My original post mentioned the covid years where it was deemed the “flat” cap..Ya both
from 21-22 to 23-24,
1 million increases.
81.5
82.5
83.5
My original post mentioned the covid years where it was deemed the “flat” cap..
21-22 to 23-24 is post pandemic, the upper cap limit started to rise 22-23. You’re being obtuse for no reason here.
You never said Covid years, you said if weren’t for Covid, it would be a 100 million.If it weren’t for covid we would’ve been at $100 million or surpassed it.
The flat cap at $81.5 million lasted for 3 seasons.
Ya took years for the PA to realize, the inflator just meant 5% more added to the existing escrow.They haven't done the inflator in a while, would be surprised if they did this year.
I thought 5% was the max it could rise
Both???
2019-20: $81.5M
2020-21: $81.5M
2021-22: $81.5M
That’s literally 3 seasons it stayed flat. Where do you even see a rise of $1M increase??
If total revenue was $6.2M last year as reported and it goes up by even a modest 3% that would put it at $6.4M. Let's assume that after all the ancillaries the players share is based on say $5.9B. That would put the players share at $92M or so per team. Bump it up another 3% this year and you are at $95M or so. With a ceiling at even $97M there would be little or no escrow hit and these numbers should be conservative.Escrow always seems to be a big deal for the PA. It was held at 6% last season and from what I could find, the PA got back about half of that for a net of 3% lost to escrow.
They seem to prefer lowering escrow to as close to 0% as possible vs risk it going up on a higher cap ceiling.
I do think they would approve a higher cap, but would aim to keep that reasonable. Like $93-94 mill vs the $95-97 mill these reporters. Most of the PA have contracts, so an extra couple of million of cap room doesn't help most of the players.
2019-20: $81.5M
2020-21: $81.5M
2021-22: $81.5M
Ya but I thought the cap was based on the midpoint. I think your ancillary number is a good guesstimate, there are so many things, with benefits, pensions, insurance per diems etc but it must be more, as your number is more based on the max cap.If total revenue was $6.2M last year as reported and it goes up by even a modest 3% that would put it at $6.4M. Let's assume that after all the ancillaries the players share is based on say $5.9B. That would put the players share at $92M or so per team. Bump it up another 3% this year and you are at $95M or so. With a ceiling at even $97M there would be little or no escrow hit and these numbers should be conservative.
The ceiling by the old formula is 15% above the midpoint. The issue I was referencing was escrow. The point was that even in the $97M range the players share should cover all or very very close to all of the commitments meaning no or very little escrow would be required.Ya but I thought the cap was based on the midpoint. I think your ancillary number is a good guesstimate, there are so many things, with benefits, pensions, insurance per diems etc but it must be more, as your number is more based on the max cap.
The minimum cap is 85% of the midpoint
The maximum cap (say $92 million) is 115% of the midpoint
ahh ok when did it change,?The ceiling by the old formula is 15% above the midpoint
But what are the odds of that???Don't be surprised if there is a 95% chance this happens.
I think that's the reason they might negotiate a higher increase this year. With the new CBA the cap will get reset next year anyways, better to spread that jump out a bit more evenly. Owners don't care because they still get there 50/50 no matter what and it can be seen as a good-faith negotiation with the PA, GMs and league people like it because it eases the transition and minimizes exactly what you're describing, PA likes it because it helps a bigger group of players than just the FAs next year.The NHL has the 5% max increase (unless agreed upon otherwise) rule to prevent things like what happened in the NBA in 2016, where the cap increased 24M and a team like Golden State was able to just add Kevin Durant without losing anyone important. If the cap goes up by the above amount it will be similar to the NBA's increase in 22/23 and 23/24 where it increased 11M and 12.5M after their escrow was paid off.
I wonder if scaling contracts is something that gets negotiated in the next CBA
A gamble that paid off, it seemsall them gambling ads are paying off.
I think that's the reason they might negotiate a higher increase this year. With the new CBA the cap will get reset next year anyways, better to spread that jump out a bit more evenly. Owners don't care because they still get there 50/50 no matter what and it can be seen as a good-faith negotiation with the PA, GMs and league people like it because it eases the transition and minimizes exactly what you're describing, PA likes it because it helps a bigger group of players than just the FAs next year.