Cap to rise 1M next year...players owe owners 1 BILLION dollars

[the_only_turek_fan]

The CBA has been ratified by both parties.

How can the owners go back and ask the players for money because the escrow number was not large enough?

[DJones]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

The CBA has been ratified by both parties.

How can the owners go back and ask the players for money because the escrow number was not large enough?

According to the CBA the players should have gotten their pay deducted last year but the owners paid out full salaries.

Honestly a greedy move by the players. Players union is dominated by overpaid vets on their last contract. I'd be pissed if I was starting my career with this situation.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Yah I'd be pretty upset to be a young player... But the NHLPA has a long history of screwing over the young players for the older ones.

I think its worse for an older player locked into what may be their last long term contract. They have to pay all that escrow on a deal they negotiated when there was less.

A young guy can just demand more money in their next contract to make up for it. Like Werenski.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

The CBA has been ratified by both parties.

How can the owners go back and ask the players for money because the escrow number was not large enough?

I thought it was the NHLPA that made the determination of the escrow holdback? The terms of the revenue sharing are clear, so its up to the players to manage their share of that revenue, which is where the escrow holdback comes in. The NHLPA not withholding enough to pay for escrow is the problem. I don't know how the owners are on the hook here. The players know what the rules are.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I thought it was the NHLPA that made the determination of the escrow holdback? The terms of the revenue sharing are clear, so its up to the players to manage their share of that revenue, which is where the escrow holdback comes in. The NHLPA not withholding enough to pay for escrow is the problem. I don't know how the owners are on the hook here. The players know what the rules are.

That’s crazy. Imagine being able to walk away from taxes and saying, hey, the younger generation will pay my share for me. How could the PA not implode based on the fallout from this? Was it foreseeable, or was it because of the pandemic? If it was foreseeable, I’d be so pissed as a young guy.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by DJones

According to the CBA the players should have gotten their pay deducted last year but the owners paid out full salaries.

Honestly a greedy move by the players. Players union is dominated by overpaid vets on their last contract. I'd be pissed if I was starting my career with this situation.

Good old unions looking out for everyones best interest right?

[DoubleK]

Where's Iggy oi at? This is exactly what I said was going to happen.

The vets on their last contracts really screwed over the younger players in the league.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

The CBA has been ratified by both parties.

How can the owners go back and ask the players for money because the escrow number was not large enough?

My understanding is it's pretty much the opposite. The players wanted to pay less in escrow knowing salaries will most likely be over the 50% threshold, so when salaries past the 50/50 mark, players are now on the hook to pay it back.

So really, it's the owners making the players honor the CBA, not the other way around.

It's more of past players screwing over current and future players.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I think its worse for an older player locked into what may be their last long term contract. They have to pay all that escrow on a deal they negotiated when there was less.

A young guy can just demand more money in their next contract to make up for it. Like Werenski.

The guys on their last contract are getting more money than they should. Also likely have back diving contracts. Younger players are paying the brunt of it. They can demand more but doesn't mean they will get a dollar more than they would have without losing all this money.

[Macho0978]

The hockey’s writers has a breakdown of escrow as follows

20-21 is 20%
21-22 is 14-18%
22-23 is 10%
23-24, 24-25, 25-26 is 6%

Does this get taken off each players pay cheque?

As an example zach Hyman contract is low salary the first 2 years but spikes when escrow drops to 6%

IMO players who sign before pandemic could be getting screwed more than anyone. Anyone who signs now can manipulate the numbers to limit their payments

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by fleury

That’s crazy. Imagine being able to walk away from taxes and saying, hey, the younger generation will pay my share for me. How could the PA not implode based on the fallout from this? Was it foreseeable, or was it because of the pandemic? If it was foreseeable, I’d be so pissed as a young guy.

Well the revenue shortfall is because of the pandemic but wasn't this negotiated before they returned to play. There's no gotcha here I don't believe.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Yah I'd be pretty upset to be a young player... But the NHLPA has a long history of screwing over the young players for the older ones.

Yep that's a union

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Is this due to the NHLPA continually triggering Escrow escalators over the years preceding the pandemic?

No. Totally unrelated.


This is entirely because of the massive loss of revenue since COVID hit. They didn't want to slash the cap and make it nearly impossible for teams to ice full rosters, so they kept the cap high with the knowledge that the players of today were essentially borrowing money from the players of the future.

If things return to normal this season, the process of paying back those losses will begin.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well the revenue shortfall is because of the pandemic but wasn't this negotiated before they returned to play. There's no gotcha here I don't believe.

What do you mean by the last part (not questioning you, I just don’t understand)? Personally I’d like to know if this was foreseeable at the time that it was negotiated. If it was how do the young guys not revolt? Hard to feel sad for millionaires but if I was in their shoes, I’d be wondering how this major detail got passed where the legitimate dollars are not being collected by the right people who earned the money. Seems such a crazy concept to me.

[Stillman16]

Originally Posted by getbak

No. Totally unrelated.


This is entirely because of the massive loss of revenue since COVID hit. They didn't want to slash the cap and make it nearly impossible for teams to ice full rosters, so they kept the cap high with the knowledge that the players of today were essentially borrowing money from the players of the future.

If things return to normal this season, the process of paying back those losses will begin.

I’d actually argue it’s both, if the cap hadn’t been escalated so much, and stayed closer to the actual revenue split, the cost of salaries would have been lower, and the loses would have been lower too.

It would have also limited escrow pre-pandemic (another thing players constantly complain about), but the players looking to cash in wanted the cap as high as possible so they could get as much money as possible from as many teams as possible (lower cap=less teams with space to pay $$$).

This also drove salaries up too, as to get a player some teams needed to overpay since the players still had many choices, instead of the real purpose of the cap, that should force players to play in less desirable locals to get their $$$.

The pandemic definitely is responsible for a large share of the shortfall, but if the cap was more in line with the actual revenue pre-pandemic, it would have been less.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Where's Iggy oi at? This is exactly what I said was going to happen.

The vets on their last contracts really screwed over the younger players in the league.

How exactly is a vet like Corey Perry screwing over a young player like Connor McDavid?

Escrow is maxed at 18% next year so I’m not sure why the author of this article is concerned that the players will receive more than 50% of revenue, even using the author’s projections of $4.8B in revenue with $2.9B in salary, taking away 18% of $2.9B would leave salaries just under $2.4B.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by fleury

What do you mean by the last part (not questioning you, I just don’t understand)? Personally I’d like to know if this was foreseeable at the time that it was negotiated. If it was how do the young guys not revolt? Hard to feel sad for millionaires but if I was in their shoes, I’d be wondering how this major detail got passed where the legitimate dollars are not being collected by the right people who earned the money. Seems such a crazy concept to me.

Post 33 explains it pretty well. I believe during the return to work it was negotiated by all parties that the cap would remain artificially high and would have to be paid back eventually.

In other words, this was discussed and agreed after Covid hit and the massive loss in revenues was foreseeable.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

The CBA has been ratified by both parties.

How can the owners go back and ask the players for money because the escrow number was not large enough?

There might have been a certain incident that significantly affected the amount of hockey related revenue, to which player salaries are linked

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Yep that's a union

It's actually even worse. Each player owes a billion dollars to the owners.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

I understand the general premise of the escrow and that player salaries are pegged to X revenue on a 50% basis but can someone please explain as if you were to a child how this benefits or makes players want 8 year contracts. Thank you.

I think it is so they can take lower salaries at the start of the contract, and less escrow off their own pay, with higher salaries at the end when the escrow percentage drops.