When will next season start? Return to Play Negotiations

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I don't even agree with that. Force majeure clauses are based on impossibility (not difficulty or unprofitability) of performance of one's contractual obligations (in addition to, as you rightly point out, such impossibility being due to unexpected and beyond reasonable human foresight and skill). Is it impossible for the NHL to fulfill its contractual obligation to have a 2020-21 season? That probably depends on the specific CA language which describes the obligation. However, I suspect it will be a very tough case to make for the NHL.

Imagine being the lawyer having to argue that it is both impossible to perform the contract and it was unexpected and beyond a reasonable person's foresight in July when they entered into the amended agreement that fans may not be in the seats in January during the widely predicted second wave of Covid. The NHL will have to track down top of the line legal counsel like Gulliani and Powell to make that argument.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Makarov

In fact, there doesn't even have to be (as the NHL's responsibilities under the various occupational health and safety legislation around the league stand alone [and are probably read into the collective agreement anyway]). However, other leagues are apparently able to host games while presumably fulfilling those duties. And the NHL just recently hosted games while presumably fulfilling those duties. Most damaging to this argument, I think, is the fact that the NHL seems to be taking the position that it could safely host games if the players agree to defer salary/increase escrow. It's difficult to accept the argument that the NHL cannot safely host games if the players do not agree to defer salary/increase escrow.

Presumably, reduced overhead allows the owners to consider alternate delivery methods (i.e. the bubble, or smaller bubbles) that they would be unable to act upon under the current MOU without causing considerable material damage to their businesses.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Do you believe that a projection of 35% of revenues based on no fans calculated in July is monetarily the same as a projection of 35% of revenues based on no fans calculated in November? Yes or no.

Answering no is really the only way you can defend your position that enough has changed since July to justify the league’s claims, but I don’t think you’re going to answer no.

It's not my position.
It's the owners position.
It was stated in the article I posted.
It only makes sense that something changed or they wouldn't be reopening things ... that's logic isn't it?

Why do you get to decide the only way to defend my position ... when in fact it doesn't need defending.

Seems pretty arrogant.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's not my position.
It's the owners position.
It was stated in the article I posted.
It only makes sense that something changed or they wouldn't be reopening things ... that's logic isn't it?

Why do you get to decide the only way to defend my position ... when in fact it doesn't need defending.

Seems pretty arrogant.

What changed is they desperately hoped there wouldn’t be a second wave, but now there is one. They gambled on an unlikely scenario and lost.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Presumably, reduced overhead allows the owners to consider alternate delivery methods (i.e. the bubble, or smaller bubbles) that they would be unable to act upon under the current MOU without causing considerable material damage to their businesses.

Indeed. But "causing considerable material damage to their businesses" isn't the test for invoking force majeure clauses.

There is, I think, a reasonable (but totally unrelated to force majeure) argument that it is in the best interests of the players to make accommodations for the long term health of the league. However, I think, based on the history of labour relations in the NHL (and particularly the adversarial stance taken by the league in most instances), that is going to be a pretty tough sell to the NHLPA.

All that said, I do think the parties resolve the issue and that we see NHL hockey starting in mid-to-late January.

[powderjunkie]

I think in July they saw three scenarios:

1. Back to relatively normal in the fall
2. Human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria, no hockey season
3. Something in between, which would almost inevitably require further discussions, at least for logistics, if not bigger issues

Obviously they should have held the line and had a couple of years where escrow ranges were linked to revenue like they will be in '21-22, but we don't have to guess who opposed that concept

Simply living with the major losses from scenarios 2-3 was never part of the plan, and I'm sure both sides knew that in July.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What changed is they desperately hoped there wouldn’t be a second wave, but now there is one. They gambled on an unlikely scenario and lost.

I would agree with that.

And that is pretty much all I've been saying

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What changed is they desperately hoped there wouldn’t be a second wave, but now there is one. They gambled on an unlikely scenario and lost.

Agreed. The NHLPA will likely say "we chose certainty and stability over gambling, and we won". I can understand why the NHLPA would not have a huge appetite to renegotiate in those circumstances.

Nonetheless (as already stated), I expect the NHLPA will make some concessions (likely in exchange for some other concessions from the league) and they will play hockey in January.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Kevin McGran @kevin_mcgran
Brian Burke @Burkie2020 just said on radio the players "have dug in on Christmas, they're not giving up Christmas with their families." If true (and I believe it) border corssing/quarantining can't begin till Dec. 26, or 27th, camps would open 14 days later.

Actually...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1334198675149611008

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's not my position.
It's the owners position.
It was stated in the article I posted.

I thought you considered it common sense?

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'll make this really simple

I think things must have changed since July. That's why I think it's more about economic health of the league or franchises and teams not wanting to play than not acting in good faith.

But you don't have to agree with that.

It's common sense to me, but doesn't have to be for you.

It only makes sense that something changed or they wouldn't be reopening things ... that's logic isn't it?

It would be a logical conclusion if one were to ignore all other possible reasons why the league would do this.

Why do you get to decide the only way to defend my position ... when in fact it doesn't need defending.

Seems pretty arrogant.

Arrogant? Because I pointed out that there was only one answer to my direct yes or no question(which you didn’t answer for some reason) that would defend your position? If you disagree why not actually explain why you think both answers could defend your position instead?

I’m honestly just trying to have a reasonable discussion about this. I think I’ve been pretty respectful so I don’t see the need for these types of comments because with all due respect I’m not concerned about your personal opinion of me and it has very little to do with this discussion.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Agreed. The NHLPA will likely say "we chose certainty and stability over gambling, and we won". I can understand why the NHLPA would not have a huge appetite to renegotiate in those circumstances.

Nonetheless (as already stated), I expect the NHLPA will make some concessions (likely in exchange for some other concessions from the league) and they will play hockey in January.

I expect pretty much the same, the league isn’t oblivious to the legal leverage the PA has here. While I don’t doubt the league’s desire to improve the deal in the short term given that they gambled and lost, I don’t think they ever realistically thought the players were going to agree to their proposed changes without receiving something significant in return beyond simply being given the opportunity to play this season for less money. There’s far too much long term risk to the PA as a whole in simply agreeing to the changes as proposed(demanded) by the league.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m honestly just trying to have a reasonable discussion about this. I think I’ve been pretty respectful so I don’t see the need for these types of comments because with all due respect I’m not concerned about your personal opinion of me and it has very little to do with this discussion.

In all fairness, having read this conversation, you're making that as difficult as humanly possible.

Bingo has made some valid points, you've made some valid points, but now it seems to be getting circular and nitpicky. Demanding answers to leading questions, suggesting certain positions are indefensible unless they meet your certain conditions, and being generally snarky are not exactly marks of someone who has been "pretty respectful." I should know, I do that #### and don't for a second think I'm being respectful while I do it.

Feels like a good time to agree to disagree and let the conversation flow a little easier. It's the owners vs the players after all, and the only stake for most of us is whether we get hockey or not, regardless of who is right or wrong.

[dino7c]

Players have zero leverage...players will make millions no matter what but the owners likely lose playing with zero fans. Longer it goes the better it is for the owners.

[iggy_oi]

I get what you’re sayin to an extent Pepsi(though I think you’re over exaggerating with your characterizations of my posts) but as a fan who would also like to see hockey start back up sooner rather than later I think the more people that support the league in what they’re trying to do the longer it takes to make that a reality.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Players have zero leverage...players will make millions no matter what but the owners likely lose playing with zero fans. Longer it goes the better it is for the owners.

The league doesn’t lose if the PA ends up suing them?

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The league doesn’t lose if the PA ends up suing them?

A lawsuit is a nuclear option that would never happen.

Players should and likely do know how this will play out. It's not a great position for them, but they are breakable and they will break again if they give themselves the opportunity.

99% of the hockey watching public will have no idea about the finer details re-neg. NHL players will get hammered in the PR battle as they are seen to be demanding more money in a pandemic and rinse repeat try to get a rushed deal done before the season isn't salvageable. The sooner they realize this, the better it will be for them.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Major Major

A lawsuit is a nuclear option that would never happen.

I’m pretty confident that if the league decides to lockout the players the PA will absolutely sue them. I don’t think it will get to the point where they are locked out but if the league decided to do so I don’t know how litigation would be avoided.

Players should and likely do know how this will play out. It's not a great position for them, but they are breakable and they will break again if they give themselves the opportunity.

99% of the hockey watching public will have no idea about the finer details re-neg. NHL players will get hammered in the PR battle as they are seen to be demanding more money in a pandemic and rinse repeat try to get a rushed deal done before the season isn't salvageable. The sooner they realize this, the better it will be for them.

The players aren’t obligated to negotiate another CBA, they already have one. That’s why the league’s approach is somewhat baffling from a labour relations perspective. The league has to acknowledge that in these circumstances they’re going to have to give the players something to get what they want.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m pretty confident that if the league decides to lockout the players the PA will absolutely sue them. I don’t think it will get to the point where they are locked out but if the league decided to do so I don’t know how litigation would be avoided.



The players aren’t obligated to negotiate another CBA, they already have one. That’s why the league’s approach is somewhat baffling from a labour relations perspective. The league has to acknowledge that in these circumstances they’re going to have to give the players something to get what they want.

And it pays them 50% of HRR, which if their salaries exceed they pay back in the form of escrow, which has been negotiated to extend for a longer period of time so they don't get hit with 80% escrow in one year. All other talking points are fluff.

I'll just leave this here:

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/...rying-back-cba

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Players have zero leverage...players will make millions no matter what but the owners likely lose playing with zero fans. Longer it goes the better it is for the owners.

I think you have the leverage backwards. The owners will pay the players 1.9 Billion (after the 20% escrow) as per the CBA amendment they agreed to in July unless they can get some court to agree to void the CBA. I cannot really think of a strong legal argument that they have that would allow the league to win in court and void a binding agreement. At some point I would worry about the legitimate risk of losing in court,, fronting that type of money with no revenue coming in and hoping you can get it back through escrow between 2022 and 2026.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m pretty confident that if the league decides to lockout the players the PA will absolutely sue them. I don’t think it will get to the point where they are locked out but if the league decided to do so I don’t know how litigation would be avoided.



The players aren’t obligated to negotiate another CBA, they already have one. That’s why the league’s approach is somewhat baffling from a labour relations perspective. The league has to acknowledge that in these circumstances they’re going to have to give the players something to get what they want.

In my opinion, If the players sued, it would be a bloodbath that the league would sustain. Teams would be lost and the league would take a massive hit, but that pails in comparison to a substantial portion of the players realizing that they've already played their final NHL game.

You say the players would be locked out. But is the agreement fully done? As in, the NHL could tell the players that the season is starting Jan 1, be in town for camp starting in 2 weeks, and the players would be bound to go by the MOU signed in June?