It's Going Too Fast

[Eddie_Shack]

We had a lockout a few years ago because the owners refused to settle with the union on a cap number, I believe they wanted something in the $35 million range. It seems they felt they couldn't be a strong profitable league with a cap figure in the $40 million area, that's too much they said.

NHL cap could rise more than expected - The Globe and Mail

If we're talking about $62 million right now, then either it's going up way too fucking fast, or the owners are a bunch of cheap pieces of shit. Or both, I guess. $62M is what the Wings and the Rags were spending back when the Wings were "buying all their Cups", and the Rags were... well, basically throwing briefcases of cash at anyone over the age of thirty. (My favorite sig on HF: "Giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys")

I just cannot believe that we have this many teams in the red, and the cap is supposed to go up $3M. We have another CBA coming up soon, and I don't want to see another work stoppage over this shit.

Also I'm not sure who that guy behind Bettman in the picture is, but judging by Bettman's face he's not being very respectful to Gary's back door.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

who knows where this is going ... total league revenue is being boosted by 10 teams maybe and the other teams are pretty much stagnant ... the more revenues rise ... the higher the cap ceiling and floor ... and the more teams at the bottom end that can barely survive with that floor number.

and what do they do when those teams struggling to meet the floor end up moving to a different market ... maybe Winnipeg ... Quebec City ... Southern Ontario

Lets just say the bottom 3 revenue generating teams relocate ... Islanders, Coyotes, Thrashers to Winnipeg Quebec City and Southern Ontario ... also lets assume these 3 new markets generate an average of 85 million in revenue (which I think is conservative)

my quick math 85 x 3 = 255 mill
islanders, coyotes thrashers generated 201 mill (according to forbes in 09-10)

so 54 mill in added league revenue with the 3 new markets

which means the cap would go up another possible 2 mill??? bit of a disincentive for the league to relocate because we might as well add another couple of teams that cant meet the cap floor

 

[Eddie_Shack]

who knows where this is going ... total league revenue is being boosted by 10 teams maybe and the other teams are pretty much stagnant ... the more revenues rise ... the higher the cap ceiling and floor ... and the more teams at the bottom end that can barely survive with that floor number.

and what do they do when those teams struggling to meet the floor end up moving to a different market ... maybe Winnipeg ... Quebec City ... Southern Ontario

Lets just say the bottom 3 revenue generating teams relocate ... Islanders, Coyotes, Thrashers to Winnipeg Quebec City and Southern Ontario ... also lets assume these 3 new markets generate an average of 85 million in revenue (which I think is conservative)

my quick math 85 x 3 = 255 mill
islanders, coyotes thrashers generated 201 mill (according to forbes in 09-10)

so 54 mill in added league revenue with the 3 new markets

which means the cap would go up another possible 2 mill??? bit of a disincentive for the league to relocate because we might as well add another couple of teams that cant meet the cap floor

I didn't even think of that, but you're right. The faster the cap rises, the more it could become even worse than the pre-cap era for small market teams.

 

[dash]

The irony is that Bob Goodenow and the players made a last ditch effort to save the 2004-05 season with a $45 million hard salary cap that had no tie to league revenues and it was rejected.

 

[dash]

As for smaller market teams, jstew is absolutely right, I don't think Winnipeg is a viable market at a $62 million cap. They'll spend to whatever the cap floor is, but after all this time, fans in the 'Peg want and deserve to see a team that can compete with the big spenders.

 

[Darkstone42]

Either the Cap needs to be flat or total league revenue needs to be evenly dispersed across all teams. I would lean toward the former so that good owners reap the benefits of their ownership. The fluctuation of the cap makes it tough on GMs, as well, in my opinion, since these increases are allowing them to spend more and more, which is driving salaries up in arbitration and free agency, and if the cap ever drops (and if it does, it will be drastic and sudden I expect), there will be no way to get under the cap. A flat cap makes salaries a lot more consistent from year to year, which is essential to parity.

 

[Eddie_Shack]

Either the Cap needs to be flat or total league revenue needs to be evenly dispersed across all teams. I would lean toward the former so that good owners reap the benefits of their ownership. The fluctuation of the cap makes it tough on GMs, as well, in my opinion, since these increases are allowing them to spend more and more, which is driving salaries up in arbitration and free agency, and if the cap ever drops (and if it does, it will be drastic and sudden I expect), there will be no way to get under the cap. A flat cap makes salaries a lot more consistent from year to year, which is essential to parity.

I like that idea. The cap could be renegotiated every three to four years, and would have a maximum of a 3% change up or down during the renegotiation process.

 

[Eddie_Shack]

The irony is that Bob Goodenow and the players made a last ditch effort to save the 2004-05 season with a $45 million hard salary cap that had no tie to league revenues and it was rejected.

That makes me feel all old and curmudgeon-ey inside.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

The owners got what they paid for here by not having the cap tied to revenue with a maximum of any kind.

I would have preferred a hard cap with a small adjustment each year based on inflation and that sort of thing, but didn't like the idea of it being directly tied to revenue.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

I'd like to see a hard cap with bonuses.

It'd work like this. Every team can spend up to say $45M. Depending on how much a team makes in GATE RECEIPTS in relation to the mean gate receipts across the league they get some kind of bonus cap space. Continue with revenue sharing to some degree. This would reward the teams that sell out regularly and let them feel that they are actually getting something for their good management.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I'd like to see a hard cap with bonuses.

It'd work like this. Every team can spend up to say $45M. Depending on how much a team makes in GATE RECEIPTS in relation to the mean gate receipts across the league they get some kind of bonus cap space. Continue with revenue sharing to some degree. This would reward the teams that sell out regularly and let them feel that they are actually getting something for their good management.

I'm not sure that's a totally fair statement.

Not sure anybody has called the Leafs or Rangers management good lately, and yet they continue to make a fortune.

Some teams can make money without even trying, others aren't so lucky.

 

[dash]

I fear the Flames have started to turn into Maple Leafs West (and not just because of all the ex-Leafs on the roster). No changes to management because the building is full with a 97% season ticket renewal. I guess it's too much to ask for a full building and a good hockey team (cue the Dan Aykroyd rant from "Dragnet")

 

[KennyBanyeah]

I'm not sure that's a totally fair statement.

Not sure anybody has called the Leafs or Rangers management good lately, and yet they continue to make a fortune.

Some teams can make money without even trying, others aren't so lucky.

That's a good point. LOL.