Swedesessed Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 What Cap? Slap Shots has learned that the Players Association - with input on the number from the NHL - projects revenues to reach $2.575B this season, an 11.1-percent increase over the 2006-07 Hockey Related Revenue (HRR) of $2.318B. The cap should increase at a slightly higher rate because the players' share of the gross increases from 55.5 percent to 56.333 percent at the $2.5B revenue threshold. It assumes the players will once again exercise their option to approve a five-percent inflation bump. Thus the PA estimates that the cap will be approximately $56.3M - give or take in concert with the final HRR number that will be determined by playoff revenues - next season, an increase of $6M from this year. It means clubs will be able to maintain summer rosters of up to nearly $62M in payroll before personnel decisions come due at the end of the training camp. If HRR continues to increase annually by approximately 11 percent, the players' share will increase to its upper-limit of 57 percent at $2.7M, then the team cap will hit approximately $62M in 2009-10, and $68M in 2010-11. In other words, should they wish to do so, the Penguins will have no cap issue to prevent them from keeping both Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin, just as the Blackhawks will have ample space to retain both Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 Once again... Shouldn't the cap be set where the smallest market team can spend and still be profitable? If that is not the case... Why even have a cap?
apuszczalowski Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 Once again... Shouldn't the cap be set where the smallest market team can spend and still be profitable? If that is not the case... Why even have a cap? I somewhat understand the logic behind it being a percentage of league revenues. They already give money to the lower market teams,and why should the markets that are profitable have to keep the payrolls lower because the poorer teams can't make money? If they did it so that it catered only to the small market teams, whats their incentive to try and make themselves more profitable? A cap is just to keep everything even. You don't have to spend to it, but it is to give the league an even playing field so that there isn't a huge difference in payroll. We make it sound like its a right for areas to have pro-sports team, when it isn't. If a team can't afford to keep up and isn't able to turn profits regularly, why should the rest of the league wait for them to catch up? Maybe that area shouldnt have a pro sports team
stuhast41 Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 There will be another lockout in 5 years.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 I somewhat understand the logic behind it being a percentage of league revenues. They already give money to the lower market teams,and why should the markets that are profitable have to keep the payrolls lower because the poorer teams can't make money? If they did it so that it catered only to the small market teams, whats their incentive to try and make themselves more profitable? A cap is just to keep everything even. You don't have to spend to it, but it is to give the league an even playing field so that there isn't a huge difference in payroll. We make it sound like its a right for areas to have pro-sports team, when it isn't. If a team can't afford to keep up and isn't able to turn profits regularly, why should the rest of the league wait for them to catch up? Maybe that area shouldnt have a pro sports team I totally agree and I am anti-cap in all sports. What gets me is, why even say they have a cap?... Let the big teams over spend. Look at baseball, how many different teams have made the show in the end... More than the cap sports... Sure, sure... The Yanks and Sux are there. Let teams over spend and screw up their team chemistry. The Bills did fine with a fiscally prudent owner, even caught lightning in bottle for a time...
SabresFan526 Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 Once again... Shouldn't the cap be set where the smallest market team can spend and still be profitable? If that is not the case... Why even have a cap? I believe the revenue sharing that is built into the CBA allows for small market teams to still operate profitably even with the expanding salary cap. My understanding, someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this, teams receive their portion of the revenue sharing after the season is over, i.e. after the revenue for the season has been determined. So, the small market teams pay in payroll what they can afford to pay in order to maintain a small profit margin, and then increase their profits after the season based on the revenue sharing. Now, a team that was looking to gamble would cut into their in season profit by taking a loss and then make it up with the revenue sharing and profitability that comes in from playoff gates. I don't think it's a perfect system. But, the small market teams can still receive the revenue sharing based on certain constraints and operate profitably, but maybe not competitively and that's the difference. I don't know there are a lot of small market teams that are spending a lot of money like Edmonton, Minnesota, Tampa and others. Like I said, it's not a perfect system, but as revenues increase, the pool for revenue sharing also increases thereby allowing smaller market teams to remain competitive. This is why Buffalo has not had to jack up ticket prices because they are receiving money through revenue sharing that allows them to stay competitive. And because of deep playoff runs the last two years, they have made quite a bit in profits. And let's not forget, the Sabres are spending money, the problem is, they just don't spend their money well such as on Connolly, Max, Kotalik, Teppo, overpaying Vanek, etc.
apuszczalowski Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 I totally agree and I am anti-cap in all sports. What gets me is, why even say they have a cap?... Let the big teams over spend. Look at baseball, how many different teams have made the show in the end... More than the cap sports... Sure, sure... The Yanks and Sux are there. Let teams over spend and screw up their team chemistry. The Bills did fine with a fiscally prudent owner, even caught lightning in bottle for a time... I'm not really anti-cap, there needs to be a limit to keep things from getting out of control. AS for Baseball, ask any fan of an AL East team not from NY and Boston and see if they think the same way. Sure its possible to be good and not spend a fortune, but that is not as easy as it sounds. Overspending in Baseball is a little different from a chemistry standpoint because the players can be signed and kept longterm, and players can be kept around without worrying about being a cap casualty.
frisky Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 I don't see the Sabres remaining "competitive" in the long run. Like I mentioned in a different thread, if competitive means have a team play in the NHL, then it fits. But, if it means, competing in the playoffs, then it is another. I can see the us moving closer to the cap floor each year to remain where they are. As a consequence, they won't be able to keep and afford higher end talent. Will need to rely almost exclusively on developing young kids as a farm team for other teams. Must qualify for the revenue sharing by maintaining a minimum attendance which is not a guarantee the longer they remain a non-playoff team. And, if anyone remembers, LQ made some comments I think before the season about their viability with a rising cap and the future of the franchise (if anyone has a clearer memory of those comments please fill-in). I don't think that at this rate the Sabres can keep up. I think the NHL finances are completely out-of-whack with the other big leagues and another confrontation is forth coming.
tom webster Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 One thing you are all buying into is that Buffalo is "small-market." Their revenues sit at or near the half way point for NHL teams. With the continued success of the Canadian dollar, they have ample ample opportunity to mine that gold mine without taking a hit on the exchange rate.
inkman Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 I totally agree and I am anti-cap in all sports. I was anti-cap until I started losing my hair...now I gotta keep my melon warm.
tom webster Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 I was anti-cap until I started losing my hair...now I gotta keep my melon warm. I've been wearing one since my seven year daughter pointed out my bald spot on camera.
carpandean Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 I've been wearing one since my seven year daughter pointed out my bald spot on camera. I walked up behind a friend of mine sitting at a table in a bar the other day and jokingly put my bottle on the top of his head. He said "are you trying to point out my bald spot?" I looked down and realized that I had, indeed, hit a bullseye. Made me glad that I got my father's hair; he's in his mid-60's and hasn't lost any of it.
stenbaro Posted March 31, 2008 Report Posted March 31, 2008 I don't see the Sabres remaining "competitive" in the long run. Like I mentioned in a different thread, if competitive means have a team play in the NHL, then it fits. But, if it means, competing in the playoffs, then it is another. I can see the us moving closer to the cap floor each year to remain where they are. As a consequence, they won't be able to keep and afford higher end talent. Will need to rely almost exclusively on developing young kids as a farm team for other teams. Must qualify for the revenue sharing by maintaining a minimum attendance which is not a guarantee the longer they remain a non-playoff team. And, if anyone remembers, LQ made some comments I think before the season about their viability with a rising cap and the future of the franchise (if anyone has a clearer memory of those comments please fill-in). I don't think that at this rate the Sabres can keep up. I think the NHL finances are completely out-of-whack with the other big leagues and another confrontation is forth coming. If being competitive means hoping for the final playoff spot then goodbye...I have many other things to do with my time and money than watch it on a team that just wants to be competitive..WIN THE FREAKIN CUP..QUIT MAKIN EXCUSES AND GET IT DONE!!!! Were all worried about the cap..LOL..Spend the money keep the players that matter get rid of the junk and spend the money your fans are freakin giving you...If not move em sellem or do whatever but quit makin fools of your fans..LOL..And for GODS sake can we wake up and quit worrying about how much of the cap we havce to spend to keep a winning team or go get the players to win??? They can get it done if Anaheim can figure it out why cant the Sabres!!!!
apuszczalowski Posted April 1, 2008 Report Posted April 1, 2008 If being competitive means hoping for the final playoff spot then goodbye...I have many other things to do with my time and money than watch it on a team that just wants to be competitive..WIN THE FREAKIN CUP..QUIT MAKIN EXCUSES AND GET IT DONE!!!! Were all worried about the cap..LOL..Spend the money keep the players that matter get rid of the junk and spend the money your fans are freakin giving you...If not move em sellem or do whatever but quit makin fools of your fans..LOL..And for GODS sake can we wake up and quit worrying about how much of the cap we havce to spend to keep a winning team or go get the players to win??? They can get it done if Anaheim can figure it out why cant the Sabres!!!! Brian Burke, a competent GM
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.