North Buffalo Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 That is good news for us. We aren't going to be free agent dabbling anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 good news for everyone except the owners Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 Allowing us to sign Kane? Or has the course of action already been decided on that one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted December 8, 2017 Report Share Posted December 8, 2017 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted December 9, 2017 Report Share Posted December 9, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted December 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2017 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted December 9, 2017 Report Share Posted December 9, 2017 Only if you change to your Swedish name... Webster ain’t Swedish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted December 9, 2017 Report Share Posted December 9, 2017 wait till the lockout because the players are artificially raising the cap extra and hate escrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted December 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2017 Webster ain’t Swedish?Gotta be a Swedish version How about Lexikon?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LikeEich Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddaryl Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 Can't they determine cost per ticket sold or profitability? Just because you sold more ticket doesn't mean you made more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LikeEich Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LikeEich Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radar Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabills Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 Gotta be a Swedish version How about Lexikon?? Webster means Weaver in Norman French, so the Swedish version would probably be "Thom Vävare" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LikeEich Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.