Projected NHL Salary Cap increase per LeBrun

[North Buffalo]

So LeBrun reporting that the Salary Cap likely to increase $3-7 million next year. Does this help Sabres overcome some the drag by non performing players and Moulson’s contract? or create too much competition for players they may want. Discuss.

 

 

https://twitter.com/pierrevlebrun/status/939162299595722752

Edited December 8, 2017 by Kottbullar

[darksabre]

That is good news for us. We aren't going to be free agent dabbling anyway. 

[pi2000]

good news for everyone except the owners

[Taro T]

good news for everyone except the owners

Actually, in a world where players get 50% of the pie, knowing the players, as a whole, will be pocketing roughly an extra $3-7MM/ team means the owners as a whole will pocket an extra $93 -213MM collectively before taxes. (Guessing that the Yotes are on the low end of that projection of addition revenue. ;))

 

Looks pretty good for most of the owners from this vantage point.

[Thorner]

Allowing us to sign Kane?

 

Or has the course of action already been decided on that one?

[LTS]

Allowing us to sign Kane?

 

Or has the course of action already been decided on that one?

 

There doesn't appear to be any indication that HE wants to sign on in Buffalo.  The only information that I've seen is that Botterill had not made a decision on trying to sign him.  There's not been anything from Kane.

[MattPie]

There doesn't appear to be any indication that HE wants to sign on in Buffalo.  The only information that I've seen is that Botterill had not made a decision on trying to sign him.  There's not been anything from Kane.

 

Nor will there be, I assume. If he says he wants to go, he's persona non grata around Buffalo. If he says he wants to stay and J-Bot trades him, Kane is essentially throwing J-Bot under a bus with local fans. Obviously, fans shouldn't be the primary concern, but there's no positive for Kane to say anything other than, "I love Buffalo and value playing here."

[tom webster]

So someone owes me an apology. I took a lot of abuse when I posted that the cap would approach $90 million in the near future.

[North Buffalo]

So someone owes me an apology. I took a lot of abuse when I posted that the cap would approach $90 million in the near future.

Only if you change to your Swedish name... 

[dudacek]

Only if you change to your Swedish name...

 

Webster ain’t Swedish?

[LGR4GM]

wait till the lockout because the players are artificially raising the cap extra and hate escrow.

[North Buffalo]

Webster ain’t Swedish?

Gotta be a Swedish version

How about Lexikon??

[LikeEich]

Actually, in a world where players get 50% of the pie, knowing the players, as a whole, will be pocketing roughly an extra $3-7MM/ team means the owners as a whole will pocket an extra $93 -213MM collectively before taxes. (Guessing that the Yotes are on the low end of that projection of addition revenue. ;))

 

Looks pretty good for most of the owners from this vantage point.

Not necessarily accurate on the increase in profit margins. Those 2 figured are off of a 0%-5% inflator which the NHLPA gets to decide if it takes effect. So as it stand today is a projected increase of 6M in HRR, which would be 3M. I don't believe they used the inflator this past season. Also not sure how many times they're allowed to use it? Possibly 5% max until the CBA expires.

 

Edit: upon review NHLPA can inflate salary cap 5% a year, but it would increase the escrow the players have to pay so it would actually decrease most players salary(net earning- not on the salary cap)

Edited December 11, 2017 by LikeEich

[inkman]

wait till the lockout because the players are artificially raising the cap extra and hate escrow.

Yeah I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this. Nothing I've heard or read indicates the NHL should be increasing its salary cap.

[Drunkard]

Yeah I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this. Nothing I've heard or read indicates the NHL should be increasing its salary cap.

 

I would think the fact that they've added an additional team this season would at least boost revenues by their gate and merchandise receipts.

[ddaryl]

I would think the fact that they've added an additional team this season would at least boost revenues by their gate and merchandise receipts.

 

This definite has something to do with it.

 

They wouldn't raise the cap space if the revenue coming in doesn't support it

[inkman]

Can't they determine cost per ticket sold or profitability? Just because you sold more ticket doesn't mean you made more money.

[Drunkard]

Can't they determine cost per ticket sold or profitability? Just because you sold more ticket doesn't mean you made more money.

 

The salary cap has nothing to do with profitability though. Players get 50% of revenues (or at least the ones that get included in revenue sharing).

[LikeEich]

The way it works is the salary cap gets set at 50% of HRR(hockey related revenue). Which basically consists of gate fees, board advertisement, apparel and so forth. Certain things don't go towards HRR, such as the 500M Vegas paid to get a team.

 

Right now the league is projecting an increase of 6M which would increase the cap by 3M.

 

If anyone really cares about this crap I can elaborate, but it is all very complex.

[Taro T]

The way it works is the salary cap gets set at 50% of HRR(hockey related revenue). Which basically consists of gate fees, board advertisement, apparel and so forth. Certain things don't go towards HRR, such as the 500M Vegas paid to get a team.

Right now the league is projecting an increase of 6M which would increase the cap by 3M.

If anyone really cares about this crap I can elaborate, but it is all very complex.

No Schlitz, Sherlock.

 

Which is why salaries going up is NOT a bad thing for the majority of the owners. It means they've also put more money in their organizations.

[LikeEich]

No Schlitz, Sherlock.

 

Which is why salaries going up is NOT a bad thing for the majority of the owners. It means they've also put more money in their organizations.

I never said or implied it was a bad thing for owners did I?

No Schlitz, Sherlock.

 

Which is why salaries going up is NOT a bad thing for the majority of the owners. It means they've also put more money in their organizations.

I never said or implied it was a bad thing for owners did I?

 

Not exactly sure what you're taking exception to here. Please clarify and I'll try to do the same.

[Radar]

I never said or implied it was a bad thing for owners did I?

 

I never said or implied it was a bad thing for owners did I?

Not exactly sure what you're taking exception to here. Please clarify and I'll try to do the same.

Some on here need a lesson on social etiquette. Wouldn't let it bother you. Edited December 11, 2017 by Radar

[sabills]

Gotta be a Swedish version

How about Lexikon??

Webster means Weaver in Norman French, so the Swedish version would probably be "Thom Vävare"

[LikeEich]

Some on here need a lesson on social etiquette.

Ya the post wasn't directed at anyone. Some seemed to be unsure of how/why the salary cap would increase I was just trying to explain more in depth how it works!

 

Not offended just trying to see what his point was, thanks though!

Edited December 11, 2017 by LikeEich

[Taro T]

I never said or implied it was a bad thing for owners did I?

No ..., but in the post that you responded to me w/ "that's not really accurate," the post you were reponding to WAS in response to a post stating the cap rising was bad for owners.

Some on here need a lesson on social etiquette. Wouldn't let it bother you.

:rolleyes:

Edited December 11, 2017 by Taro T