[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

And the agreement is that the league has to pay the players, regardless of whether there is a game played this year their salaries less 20% escrow. Next year the binding contract says they have to pay the players their contract less a 18 or 14% escrow with the escrow sliding down after that.

I suspect that binding contract is almost certainly beyond the understanding of most of the owners no offence to the owners. The one part that I think the players do understand that you cited is that there is a scenario where fixing escrow does not fix the 50/50 problem and the CBA runs out and the players get more than 50 percent of HRR over the term of the CBA. I do not think the players have a problem with that potential scenario and they carefully read the binding July addendum to the CBA to make sure their interests were protected. Unfortunately it appears the owners did not.

Okay. Firstly, the players also need to read the whole agreement . At least the important parts.

Here is a good article that pulls them out, and I have quoted them for you

https://www.si.com/hockey/news/does-...to-its-demands

Article 5 reads in part:

“Each club, and, where appropriate, the league, in the exercise of its functions of management, shall in addition to its other inherent and legal rights to manage its business, including the direction and control of its team, have the right at any time and from time to determine when, where, how and under what circumstances it wishes to operate, suspend, discontinue, sell or move and to determine the manner and the rules by which its team shall play hockey.”

Now, Paragraph 17 of the SPC reads as follows:

“If because of any condition arising from a state of war or other cause beyond the control of the League or of the Club, it shall be deemed advisable by the League or the Club to suspend or cease or reduce operations, then:

(a) in the event of suspension of operations, the Player shall be entitled only to the proportion of Paragraph 1 Salary due at the date of suspension,

(b) in the event of cessation of operations, the Paragraph 1 Salary shall be automatically canceled on the date of cessation, and

(c) in the event of reduction of operations, the Paragraph 1 Salary shall be replaced by that mutually agreed upon between the Club and the Player, or, in the absence of mutual agreement, by that determined by neutral arbitration.”

Now, finally, the memorandum of agreement between the two sides reads as follows:

“In connection with this agreement, (i) for the 2019-20 League Year, the NHL agrees to waive any potential applicability of SPC Paragraph 17 solely on account of the loss of games due to the COVID-19 pandemic on a non-precedential and without prejudice basis for future League Years, (ii) For the 2020-21 League Year, the NHL agrees to waive any potential applicability Page 7 of 71 of Paragraph 17(c) in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic on a non-precedential and without prejudice basis for future League Years, and (iii) such waivers do not affect any other rights or positions of the parties with respect to SPC Paragraph 17.”

So 17(a) and 17(b) are still in play for 2020-21.

Some experts in labor law and sports law seem to agree that it has to do with economic reality more so than labour law

Is the pandemic beyond the league’s control? Yes
Might the league determine it is not advisable to operate? Sure, that is a distinct possibility

Here is the final quote in the article

“The bottom line is they are in it together,” Drew said. “The owners and the players have to make this work on whatever terms will get people through. At the end of the day, the league is going to bleed so much red that they can’t run a season, then they’re going to suspend the season. As much as I value language, it’s only as good as the capacity of the parties to live up to the obligations that they very well may have negotiated in good faith, even if it was only (five) months ago.”