[Rumour] NHL offers Olympic participation in exchange for the NHLPA agreeing to extend CBA

[SuperMatt18]

You would think the players would want to renew.

They don't tend to win these things when it gets to a lockout.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

I'm not sure how linkage of player salaries to revenue would work without escrow. Unless, they based salaries on the previous year's income? Or players don't get paid at all until the end of the year?

Exactly. Without escrow (or something similar) they would be forced to use the prior year's income.

Escrow actually has a huge benefit for players: the current system (using expected revenues), provides them with the opportunity to use the 5% escalator, which essentially creates inflation.

This causes teams to try and bump revenues (beer prices, etc) as much as possible in order to compensate. The forced inflation pushes up HRR which pushes up salaries. It's a viscous circle of price hikes.

Any players that are complaining about escrow don't have a clue how it works and how it affects the system.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

You would think the players would want to renew.

They don't tend to win these things when it gets to a lockout.

This is why the NFL always owns the NFLPA. The players talk a good game but as soon as players start losing pay cheques the players crack. It's harder on football players seeing they play less games so a missed pay cheque is much larger than NHL players missing a game out of an 82 game season but the NHL players have seen that the NHL can handle going a full season without operating and it's no longer a bluff they can call and the NHL knows the players will in time turn on each other once they start losing a lot of pay. How many meltdowns did we see from players in 2004 like Domi, etc? The NHL should always win these negotiations and IMO the NHLPA is kind of fortunate that the NHL doesn't drive a harder bargain like the NFL. These leagues are generally hobbies for the owners as it's rarely their primary source of income so the players really don't have a lot of leverage in that shutting the league down doesn't cripple the owners financially like it does the players.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

I'm not sure how linkage of player salaries to revenue would work without escrow. Unless, they based salaries on the previous year's income? Or players don't get paid at all until the end of the year?

The simplest method would set the cap itself at 50% HRR and have the owners top up since not every team would spend to it. So instead of $63.5 million being the midpoint (ignoring the escalator), it becomes the cap. The players would really hate that since it would have meant a $10 million decrease in the cap if such a plan were implemented this year.

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

You would think the players would want to renew.

They don't tend to win these things when it gets to a lockout.

Not since Goodenow overplayed his hand in 2004-05, no. Sports labour negotiations is in a rather interesting place right now where, after decades of ownership controlling everything with an iron fist, and the pendulum swinging wildly in the players' favour, it is starting to swing back. How long it progresses back to ownerships' side before the players reach a point of their own where they are willing to go to the wall is unknown.

It seems pretty clear that the NHLPA is going to try and break linkage in the next negotiation. I don't see the owners going for it unless the cap itself swings wildly into their favour.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Eric

Win win for the fans...

More years without a lockout, and Olympic hockey.

Yeah...in the middle of the night.

[rhino]

I say on Olympic years do not do a World Junior tournament and send the young guys to play.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The World Cup should replace the Olympics.

It's a second rate attempt at a tournament. Not even close to what the Olympics is. As a fan, I'll be very ticked if they do not attend.

[Flash Walken]

I'd much rather watch a bunch of 17-19 year old kids play hockey for their countries at the olympics than a bunch of pros.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

It's a second rate attempt at a tournament. Not even close to what the Olympics is. As a fan, I'll be very ticked if they do not attend.

I am actually on the side of the owners and the NHL on this one. Why should the owners risk their star players to injury? It also is grating on me the attitude the players are copping here laughing and saying "they can't stop us". The most recent is Marc Vlasic. No, maybe they can't stop you from getting on a plane and going but if the NHL and the owners want to make a hard stance they tell the players that a) while you are there you are suspended without pay and b) if you sustain any injury while there you will also not be paid until you are healthy enough to play for your NHL team again. So if you blow out your knee ala Stamkos, you are out 6 months of salary. If the NHLPA doesn't like it, go suck an egg.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'd much rather watch a bunch of 17-19 year old kids play hockey for their countries at the olympics than a bunch of pros.

Why? Every other sport at the Olympics is made up of pros.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by rhino

I say on Olympic years do not do a World Junior tournament and send the young guys to play.

Oh, that's absolutely brilliant. Our 19 year old kids against the KHL, SEL, liiga, etc's best pros. Nothing could possibly go wrong there.

[flamesfan1297]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'd much rather watch a bunch of 17-19 year old kids play hockey for their countries at the olympics than a bunch of pros.

Really? Canada and the U.S. would get destroyed. Every other league would still send their players. Russia would dominate this tournament and it would be no fun to watch and not completitive at all

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I am actually on the side of the owners and the NHL on this one. Why should the owners risk their star players to injury? It also is grating on me the attitude the players are copping here laughing and saying "they can't stop us". The most recent is Marc Vlasic. No, maybe they can't stop you from getting on a plane and going but if the NHL and the owners want to make a hard stance they tell the players that a) while you are there you are suspended without pay and b) if you sustain any injury while there you will also not be paid until you are healthy enough to play for your NHL team again. So if you blow out your knee ala Stamkos, you are out 6 months of salary. If the NHLPA doesn't like it, go suck an egg.

The owners are insured. It would be no different than if a player gets into a car accident, sustaining an injury slipping on ice, or any number of situations (ie, Craig Anderson's wife getting diagnosed with cancer) that can arise from the risks of life. It's greed, pure and simple. Its the same owners who leverage municipalities for millions in arena dollars and claim their books are in the red, yet somehow sports franchises are being sold for billions of dollars.

Don't forget, there was a time when the NHL was a joke. Line brawls, replacement amateur refs, and players beating fans with a shoe. It was things like the summit series, Olympics, and Canada Cup that kept the league gaining interest globally. It wasn't too long that the first Europeans changed the way the game is played, and now, all of a sudden Canadians only comprise of 49% of the league. So now the league is too snobby to participate in an important, political and athletic process that has great international participation despite global wars and political conflicts taking place?

The Olympics is about sport, not money or politics. Its a best-in-the-world competition where athletes generally lose money or only break even or require funding to even participate.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

The owners are insured. It would be no different than if a player gets into a car accident, sustaining an injury slipping on ice, or any number of situations (ie, Craig Anderson's wife getting diagnosed with cancer) that can arise from the risks of life. It's greed, pure and simple.

These are the same owners that commit hundreds of million of dollars to star players. Lets not forget that it is the owners that are paying hockey players to enjoy a lifestyle a very small percentage of the world gets to enjoy

Insurance isn't free. It is an added cost to a business and while insurance might cover the salary of a player, it doesn't cover the loss of revenues that a team can lose by not reaching the playoffs or an early exit in the playoffs.

Owners are also risking a valuable resource which is time. Yeah a player can get hurt doing mundane everyday things, but playing competitive hockey increases chance of injury significantly. Injury in Olympics to a star player may mean they used up a year in the window to win for their team.

Its the same owners who leverage municipalities for millions in arena dollars and claim their books are in the red, yet somehow sports franchises are being sold for billions of dollars.

The IOC leverages billions of dollars from hosts for a 2 week sporting event then leaves. At least most NHL teams are usually around for decades in municipalities.

Don't forget, there was a time when the NHL was a joke. Line brawls, replacement amateur refs, and players beating fans with a shoe. It was things like the summit series, Olympics, and Canada Cup that kept the league gaining interest globally. It wasn't too long that the first Europeans changed the way the game is played, and now, all of a sudden Canadians only comprise of 49% of the league. So now the league is too snobby to participate in an important, political and athletic process that has great international participation despite global wars and political conflicts taking place?

Don't forget, the Olympics has been and still is a joke with all the corruption. Bribing of judges/officials. Doping scandals that involve countries' spy agencies. Match fixing. And the Olympics aren't immune to political pressures. Lots of examples of boycotts and unsportsmanlike conduct because of politics.

The Olympics is about sport, not money or politics. Its a best-in-the-world competition where athletes generally lose money or only break even or require funding to even participate.

LOL. The Olympics aren't supposed to be about money, but money is definetely the driving factor for the Olympics. The IOC, is going to make money out of Olympic athletes. They make lots of money off these athletes while compensating them poorly. In some ways they have a better racket going on than the NCAA.

Also guess how the IIHF is going to fund all the missing transportation and insurance costs the IOC will no longer pay for (though they did in previous Olympics)? They are going to take it out of the budgets from their grassroot programs that get kids to play hockey.


tldr; Both the owners and the Olympics are driven by money. Lets not pretend one side is more nobler than the other.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Exactly. Without escrow (or something similar) they would be forced to use the prior year's income.

Escrow actually has a huge benefit for players: the current system (using expected revenues), provides them with the opportunity to use the 5% escalator, which essentially creates inflation.

This causes teams to try and bump revenues (beer prices, etc) as much as possible in order to compensate. The forced inflation pushes up HRR which pushes up salaries. It's a viscous circle of price hikes.

Any players that are complaining about escrow don't have a clue how it works and how it affects the system.

Wait wait wait. Are you suggesting that a professional group of people who flushed a billion dollars in wages down the drain in 2004/5 would not be financially literate?

[GirlySports]

I don't understand why players would give up something to play in the Olympics.
If I were a player I would totally concentrate on playing for the team that pays my salary.

and play in the world cup which makes the NHLPA more money.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Insurance isn't free. It is an added cost to a business and while insurance might cover the salary of a player, it doesn't cover the loss of revenues that a team can lose by not reaching the playoffs or an early exit in the playoffs.

Not to mention car accidents and the other examples may be covered in the insurance policy, but I'd be willing to bet playing hockey for anyone other than the NHL isn't covered, and if it is it has to be agreed upon for an added charge.

IIRC both Niedermayer's had a clause that allowed them to ski during the season, and I assume the insurance went up for that.

Look at personal life insurance policies for example, they don't cover any "adventure sports" which is usually as adventurous as anything outside of walking on the bike paths.

I'd be amazed if a player's insurance covers much more than anything hockey related and a very limited and specific scope while not on the ice.

[MikeN]

lol man sounds like they are blackmailing the NHLPA. Cant see that going over well with the players.

[Resolute 14]

Sure, this could be considered blackmail if you twisted the meaning of the word blackmail beyond all recognition.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MikeN

lol man sounds like they are blackmailing the NHLPA. Cant see that going over well with the players.

You mean using leverage? That's kinda how these things work. The players can still negotiate.