Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

shawn antoski

$70.3 million Salary Cap (tsnbobmckenzie)

Recommended Posts

http://twitter.com/#.../TSNBobMckenzie

Bob McKenzie@TSNBobMcKenzie

Keeping in mind there's a new CBA coming (hopefully), upper limit of salary cap for next season (technically speaking) is $70.3M.

Bob McKenzie@TSNBobMcKenzie

In other words, IF the CBA weren't expiring, next season's salary cap based on Hockey Related Revenue would be $70.3M. But CBA is expiring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the important part of his statement... if the CBA wasn't expiring that is what the cap would be.

Has to be expected when you replaced one of the lowest revenue teams in Atlanta with Winnipeg which is much higher revenue.

As a matter of fact, if you do that a couple more times (other bottom teams like Phoenix)... the cap ceiling (and floor) would rise to the point where it would bankrupt a dozen teams in the league to try to match it.

That is one of the main reasons why Bettman has been resistant to letting those teams move and why he certainly didn't want another REALLY high revenue team coming into southern Ontario. Imagine adding another team with Toronto-like revenues into that mix and it would upset the entire delicate balance of the league's finances.

Of course it is all silly of Bettman and his cronies to purposefully try to keep the league revenues down. They have to just bite the bullet and know we are going to go through a short transition period where 2-5 more teams relocate to better cities in which to do business.... the whole league comes out of that looking like roses.

Bettman personally has too much at stake in the weak southern markets so that would never happen until he is gone. It does however, give the players a lot of good arguments in collective bargaining. They can argue all day long that the revenues are going up and if the league wants to prop up bad franchises they can do it by revenue sharing and not by having the players do it for the owners by accepting smaller salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lockout. I wouldn't get too worked up about the cap ceiling as poor teams are going to whine about the cap floor being too high. Big reason for a lockout. Cheers.

TOML

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lockout. I wouldn't get too worked up about the cap ceiling as poor teams are going to whine about the cap floor being too high. Big reason for a lockout. Cheers.

TOML

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the important part of his statement... if the CBA wasn't expiring that is what the cap would be.

Has to be expected when you replaced one of the lowest revenue teams in Atlanta with Winnipeg which is much higher revenue.

As a matter of fact, if you do that a couple more times (other bottom teams like Phoenix)... the cap ceiling (and floor) would rise to the point where it would bankrupt a dozen teams in the league to try to match it.

That is one of the main reasons why Bettman has been resistant to letting those teams move and why he certainly didn't want another REALLY high revenue team coming into southern Ontario. Imagine adding another team with Toronto-like revenues into that mix and it would upset the entire delicate balance of the league's finances.

Of course it is all silly of Bettman and his cronies to purposefully try to keep the league revenues down. They have to just bite the bullet and know we are going to go through a short transition period where 2-5 more teams relocate to better cities in which to do business.... the whole league comes out of that looking like roses.

Bettman personally has too much at stake in the weak southern markets so that would never happen until he is gone. It does however, give the players a lot of good arguments in collective bargaining. They can argue all day long that the revenues are going up and if the league wants to prop up bad franchises they can do it by revenue sharing and not by having the players do it for the owners by accepting smaller salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet, sign Parise long term

Sign Suter long term

RFA offer sheet Weber long term

team is set

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHL is a business just like any other sports league and a business' no.1 goal is to maximize revenue and profit. If this is bettman's reason for not moving teams from struggling markets to more profitable markets then that's just stupid. Why hasn't this guy been fired yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHL is a business just like any other sports league and a business' no.1 goal is to maximize revenue and profit. If this is bettman's reason for not moving teams from struggling markets to more profitable markets then that's just stupid. Why hasn't this guy been fired yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Canuck's away games that are televised what bothers me is seeing all those empty seats in weak markets where seats go begging to be filled while it's near impossible to get reasonable ticket's here for Canuck's game's...(me and my family managed to go to 2 game's very expensive for a family of 4) I feel these subsidy costs are being pushed onto the fan's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a simple question, Is the max Salary for players inflated when the cap goes up?

ex say the max cap is 12 M at 64 M ceiling. would it go to 13/14 at 70?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they should do is keep the same cap but have an exception that only 3 players can make more than 7 and if u have that u can go above the cap by 10% or something...

Otherwise you're back to square 1, and the parity is gone if the gap between floor and ceiling grows....

Just a thought.... Not sure if it's good or not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a simple question, Is the max Salary for players inflated when the cap goes up?

ex say the max cap is 12 M at 64 M ceiling. would it go to 13/14 at 70?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they should do is keep the same cap but have an exception that only 3 players can make more than 7 and if u have that u can go above the cap by 10% or something...

Otherwise you're back to square 1, and the parity is gone if the gap between floor and ceiling grows....

Just a thought.... Not sure if it's good or not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At 70mill Luongos cap hit at 5.3 will mke him very easy to trade, kind of screws B-Macs outlook on Louongo not being looked at by teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At 70mill Luongos cap hit at 5.3 will mke him very easy to trade, kind of screws B-Macs outlook on Louongo not being looked at by teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.