Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
All teams now have the same absolute limit on how much they can spend on players salaries so it's not an arms race anymore.
In the season before the cap, the highest paid players in the league were making $11 million. Almost 20 years later, the highest paid player in the NHL this season is making $13 million.
The NHL total revenue in 2004 was $2.24 billion. Last season according to Bettman revenue would exceed $5.2 billion.
The league is bringing $2.96 billion more than the season before the cap but its largest expense, players salaries, have barely increased.
Salaries of National Hockey League players who have signed new contracts this summer have decreased by more than five percent, according to data assembled by The Hockey News.
Which NHL team is writing the biggest (and smallest) checks this season? Read on to find out.
sports.betmgm.com
Looks like all 32 teams are above your unsubstantiated out of date number. Please, tell us more about how the 50/50 revenue split is just a myth that Gary tells NHL fans when he tucks them in at night. I'm sure you'll have some airtight sources for that.
I've got a better idea. How about the NHL season and playoffs are turned into an exhibition and at the end of every season Toronto, Montreal, and New York roe-sham-bo for the Cup.
Salaries of National Hockey League players who have signed new contracts this summer have decreased by more than five percent, according to data assembled by The Hockey News.
Which NHL team is writing the biggest (and smallest) checks this season? Read on to find out.
sports.betmgm.com
Looks like all 32 teams are above your unsubstantiated out of date number. Please, tell us more about how the 50/50 revenue split is just a myth that Gary tells NHL fans when he tucks them in at night. I'm sure you'll have some airtight sources for that.
Yes that's why everyone goes to engineers for their finances.
My numbers are average payroll. Which is a better figure than average salary. Wikipedia is the simplest source. Not my favorite but you can link back to the actual sources. It's just neatly consolidated there.
You keep fixating on the average salary doubling, because the words sound better than the math.
The whole reason for the salary cap was because players salaries were getting out of control. Are you really arguing that they wouldn't be significantly larger than they are now without a cap?
As for the myth of the 50/50 revenue split. First, it's not revenue, it's hockey related revenue (HRR). And there's some pretty dubious things carved out of it. Second, the salary cap isn't even calculated off of HRR. It's HRR minus direct costs. Since you're the financial wizard I won't bother explaining to you what that is. So the players are getting 50% of HRR - direct costs.
Again, not sure why you're so hot under the collar over the fairly obvious statement that when you artificially restrict your largest expense and revenue increases at a greater rate, you're going to make more money.
They were literally minutes from folding in 1995 and preparing to send a group over to NHL headquarters to say as much when the owners overran Bettman and caved in and sent notice to the NHLPA. Otherwise, we'd have had a cap 10 years earlier.
Yes that's why everyone goes to engineers for their finances.
My numbers are average payroll. Which is a better figure than average salary. Wikipedia is the simplest source. Not my favorite but you can link back to the actual sources. It's just neatly consolidated there.
You keep fixating on the average salary doubling, because the words sound better than the math.
The whole reason for the salary cap was because players salaries were getting out of control. Are you really arguing that they wouldn't be significantly larger than they are now without a cap?
As for the myth of the 50/50 revenue split. First, it's not revenue, it's hockey related revenue (HRR). And there's some pretty dubious things carved out of it. Second, the salary cap isn't even calculated off of HRR. It's HRR minus direct costs. Since you're the financial wizard I won't bother explaining to you what that is. So the players are getting 50% of HRR - direct costs.
Again, not sure why you're so hot under the collar over the fairly obvious statement that when you artificially restrict your largest expense and revenue increases at a greater rate, you're going to make more money.
The engineer comment was because you suggested I couldn't understand the difference between a million and a billion. If you want to be pithy after I shut down your baseless accusation just reflects on you.
You keep suggesting payroll is a better determination, yet you use admittedly outdated numbers from Wikipedia rather than the updated numbers I posted that show payrolls are way up.
You also don't offer any reason that you think 30 teams paying roughly 23 players 1.8M each is roughly the same as 32 teams paying roughly 23 players 3.5M each.
The salary cap has been keeping smaller market teams healthy for almost 20 years, and when revenues were way down during covid if the owners and PA couldn't have come to an agreement using the 50/50 split ans escrow then the league would be in big trouble right now.
You keep going on about revenue going up and salaries not, but they are tied together. Your unsupported comment that the owners aren't being faithful with defining HRR is irrelevant without some sort of proof.
The engineer comment was because you suggested I couldn't understand the difference between a million and a billion. If you want to be pithy after I shut down your baseless accusation just reflects on you.
You keep suggesting payroll is a better determination, yet you use admittedly outdated numbers from Wikipedia rather than the updated numbers I posted that show payrolls are way up.
You also don't offer any reason that you think 30 teams paying roughly 23 players 1.8M each is roughly the same as 32 teams paying roughly 23 players 3.5M each.
The salary cap has been keeping smaller market teams healthy for almost 20 years, and when revenues were way down during covid if the owners and PA couldn't have come to an agreement using the 50/50 split ans escrow then the league would be in big trouble right now.
You keep going on about revenue going up and salaries not, but they are tied together. Your unsupported comment that the owners aren't being faithful with defining HRR is irrelevant without some sort of proof.
I never said salaries have not gone up. holy cow. I don't know if you're just in the mood for arguing or what. Your thinking you "shut me down" seems to reflect that.
What I was getting at was that salaries have not gone up nearly as much as they would have without a cap.
And even without some of the questionable things carved out of HRR (which are mentioned in the linked article) it doesn't change that HRR minus Direct costs is not a 50/50 revenue split with players.
Are you seriously suggesting that salaries would not be significantly higher without a cap? That artificially restricting the owners biggest expense has not been beneficial?
Because I'm not sure if you remember but that's what was being stated when you started this pissing contest. That the cap has been beneficial to owners. Which it undeniably has.
I never said salaries have not gone up. holy cow. I don't know if you're just in the mood for arguing or what. Your thinking you "shut me down" seems to reflect that.
What I was getting at was that salaries have not gone up nearly as much as they would have without a cap.
And even without some of the questionable things carved out of HRR (which are mentioned in the linked article) it doesn't change that HRR minus Direct costs is not a 50/50 revenue split with players.
Are you seriously suggesting that salaries would not be significantly higher without a cap? That artificially restricting the owners biggest expense has not been beneficial?
Because I'm not sure if you remember but that's what was being stated when you started this pissing contest. That the cap has been beneficial to owners. Which it undeniably has.
If franchises folded due to unrestricted spending or the league was crippled by covid then salaries would be lower, yes. That was never my argument though. I was arguing your false statement that salaries have "barely increased" since the cap when the average salary has doubled.
Also, weird how when I respond to you I'm "argumentative" or "hot under the collar", yet you also seem to be responding to all of my posts. Are you just unaware of how a discussion message board works?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.