NHL Salary Cap To Stay Around $56M

[doniceage]

According to Larry Brooks:

The NHL players union has voted to trigger the 5-percent escalator on the 2009-10 salary cap, The Post has learned.

This means that the 2009-10 cap will remain within a couple of hundred thousand dollars of last season's figure of $56.7 million.

NHL revenues decreased by approximately 5 percent in 2008-09, with the decline owed primarily to the dip in Canadian currency. The vote of the 30 player reps was close, The Post was told.

Those voting against the bump were concerned with the immediate impact on escrow deductions.

http://puckcentral.blogspot.com/2009...round-56m.html

[mackdaddyofjersy]

NHL revenues decreased by approximately 5 percent in 2008-09, with the decline owed primarily to the dip in Canadian currency. The vote of the 30 player reps was close, The Post was told.

Ok ya that was it, keep on telling yourself that Buttman. Bring one team to Canada and the revenue will increase, bring two team to Canada and then you will be laughing.

Why does this guy still have a job?

[duwal]

Ok ya that was it, keep on telling yourself that Buttman. Bring one team to Canada and the revenue will increase, bring two team to Canada and then you will be laughing.

Why does this guy still have a job?

didn't realize Bettman was the one who wrote the article. Is this like a reverse South Park ' Blame Canada'? Something doesn't agree with them Canadians will blame Bettman?

[30ranfordfan]

When over half the teams in the league are either losing money.... or barley breaking even..... why on earth would they want revenues to go up? All that would do is raise the salary cap, therefore raise the salary floor, so they'd be spending more on players, and lose even more money.

Ok ya that was it, keep on telling yourself that Buttman. Bring one team to Canada and the revenue will increase, bring two team to Canada and then you will be laughing.

Why does this guy still have a job?

[Nashrules]

Revenues as a whole going up would increase revenue sharing to the teams in financially tough shape. Teams would make more and be able to better afford the cap, even if it increased slightly.

There are teams losing money because of bad arena deals (the CBJ) that can get fixed, and then there are teams losing money because of horribly poor planning (The yotes).

Moving the Yotes to Canada, having the City of Columbus buy Nationwide Arena, and you'd increase revenues, reduce the number of teams with major financial issues (CBJ make money the minute the building ownership changes, the Yotes move into the black within 6 months of relocation).

[30ranfordfan]

I have no doubt that a team in Hamilton would make money.... and I won't pretened to know a ton about the Columbus situation.... but I've heard that (exactly what you just said). The lease agreement is horrible, and the team loses money becuase of it.

That's only two teams though. I'd really like to see the revenue sharing formula, but I don't think the money teams recieve from Revenue Sharing is directly proportional to how the Salary Cap rises or decreses. For example: If revenues increase and the Cap Floor rises another 2 million.... that doesn't mean that every team that collects from revenue sharing gets another 2 million.

Revenues as a whole going up would increase revenue sharing to the teams in financially tough shape. Teams would make more and be able to better afford the cap, even if it increased slightly.

There are teams losing money because of bad arena deals (the CBJ) that can get fixed, and then there are teams losing money because of horribly poor planning (The yotes).

Moving the Yotes to Canada, having the City of Columbus buy Nationwide Arena, and you'd increase revenues, reduce the number of teams with major financial issues (CBJ make money the minute the building ownership changes, the Yotes move into the black within 6 months of relocation).