JM_ Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 59 minutes ago, mll said: Lavoie has TV revenue at about 650M over a full season. The NHL is around a 5 billion league - rough proxy 31 teams x 81.5M is about 2.5 billion. Share of revenue is 50/50. Without completing the season losses were estimated at around 1 billion. Players would have some 500M to pay back from their salaries. LeBrun several weeks ago estimated completing the season worth between 300 and 500M in revenue. It's going to still leave them with a sizeable gap compared to a normal season. The salary cap could well stay flat for next season but it will be even less reflective of revenue than in the past. yeah thats a pretty big hit. I'm not sure how much their final pay check amounted to in total but I doubt its that much! Its going to take years for the NHL to recover from this. Thats why I think we're going to see something like a compliance buyout or some sort of creative accounting that allows teams to shed older ineffective player salary, the league is going to need more younger exciting players to put out a product that gets more butts in the seats. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said: yeah thats a pretty big hit. I'm not sure how much their final pay check amounted to in total but I doubt its that much! Its going to take years for the NHL to recover from this. Thats why I think we're going to see something like a compliance buyout or some sort of creative accounting that allows teams to shed older ineffective player salary, the league is going to need more younger exciting players to put out a product that gets more butts in the seats. Compliance buyouts increases escrow. The buyout cost counts towards the players' share of revenue. Revenue is going down so if they increase the players' share by adding compliance buyouts on top of salary, they'll have to give more back. Not convinced players will want them. Don't think owners want to be pressured by fans to buy out players either. Several teams, including the Canucks per Dhaliwal, have cut back staff salary or furloughed employees. Their last paycheck was 120 million (they are paid circa every two weeks over the regular season). They've postponed payment and have yet to decide how much of it they want to give up now - they are going to owe money back. Edited May 28, 2020 by mll 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 is it possible that this virus and downturn in league revenue might work out for the Canucks as their young superstars come to the end of the ELC's? Petey surely would have been in the $8m/year range, but will likely get substantially less than that. Obviously he will likely get the same percentage of the cap, but if he sigs a 3 year deal and the cap goes up, thatmight work out for Van. INteresting times and I think we'll see significant changes in the league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazurus Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 Just now, stawns said: is it possible that this virus and downturn in league revenue might work out for the Canucks as their young superstars come to the end of the ELC's? Petey surely would have been in the $8m/year range, but will likely get substantially less than that. Obviously he will likely get the same percentage of the cap, but if he sigs a 3 year deal and the cap goes up, thatmight work out for Van. INteresting times and I think we'll see significant changes in the league I agree, I really don't see why the second contract would be so big, it isn't really necessary now the third, ya okay with a long term but IMO the first couple should be all the same both Pettersson and Hughes should be no more than 6 to 6.5 for 3 or 4 years.taking them to one year before UFA followed up with the big contract without a clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazurus Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 1 hour ago, mll said: Compliance buyouts increases escrow. The buyout cost counts towards the players' share of revenue. Revenue is going down so if they increase the players' share by adding compliance buyouts on top of salary, they'll have to give more back. Not convinced players will want them. Don't think owners want to be pressured by fans to buy out players either. Several teams including the Canucks per Dhaliwal have cut back staff salary or furloughed employees. Their last paycheck was 120 million (they are paid circa every two weeks over the regular season). They've postponed payment and have yet to decide how much of it they want to give up now - they are going to owe money back. You can post that about the compliance buyouts until the cows come home but some fans won't get it, the only players that come ahead are the one's getting bought out at the expense of the rest. More probable is a salary roll back for the entire league like it was done before with a reduced cap. It won't help Vancouver because they are so screwed up with the cap. The cap hurts the future, trading away picks hurts the future and all those clause contracts hurt the future in SOOooo many ways. It will cost the Canucks years or a lot of pain to sort out their cap mess. This play in round, which is NOT THE PLAYOFFS unless they win, fans might see players that could be involved in a trade to help both teams. Minnesota has had the Canucks number for awhile and they were on a roll, even if Dubnyk sits out Stalock was carrying the load and they have enough veteran leadership to carry them. Scary thing for the Canucks is Markstrom takes a few games to get his legs under him and they rely too heavily on him stopping 35+ shots per game too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazurus Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 22 hours ago, Mackcanuck said: That might give the Canucks a break on being over the cap before the playoffs, this is not the playoffs yet, this is the play in round as a substitute for finishing the regular season, it does have a playoff series type format but there was back to backs vs teams this year, this is just a double back to back. The team has to get the Euro's back very soon, what if they can't get here in time? Is Edler in Sweden? If Vancouver is selected as a hub city I could see them playing out of the Coliseum so they don't have a home rink/ice advantage and housed in a hotel to make it a level playing field. Vancouver has to be a player choice for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VancouveriteinSanDiego2 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 This break will be good for Petey, he was slowing down and needed a break, so I think young teams will do better in first round Older teams I think will need more time to get rolling But what do I know lol! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 Hopefully JB can sign Tryamkin for the playoffs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 58 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said: Hopefully JB can sign Tryamkin for the playoffs. He's not allowed - he had to be signed by 1 December because he is a RFA. They are not going to make an exception. They don't even want to allow new ELCs to start this season although it was allowed in the past, Hughes, Boeser, Makar for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 5 hours ago, mll said: He's not allowed - he had to be signed by 1 December because he is a RFA. They are not going to make an exception. They don't even want to allow new ELCs to start this season although it was allowed in the past, Hughes, Boeser, Makar for example. No. He only had to be named on the roster by Dec. 1, same as last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 53 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said: No. He only had to be named on the roster by Dec. 1, same as last time. Okay the Wild can add Kaprizov and we’ll add Tryamkin to sit on him. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, DeNiro said: Okay the Wild can add Kaprizov and we’ll add Tryamkin to sit on him. Canucks can't add Tryamkin. In the past they could have added Rathbone - this option for now is not available. He will apparently become a UFA in August 2021 - per Thomas Drance he's one of those exceptions where he can reach UFA a year earlier. Boeser, Makar, Hughes were allowed to sign in the past but the league changed the rules this year - who to say they don't enforce it over the longer run. It puts teams more at risk of not being able to get their NCAA players under contract and lose them to UFA. Edited May 29, 2020 by mll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 26 minutes ago, mll said: Canucks can't add Tryamkin. In the past they could have added Rathbone - this option for now is not available. He will apparently become a UFA in August 2021 - per Thomas Drance he's one of those exceptions where he can reach UFA a year earlier. Boeser, Makar, Hughes were allowed to sign in the past but the league changed the rules this year - who to say they don't enforce it over the longer run. It puts teams more at risk of not being able to get their NCAA players under contract and lose them to UFA. Tryamkin isn't NCAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 27 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said: Tryamkin isn't NCAA. That's why the rule doesn't apply to him. He is a RFA and RFAs had to be signed by 1 December - allowing him to play would be making an exception. Boeser, Hughes, Makar were allowed to sign in the past as new ELC players and finish the season with their teams. They aren't allowing it this year. The Canucks can't sign Rathbone even if he wanted to. If they are being more restrictive than in the past, it is highly unlikely that they will change a rule already in place to make an exception for a RFA who is not allowed to join in the 1st place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 6 hours ago, mll said: That's why the rule doesn't apply to him. He is a RFA and RFAs had to be signed by 1 December - allowing him to play would be making an exception. Boeser, Hughes, Makar were allowed to sign in the past as new ELC players and finish the season with their teams. They aren't allowing it this year. The Canucks can't sign Rathbone even if he wanted to. If they are being more restrictive than in the past, it is highly unlikely that they will change a rule already in place to make an exception for a RFA who is not allowed to join in the 1st place. I dont think he's a free agent till our rights end with him in 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said: No. He only had to be named on the roster by Dec. 1, same as last time. Tryamkin is a group 2 RFA. He had to be signed by 1 December to be allowed to play. 11.4 Signing Deadline for Group 2 Free Agent. An SPC for a Group 2 Free Agent will be rejected and will be null and void ab initio (i.e., the Player's Free Agency and contractual status shall revert to the status he held prior to signing his SPC), if it is not signed and filed with Central Registry by 5:00 p.m. New York time on December 1 in the then current NHL Season. 2 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said: I dont think he's a free agent till our rights end with him in 3 years. Canucks retain Tryamkin's rights until he turns 27 but they can only sign him to a contract that starts next season. Rathbone is an unsigned prospect in the NCAA and will apparently become a UFA in August 2021 per Thomas Drance - he is one of those NCAA exceptions that can reach UFA one year earlier. In the past players on the reserve list signing new ELCs were able to sign once their season was over and play, like Boeser, Makar, Hughes did. This year the league does not want to allow it. Edited May 29, 2020 by mll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 1 hour ago, mll said: Tryamkin is a group 2 RFA. He had to be signed by 1 December to be allowed to play. 11.4 Signing Deadline for Group 2 Free Agent. An SPC for a Group 2 Free Agent will be rejected and will be null and void ab initio (i.e., the Player's Free Agency and contractual status shall revert to the status he held prior to signing his SPC), if it is not signed and filed with Central Registry by 5:00 p.m. New York time on December 1 in the then current NHL Season. Canucks retain Tryamkin's rights until he turns 27 but they can only sign him to a contract that starts next season. Rathbone is an unsigned prospect in the NCAA and will apparently become a UFA in August 2021 per Thomas Drance - he is one of those NCAA exceptions that can reach UFA one year earlier. In the past players on the reserve list signing new ELCs were able to sign once their season was over and play, like Boeser, Makar, Hughes did. This year the league does not want to allow it. He didn't have an SPC because he was in another league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 14 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said: He didn't have an SPC because he was in another league. Doesn't change anything. He was still a RFA and he is not allowed to play this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanukfanatic Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 Tryamkin cannot join the team for any playoffs. They have made it clear a few times. Not sure why some don't understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris12345 Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 On 5/28/2020 at 6:46 AM, mll said: Lavoie has TV revenue at about 650M over a full season. The NHL is around a 5 billion league - rough proxy 31 teams x 81.5M is about 2.5 billion. Share of revenue is 50/50. Without completing the season losses were estimated at around 1 billion. Players would have some 500M to pay back from their salaries. LeBrun several weeks ago estimated completing the season worth between 300 and 500M in revenue. It's going to still leave them with a sizeable gap compared to a normal season. The salary cap could well stay flat for next season but it will be even less reflective of revenue than in the past. I'd love to work at the league office. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now