2020-2021 salary cap. Upd Sept BOG est $84.5m

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by LadyStanley, Sep 23, 2019.

  1. LadyStanley

    LadyStanley Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    81,613
    Likes Received:
    5,590
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Sin City
    31 Thoughts: Byfuglien decision will have major ripple effect - Sportsnet.ca

    With the cap at low end this season, a more conservative approach might be warranted
     
  2. Fenway

    Fenway Administrator Sponsor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    43,799
    Likes Received:
    33,227
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston-Cambridge MA
    The elephant in the room is the next US national TV contract which expires after the 2021 season at 200M a year. NBC struck gold with the Blackhawks and it has been pure profit since 2015.

    I suspect the NHL is looking at 800M a year or more with FOX as the leverage.
     
  3. StreetHawk

    StreetHawk Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2017
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes Received:
    1,787
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Gender:
    Male
    No way to really know what nbc makes off their nhl deal.
    How much more can they charge for their ads if their rights fees quadruple though?
     
  4. Mud the ACAS

    Mud the ACAS St. Louis Blues: 2019 Stanley Cup Champions

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    24,646
    Likes Received:
    3,363
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Actuary
    Location:
    Celebrating a Stanley Cup title
    That's thinking of it backwards. The question is whether NBC could charge enough for ads to pay quadruple what they did the last time around and still at least break-even. They'll pay whatever they think they can recoup via ad fees over the life of the contract. If they don't think they can recoup that money, ... well, then the question becomes "how much is NBCSN willing to lose and still keep the rights?"
     
  5. gstommylee

    gstommylee Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    9,296
    Likes Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    109
    800m? That's quite a large increase. Has the NHL grown that much (besides adding Vegas and Seattle) to warrant such an increase?
     
  6. gstommylee

    gstommylee Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    9,296
    Likes Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    109
    Well NBC gain more viewership since Vegas joined and will gain more with Seattle coming online in 2021-22 season. But would the Vegas market and the entire pacific northwest provide enough viewership to where NBC can justify paying more in a TV contract?
     
  7. Fenway

    Fenway Administrator Sponsor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    43,799
    Likes Received:
    33,227
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston-Cambridge MA
    NBC reportedly recovered everything by the end of 2015 helped greatly by Chicago.

    Digital rights will play a huge part and also the cities that the networks own the local OTA channel. ( NBC made a lot of money with local ads in Chicago on Channel 5 there )

    Last year they did very well with their owned station in Boston and the year before in Washington.

    NBC owns

    upload_2019-9-24_21-32-28.png

    Fox owns

    upload_2019-9-24_21-33-54.png
    upload_2019-9-24_21-34-26.png

    The unknown is how badly FOX wants the NHL which could really help struggling FS1 and FS2

    ESPN/ABC are limited because they are all in with the NBA.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2019
  8. jkrdevil

    jkrdevil UnRegistered User

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    33,367
    Likes Received:
    1,573
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Maryland
    It is also about subscriber fees and the future of NBCSN without the NHL. While cable is breeding subscribers, it is still very lucrative. Without the NHL, NBCSN losing the bulk of their regular programming and could be in a situation where it is squeezed by other distributors.

    Also, as Fenway notes digital rights are also key in this. The BAMTech/espn+ deal, which is now at about $100 million a year is up at the same time.
     
  9. Mud the ACAS

    Mud the ACAS St. Louis Blues: 2019 Stanley Cup Champions

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    24,646
    Likes Received:
    3,363
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Actuary
    Location:
    Celebrating a Stanley Cup title
    This is why I'm an actuary and not a TV executive.

    Damn it, I always forget about subscriber fees. I don't know what NBCSN gets now, but I just can't imagine that going up dramatically.

    The point about ESPN+ being up is salient. We're talking $300 million combined between broadcast and digital; do they stay split or does it all go in a package? (My money is on another split.) That said, is ESPN recouping all that money through its digital rights for the NHL? (I leave this for others to find information on and report back.) I mean, ESPN has demonstrated it's willing to throw stupid money around for rights (if for no other reason than to keep someone else from having it) and losing money is apparently no object as long as it can continue to extract premium subscriber fees from cable / satellite providers (how else to make the company the one-stop shop for sports content like it's wanted to be for years now?), but I have to wonder how long that continues before someone there starts waiving a white flag on some of the content and says, "eh, we're not forking out all this money for it - it's gotta start making economic sense or we're out."
     
  10. LadyStanley

    LadyStanley Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    81,613
    Likes Received:
    5,590
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Sin City


    No escalator. Hmmm
     
  11. StreetHawk

    StreetHawk Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2017
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes Received:
    1,787
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Gender:
    Male
    They just saw a 2.5% increase of the cap from $79.5 to $81.5 this season. Small escalator was included iirc.
    Yet they forecast a 3.7% increase for next without the escalator being used?
     
  12. Mud the ACAS

    Mud the ACAS St. Louis Blues: 2019 Stanley Cup Champions

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    24,646
    Likes Received:
    3,363
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Actuary
    Location:
    Celebrating a Stanley Cup title
    You know there's an NHL GM who's already booking contracts assuming the escalator gets applied and we end up at $86 million or more, who's going to be stuck in cap hell (yet again) if (when) the actual cap falls short.

    I look forward to finding out who that dumb schmuck is.
     
  13. Noldo

    Noldo Registered User

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,505
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    101
    If I have understood correctly, the cap for 18/19 was based on 17/18 revenues (with potential escalator to take into account the revenue growth) while the previous cap figure was based on 16/17 revenue (with potential escalator). So even if no escalator would be used, the cap would rise if the revenue grows from season to season.
     
  14. Grudy0

    Grudy0 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,871
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Location:
    Maryland
    This is the list of escrow withholding and refunds for the past ten years. Note that escrow shot way up the year after the lockout:

    SeasonWithheldRefundedLost
    2009-104.131.1
    2010-1112.4102.4
    2011-128.580.5
    2012-1316.31.614.7
    2013-14143.810.2
    2014-15152.0512.95
    2015-16173.213.8
    2016-1715.5
    2017-1811.5
    2018-199.5

    I don't think the use of the escalator was the only issue to increase escrow and net escrow.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2019
  15. Master Yoda

    Master Yoda LA Legends

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    149
    Location:
    El Paso
    Another problem is about 2/3 of the league is spending close to the upper cap limit, and in many cases more with LTIR.
     
    Mud the ACAS likes this.
  16. mouser

    mouser Business of Hockey

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    23,380
    Likes Received:
    3,866
    Trophy Points:
    187
    Location:
    South Mountain
    Have to keep in mind the main reason escrow shot up is because the share of HRR was reduced, but the cap wasn't immediately lowered in turn.

    Also if you factor in the one-time payments from the NHL then effective escrow lost in 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 drops by 5-6% each year. In addition the compliance buyouts following the new CBA contributed another 1-3% in lost escrow each year.
     
  17. tony d

    tony d HFBoards Sponsor Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    75,139
    Likes Received:
    3,558
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Office Worker
    Location:
    Behind A Tree
    A quadrupling for the next TV deal seems a bit much to me. It may double or even triple but I doubt it quadruples.
     
  18. StreetHawk

    StreetHawk Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2017
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes Received:
    1,787
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Gender:
    Male
    So really the last 3 seasons paint a fair picture of what the players have been experiencing with escrow. 16-17 & 17-18 numbers are in. 18-19 not until November I believe.
     
  19. TOGuy14

    TOGuy14 Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    10,982
    Likes Received:
    2,201
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Toronto
    A rapidly rising salary cap could make the longer term contracts signed this summer look a lot better in comparison to the bridge deals.
     
  20. Mud the ACAS

    Mud the ACAS St. Louis Blues: 2019 Stanley Cup Champions

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    24,646
    Likes Received:
    3,363
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Actuary
    Location:
    Celebrating a Stanley Cup title
    That's been the hope for a few years now. Instead, the actual cap falls short of projections and teams planning on big increases end up cap crunched.
     
  21. StreetHawk

    StreetHawk Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2017
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes Received:
    1,787
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Gender:
    Male
    Something significant has to impact revenues for a major cap spike.
    It was the Canadian tv deal back between 13-14 to 14-15 season and LV coming in for 17-18 to 18-19.

    Waiting for us tv deal along with legalizing sports betting to see a big bump.

    Year to year increases have been around 2-3% in the cap the past 5/6 years.
     
  22. Mud the ACAS

    Mud the ACAS St. Louis Blues: 2019 Stanley Cup Champions

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    24,646
    Likes Received:
    3,363
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Actuary
    Location:
    Celebrating a Stanley Cup title
    I'm not disagreeing with you here, just pointing out that the TV deals / Las Vegas have all been one-time bumps. Seattle coming in will also be a one-time bump on top of the TV deals. From there, something has to happen to get year-to-year changes to move out of the 2-3% range.

    I suspect (though we haven't heard anything yet) that low-revenue teams are going to start signaling concern at some point. Revenue sharing helps, but probably not as much as it needs to. [No, "let's move those teams to 'deserving' places" crowd - relocation doesn't fix this problem, as I and KevFu and perhaps a few others have pointed out.] In MLB, you can be a low-revenue team but spend a pittance on salaries and you're fine; in the NFL, you can be a low-revenue team but the TV contract pretty much takes care of your player salaries. I haven't thoroughly researched this, but I believe it's safe to say that the disparity in revenues between the top end and bottom end is greatest in the NHL when it comes to North American pro leagues operating under a salary cap. I definitely believe that "spending on player salaries as a % of team revenues" is highest for NHL low-revenue teams than it is for other pro teams in capped league.

    I don't think that can continue to happen. Of course, I've thought a lot of things couldn't continue and they've gone on far longer than I thought was possible.
     
  23. StreetHawk

    StreetHawk Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2017
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes Received:
    1,787
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Gender:
    Male
    New tv deal and new teams are like raises. Sets new standard. World Cup more like a bonus, one time not guaranteed going forward.

    Interesting point about revenue sharing. I think it will Be a point of contention if high revenue teams are asked to give out more to revenue sharing. Most of those high revenue teams are in markets with higher taxes which players either don’t want to go to or want to be compensated for playing in. Even front loading the deal to increase time value of money only does so much. So costs those teams higher cap hits which is a challenge to their roster and thus ability to win and generate more playoff revenue.
     
  24. Jussi

    Jussi Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    73,346
    Likes Received:
    4,153
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    0800-STUFF-JUST-HAPPENS
    Why would sports betting raise NHL's revenue?
     
  25. Mud the ACAS

    Mud the ACAS St. Louis Blues: 2019 Stanley Cup Champions

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    24,646
    Likes Received:
    3,363
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Actuary
    Location:
    Celebrating a Stanley Cup title
    New TV deals are not a gradual increase kind of thing, they're a big one-time bump. Agreed that the World Cup [when it finally happens] is a one-time thing, but there's provisions to not let one-time events impact the cap. How they handle that is an open question.

    There's a few points to dissect here:

    1. The entire point on higher taxes is IMO really overblown. It's especially overblown for sports franchises. [There's extended thoughts about how high-revenue teams correlate to high-tax areas and how after-tax profits are really the name of the game, but I don't have nearly enough time to get into this. Perhaps someone else will take it up.]

    2. The point about players not wanting to go to high-tax areas is also IMO overblown. I'll let others point to discussions had elsewhere - especially out on the NHL Talk forum - to cover this. [Hint: there's only so many jobs available in the league, and each team only has so many jobs available.]

    3. Front-loading contracts and/or paying much of it in signing bonuses doesn't impact the cap number on a contract. It impacts the timing of payments and potential buyout consequences, but a 7-year, $70M contract paid in salary at $10M each year is exactly the same in cap dollars as a 7-year, $70M contract paid as 14/14/12/9/7/7/7 with only league-minimum salaries and the rest of it as signing bonus.

    4. High-revenue teams know that part of their value is based on the existence of all franchises in the league and the support they all provide each other. If the league were cut to 16 teams, the Maple Leafs and Rangers and Canadiens and other high-revenue teams would't retain their current valuations; they would be reduced by some amount [the amount can be debated] by the removal of 15 [soon to be 16] other franchises and the reduction in centrally-generated league revenues. Thus, there's an incentive for them to keep other franchises afloat by providing revenue sharing in some form. [Cue discussion of "how much revenue sharing is enough.]

    Perhaps, instead of artificially constraining contract lengths [which necessarily forces up cap hits because low-dollar years are the ones that will be shed], we could come up with a much more reasonable idea to .......... nah, this makes way too much sense.
     

Share This Page

  1. 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.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"