Discussion re salaries, escrow, signing bonuses cap hit etc

[omelete]

Escrow is just a symptom of the real issue for the players. The next CBA battle will be over linkage itself. Breaking linkage is what the NHLPA really wants.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by omelete

Escrow is just a symptom of the real issue for the players. The next CBA battle will be over linkage itself. Breaking linkage is what the NHLPA really wants.

They're fools if they think that will ever happen.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Parallex

... they don't cost the league money. I don't see how you could disagree.

More Offer Sheets will distribute the money differently among the players but the revenue split will remain the same and Olympic participation doesn't decrease the number of gates.

Perhaps I misspoke. There is a cost associated with those items. More offer sheets is most likely inflationary and could lead to more retaliatory strikes, affecting how the league operates. I don't think it would improve the game or the league in any significant way. More money to a certain segment of players, at the expense of others. Similarly, I would submit there is a cost of disrupting the league for 3 weeks or a month. Compressed schedules, playing until close to July, more injury potential, and more back-to-backs will not make the league better and will cost the owners eventually. They are acting in their own self interest, when they say they don't want to participate (especially overseas in Asia).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Parallex

... they don't cost the league money. I don't see how you could disagree.

More Offer Sheets will distribute the money differently among the players but the revenue split will remain the same and [Olympic participation doesn't decrease the number of gates.

Are you sure? I would imagine that a compressed schedule affects gate revenues. Moreover, Olympic participation is likely also to affect the value of future television deals. NHL hockey running concurrently with Olympic coverage is certain to see a massive drop in US ratings.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by omelete

Escrow is just a symptom of the real issue for the players. The next CBA battle will be over linkage itself. Breaking linkage is what the NHLPA really wants.

Originally Posted by getbak

They're fools if they think that will ever happen.

I agree that it is totally foolish, but I am fairly persuaded that this is indeed the NHLPA's end game. I think the trend towards lockout-proofing new contracts is an attempt to set the players in a position to break the BoG. Of course, as getbak mentions, it will never happen.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

It seems that the NHL and NHLPA will do the wrong thing when it comes to these labour issues. The PA fought hard and achieved the "partnership" it desired in receiving 50% of HRR. The league fought hard and achieved cost certainty as it relates to the hard cap. The rest should be fairly minor tweaks and gives here and there. It drives me bonkers to think there will be another work stoppage, in particular if the end goal is to destroy what had been previously negotiated and seems to be working reasonably well.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

...The biggest leverage that the players have is the tens of millions of dollars the league's owners stand to lose by any portion of the season being cancelled. Yes the players lose their money too, but they may consider things like more offer sheets, escrow and playing in the Olympics worth more to them than half a years' salary. Other than escrow, these demands don't really cost the league money, even the escrow is more of a risk factor than a direct cost to them, so they will need to consider whether or not they are worth the lost revenue from a half season long lockout.

I am not convinced that Olympic participation is a big bargaining chip for the NHLPA. In the 2014 Olympics only 20% of the total NHLPA membership participated. Most of the players recognize that they will never be invited to an Olympic tournament, so I would expect this is not something they are prepared to lose millions of dollars to ensure for other players.

The biggest leverage that the BoG has historically enjoyed, and continues to have is that their massive resources are distributed among a fairly small membership. Unlike the NHLPA there is nothing remotely close to the same disparity present between the top- and bottom-earners. The vast majority of players simply cannot afford to lose more than a few months of a season—especially the rank-and-file who have smaller windows of earning potential.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Perhaps I misspoke. There is a cost associated with those items. More offer sheets is most likely inflationary and could lead to more retaliatory strikes, affecting how the league operates. I don't think it would improve the game or the league in any significant way. More money to a certain segment of players, at the expense of others. Similarly, I would submit there is a cost of disrupting the league for 3 weeks or a month. Compressed schedules, playing until close to July, more injury potential, and more back-to-backs will not make the league better and will cost the owners eventually. They are acting in their own self interest, when they say they don't want to participate (especially overseas in Asia).

The offer sheet concerns you mention may change the dynamic of how teams operate, but financially the maximum costs for a roster are untouched.

You're basing your Olympic participation argument on theory, the fact is pausing the season does not in any way reduce the earning potential of the league. If the league is actually ever able to make a decent deal with the IOC they could actually profit financially from participation.

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

It seems that the NHL and NHLPA will do the wrong thing when it comes to these labour issues. The PA fought hard and achieved the "partnership" it desired in receiving 50% of HRR. The league fought hard and achieved cost certainty as it relates to the hard cap. The rest should be fairly minor tweaks and gives here and there. It drives me bonkers to think there will be another work stoppage, in particular if the end goal is to destroy what had been previously negotiated and seems to be working reasonably well.

The PA fought hard for a 50% share of HRR? They gave up 7%.

As a fan you may consider the current system to be working well, but the players disagree, and since this is their contract I think their opinion carries a little more weight than any of ours does.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I am not convinced that Olympic participation is a big bargaining chip for the NHLPA. In the 2014 Olympics only 20% of the total NHLPA membership participated. Most of the players recognize that they will never be invited to an Olympic tournament, so I would expect this is not something they are prepared to lose millions of dollars to ensure for other players.

It's not a bargaining chip for the PA, it's a demand. The league would be the ones using it as a bargaining chip. Even if only 20% of the league participated, that doesn't mean others don't want to miss out on the potential opportunity. And at the end of the day 20% is a sizeable portion of the bargaining unit votes.

The biggest leverage that the BoG has historically enjoyed, and continues to have is that their massive resources are distributed among a fairly small membership. Unlike the NHLPA there is nothing remotely close to the same disparity present between the top- and bottom-earners. The vast majority of players simply cannot afford to lose more than a few months of a season—especially the rank-and-file who have smaller windows of earning potential.

The players aren't guaranteed anything, they could suffer a career ending injury at any time, so it makes sense to fight for a contract that they get the most out of whether they play 1 season or 20.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

They are going to offer up the owners not losing revenue by a work stoppage.

I realize you try to hand wave this off later in your post, but you know full well this is an empty offer given the players would lose far more in a work stoppage. So would you like to try again and offer something meaningful?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The offer sheet concerns you mention may change the dynamic of how teams operate, but financially the maximum costs for a roster are untouched.

You're basing your Olympic participation argument on theory, the fact is pausing the season does not in any way reduce the earning potential of the league. If the league is actually ever able to make a decent deal with the IOC they could actually profit financially from participation.



The PA fought hard for a 50% share of HRR? They gave up 7%.

As a fan you may consider the current system to be working well, but the players disagree, and since this is their contract I think their opinion carries a little more weight than any of ours does.

Of course this is a fan's opinion, it was never couched any other way. As for the Olympics, this fan's opinion is based on the fact that the NHL owners are not interested in attending. I give that significant weight, as I don't think they are operating against their own interests. Perhaps there is a better deal to be had with IOC, but those parties have so far failed to reach that deal.

In my view, the parties should be working on building HRR, increasing the pie, rather than slicing it in different ways.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I realize you try to hand wave this off later in your post, but you know full well this is an empty offer given the players would lose far more in a work stoppage. So would you like to try again and offer something meaningful?

How can the players lose more? The highest paid player at that time will be McDavid, I don't know what his salary structure is but for the sake of argument let's use his cap hit of $12.75M. If the season is lost he loses $12.75M, I've read that the leafs make a profit of over $1M per home so 13 home games into the season they pass him. Most players make less than half of what mcdavid makes so I don't think it's accurate to suggest any player has more to lose than some team owners. I get that 1/3 of the league's teams struggle, but that leaves 2/3's of the league who's owners definitely stand to lose more than the average player during a labour dispute. If you believe the profitable teams want to lose their potential profits to fight for concessions that are non-monetary that's up to you, but I disagree.