You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on LA Kings Talk within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Wow, I put the wrong cap number in my spreadsheet. Oops. Blakey looks even more overpaid now, as I have the nominal D1 at 12% on spending up to 95%
Wow, I put the wrong cap number in my spreadsheet. Oops. Blakey looks even more overpaid now, as I have the nominal D1 at 12% on spending up to 95% of the cap....that's only 5.7M
actually, although i wouldn't say the lockout was for nothing, the current system isn't much better than the last. although the cap is tied to league revenues some teams are earning vast amounts more than others and the redistribution of revenues is not enough to make all clubs profitable. the argument goes that as the salary cap increases, smaller market teams will be no better off than they were prior to the cap. this is already happening for some teams like buffalo, etc. so parity may fall off, though to be honest this season demonstrates that parity is alive and well. what you may end up seeing is larger market teams being able to spend to the cap while smaller market teams are closer to the floor which also goes up each year that the cap increases. in fact, i think i read that the salary floor was already above pre-lockout averages. is that right?
If the cap goes up that means revenues are going up, and the owners are happy.
The league doesn't share revenues the way the NFL does. It's not hard to imagine a scenario in a couple-three years in which some of the small market teams (Nashville, Edmonton say) struggle to afford the salary FLOOR, and the league divides, once again, into haves and have-nots.
Guess who will be expected to pay to close the gap.
I want to know what would happen if revenues went down and how would that affect the salary cap
The CBA sets up an escrow account into which a certain percentage of player salaries are dumped. At the end of the season, if revenues meet the target, that money is released to the players. If revenues beat expectations (iirc), the players get a bonus.
If revenues fall short of the target, the owners keep the money.
How'd you like it if your boss held some of your salary in escrow?
The CBA sets up an escrow account into which a certain percentage of player salaries are dumped. At the end of the season, if revenues meet the target, that money is released to the players. If revenues beat expectations (iirc), the players get a bonus.
If revenues fall short of the target, the owners keep the money.
How'd you like it if your boss held some of your salary in escrow?
Umm... no. The cap is reflective of revenues. There's no question there'd be teams spending up north of $100MM without a cap this year.
"Bettman points out that in the pre-lockout season of 2003-04, the top payroll was in the $80-million range with other teams in the 70s and 60s. More importantly, he adds, it's the average payroll that really matters pertaining to dividing up the 55 per cent of the revenue pie to players.
"The average payroll with a $50.3-million cap is $42.3 million," said Bettman. "So that at the end of the year, on average, our teams will have spent $42.3 million - not $50 million."
Bettman continues by pointing back to the 2001-02 season, when the average team payroll was also $42.3 million.
"At the time our revenues were $1.875 billion," he said. "This year the average team payroll - with the $50.3-million cap - will be $42.3 million on revenues of about $2.4 billion. .
"People tend to confuse the cap with the average salary of years ago."
It's funny how there are 785 posts after your post, claiming the same "lockout was pointless"... it's just like that people don't listen, they don't want to listen.
The CBA sets up an escrow account into which a certain percentage of player salaries are dumped. At the end of the season, if revenues meet the target, that money is released to the players. If revenues beat expectations (iirc), the players get a bonus.
If revenues fall short of the target, the owners keep the money.
How'd you like it if your boss held some of your salary in escrow?
It's called a bonus, just like it is for the players. If business stinks, like it has for the music industry, you get less or no bonus. If business is good, you get more bonus. This is not a unique or cutting edge idea in business, only in the hockey world.
charles
