is good news for the devils however, gives us alittle breathing room so we dont have to be right up against the cap all year (hopefully)



Goodenow feels like a real jackass now! LOL

No.

Are you sure? I thought that the salaries were tied directly with the cap value and if the cap dropped, the salaries dropped. I would figure that the cap hit for each team would at least drop.

Are you sure? I thought that the salaries were tied directly with the cap value and if the cap dropped, the salaries dropped. I would figure that the cap hit for each team would at least drop.

The players salaries themselves nor the cap hits go down. That said teams would have to cut would have to cut payroll meaning the Free Agents that year would be screwed and get far less than previous FA classes.

That said I don't think the Cap will ever go down significantly. We may not see a big jump like the last two seasons but it will continue to go up. Revenues have gone up every year since at least 93-93 with exception for the lockout shortened 94-95 season. So unless the league completly bottoms out it is safe to assume a small increase in revenues each year.

Are you sure? I thought that the salaries were tied directly with the cap value and if the cap dropped, the salaries dropped. I would figure that the cap hit for each team would at least drop.
He's right. That's the danger of spending right up to the cap. Plus teams usually don't have 100% of the old cap spent for next year before they announce (or have a decent idea) of the figure.

You'd see a team comprised half of 4th line checkers and rookies before the NHLPA let owners reduce salaries on current contracts again.

Ummm, no. Revenue sharing is a big thing. And players get a fixed percent of it so I don't see a problem. If anything, the fans are feeling it from the high ticket prices.

no you missed what i was saying....the players were fighting such a low salary cap number and the league was fighting such a high salary cap number, and yet we started with an incredibly low number and now we are back to a high number. This in essence makes the two sides locked in a stalemate ultimately causing the cancellation of the season 2 years ago completely pointless.

And you are absolutely right most fans are the only ones getting screwed with this new CBA deal because ticket prices have gone through the roof, which is partially the reason for league revenues to increase yet again (revenues increasing is not necessarily a bad thing for hockey however)

Assuming that league revenues continue to grow (be it artificially through increased ticket prices or through actually drawing more fans to the game) the cap will keep getting higher and higher and then the inflated players salaries will be higher than ever.

Basically there was no point to my post i just felt like ranting alittle bit :)

no you missed what i was saying....the players were fighting such a low salary cap number and the league was fighting such a high salary cap number, and yet we started with an incredibly low number and now we are back to a high number. This in essence makes the two sides locked in a stalemate ultimately causing the cancellation of the season 2 years ago completely pointless.

And you are absolutely right most fans are the only ones getting screwed with this new CBA deal because ticket prices have gone through the roof, which is partially the reason for league revenues to increase yet again (revenues increasing is not necessarily a bad thing for hockey however)

Assuming that league revenues continue to grow (be it artificially through increased ticket prices or through actually drawing more fans to the game) the cap will keep getting higher and higher and then the inflated players salaries will be higher than ever.

Basically there was no point to my post i just felt like ranting alittle bit :)

Thought you had a good point. The lock out was retarded and really hurt hockey, and was ultimately pointless, as two years later we are essentially back to the same place. Both sides were dummies and all we, the fans, got to show for it is higher ticket prices, the trapezoid and the shootout. Yippee.

Thought you had a good point. The lock out was retarded and really hurt hockey, and was ultimately pointless, as two years later we are essentially back to the same place. Both sides were dummies and all we, the fans, got to show for it is higher ticket prices, the trapezoid and the shootout. Yippee.
exactly what i was trying to say....thank you for being smarter than me :)

You know if you adjusted the current cap up by inflation, you'll see its not much higher. 45 mil just isnt the same now as it was back 2 years ago.

You know if you adjusted the current cap up by inflation, you'll see its not much higher. 45 mil just isnt the same now as it was back 2 years ago.

Bingo. This really shouldnt be so hard to understand.

You know if you adjusted the current cap up by inflation, you'll see its not much higher. 45 mil just isnt the same now as it was back 2 years ago.

But the key is is that we have 28 million tied up in 11 guys for many years, especially key guys (Marty, Patty, Langer) all have multi year deals as does Colin White and other guys. So while other free agents salaries will rise, some really good players will seem to be a bargain, like......Frolov at 2 million till 2010........imagine a player like that, and you still have another 46 million to spend.

Correct.

The players had a 54% share in revenues the past two years. If league revenues are between $2.2B and $2.4B the players receive between 55% and 56%. Between $2.4B and $2.7B the players receive between 56% and 57%. Over $2.7B and the players receive 57%.

This is in the CBA in section 50.4b.

I believe the NHL made around $2.1B last year (correct me if I'm wrong) so a 7% increase would take that to $2.247B.

2.7b x .57 = 1.539b
1.539b / 30clubs = 51.3m

2.7b x .57 = 1.539b
1.539b / 30clubs = 51.3m

Well, that wouldn't be the true cap. That is an average of what each team could payout in salary for the players not to give anything back in escrow. The cap would be much larger. That doesn't take into fact teams that don't spend anywhere near the cap.

For example, this year's 44 million dollar cap.

44 million x 30 clubs = 1.32 billion
1.32/.54=2.444 billion

But we know it was pegged ~ 2.1 billion

2.7b x .57 = 1.539b
1.539b / 30clubs = 51.3m
That would be the midpoint in that case. The cap ceiling is 8M more than the midpoint giving a cap of 59.3M. There are other factors involved but that's approx. what it would be.

Goodenow feels like a real jackass now! LOL

They should all feel like jackasses. I'd be concerned about the runaway Cap here, because it's going to snap back. Wouldn't sign dumb contracts anymore, there's a chance to cause some serious harm.

They should all feel like jackasses. I'd be concerned about the runaway Cap here, because it's going to snap back. Wouldn't sign dumb contracts anymore, there's a chance to cause some serious harm.
How's it going to snap back? The NHL has increased revenues for the last 20 years (barring lockout-type years).

How's it going to snap back? The NHL has increased revenues for the last 20 years (barring lockout-type years).

I can't explain it, other than I feel like they're not being honest. It's gone up 1/6th
in 2 seasons. I wouldn't expect that to keep happening and I wouldn't sign deals that would get me close to it, in the future, anymore. A bump down of even $1 million could cause havoc.

It's clear that the lockout was predicated on lies and I wouldn't be surprised if the supposed "growth" going on post-lockout is complete BS caused by a CDN currency rally (where the key revenue makers reside), or some kind of nebulous fudging by the league to make it look like they did the "right thing" by losing a season and that the sport is growing by leaps and bound and is on its' way, even when most indictators don't make that look like it's the case, at all.

I mean, Bettman was saying the NHL needed a Cap in the $30 million's in order for the league to succeed and thrive. That was obviously fudged BS if his message today is true. Or is this fudged BS?

^I agree, coming out of a complete season without hockey, the NHL should be focused on slow intelligent growth. After two post-lockout seasons, setting the cap near the upper reaches of the pre-cap teams is folly.

^I agree, coming out of a complete season without hockey, the NHL should be focused on slow intelligent growth. After two post-lockout seasons, setting the cap near the upper reaches of the pre-cap teams is folly.

It's set based on on the total league revenues. The cap goes up at the same rate of the revenues. There is no decision by anyone to set where the cap is, it's black and white in the CBA. The midpoint is 54% of the total revenue with the salary cap being 8 million more than that point.

I can't explain it, other than I feel like they're not being honest. It's gone up 1/6th
in 2 seasons. I wouldn't expect that to keep happening and I wouldn't sign deals that would get me close to it, in the future, anymore. A bump down of even $1 million could cause havoc.

It's clear that the lockout was predicated on lies and I wouldn't be surprised if the supposed "growth" going on post-lockout is complete BS caused by a CDN currency rally (where the key revenue makers reside), or some kind of nebulous fudging by the league to make it look like they did the "right thing" by losing a season and that the sport is growing by leaps and bound and is on its' way, even when most indictators don't make that look like it's the case, at all.

I mean, Bettman was saying the NHL needed a Cap in the $30 million's in order for the league to succeed and thrive. That was obviously fudged BS if his message today is true. Or is this fudged BS?
Why would it be fudged? So the owners would have to give the players 54-56% of their fudged numbers? If anything it would be fudged on the low side so the owners could pocket 100% of the unreported revenue.

A drop in the cap by 1M would not do ANYTHING. We were the most cap crunched team there was last year and we only have 28M committed at this point. If the cap dropped to 43M sure we'd have a pretty crappy team next year but it wouldn't cause havoc.