[News] NHLPA rejects NHL's extension of CBA for Olympic participation offer

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by getbak

Yes. If the total paid to the players is below the final players' share, they get all of their escrowed money returned (with interest) plus a bonus equal to whatever the underpayment was.

IIRC, since 2006, there have been a couple of seasons where the players received a bonus at the end of the year. There have also been a few years where the players have received almost all of their escrowed money back.

thanks for clarifying the bolded portion

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

You obviously have no idea how unions work. No union is one man. The president represents the wants of his members, not the other way around. I could easily predict the mind set of every worker and employer on this planet:

And you obviously read nothing of what I wrote.

Don Fehr wanted to cancel another World Series. The dude has a pathological hatred of ownership and management - not entirely unreasonble given the example MLB owners set when he was moving up the MLBPA ranks - but it defines how he operates.

In the end, however, it was his players, collectively, that saved the 2002 MLB season. So, please, spare me your "no union is one man" garbage lecture because I made it clear that it was the collective that came to the resolution.

What I am saying is that as long as the NHL players follow Don Fehr, there will always be lock outs. It will be incumbent on the players as a group to tell Don Fehr to get a deal done without one, but since the hawks rule the NHLPA right now, don't make any plans to follow the Flames on the road in October 2019.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by getbak

People keep bringing up the escalator, but the escalator isn't really the problem. The escalator pretty much works the way it's supposed to. The escalator is self-correcting because it's always applied to the previous season's actual HRR (as it's known at the end of June), so it's not throwing the whole system out of whack or anything. 5% was chosen because it's generally pretty accurate in projecting year-over-year revenue growth. Some years, it's high. Some years, it's low. But, that's the nature of any estimate.



Let's look at the real numbers...

This year's cap is $73M and the floor is $54M. That puts the midpoint at $63.5M. If we multiply that by 30, we get $1.905B for the total projected players' share of revenue for this season.

That number would have been calculated by adding the 5% escalator to last year's actual revenue. That means we can assume that the players' share of last year's actual HRR would have been $1.814B.

Last year's cap was $71.4M and the floor was $52.8M, with a midpoint of $62.1M. Multiply by 30 and last year's projected players' share of revenue was $1.863B.


So, this is what we can figure out from the known numbers: The projected players' share of total HRR for 2015-16 was $1.863B. The actual players' share of total HRR for 2015-16 was $1.814B. The projected number was high, but not outrageously so (2.7%). There have been a number of years since 2005 where the 5% escalator was too low.


If you look at last season's payroll numbers on the CapFriendly archive (https://www.capfriendly.com/archive), the combined total paid to the players last season was $2.047B. This is not necessarily an accurate number for the real dollars paid out because this is just cap hit and some players (like Pronger) have high cap hits with low actual payouts and others (like Weber) have high salaries with lower cap hits. Generally, those difference should cancel each other out, so the cap total should be close to the salary total... Close enough for this discussion, at least.

If the escalator hadn't been used to set last year's cap, it would have been about $68M, rather than $71.4M. However, a 5% reduction in the cap wouldn't necessarily mean a 5% reduction in the total salary payout because you still have to account for injury replacements and bonuses paid. Plus, a lot of teams were under $68M anyway, so they likely wouldn't have reduced much with a lower cap.

Even if a lower cap resulted in the total payout to the players dropping to $2B flat, that's still a 10% overpayment to the players. That's better than 12 or 13%, but it's still not great.


The problem with the system as it's set up right now is that it was designed with the assumption that the average team payroll would be around the midpoint of the salary range. Only a few teams were supposed to be anywhere near the cap (with a few teams near the floor to offset them). This has never been true. In fact, in most seasons, there are more teams over the cap at the end of the season than there are below the midpoint (never mind near the floor).

The current system gives teams an incentive to spend as much as possible because they know they'll get escrowed money returned.

The only way to fix this is to fix the way the cap is calculated. Until that happens, nothing significant will change, whether they use the escalator or not.

Great post,

I would argue that the escalator in general will always increase the amount of escrow money not returned to the player. Therefore if the problem is actually with escrow not being returned then they should not be using the escalator.

This means that the issue is not the amount of escrow being returned and is in fact something else. The issue that appears to being fought over when the word Escrow is used is the hard linkage between actual Revenue and Salary.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It will be incumbent on the players as a group to tell Don Fehr to get a deal done without one, but since the hawks rule the NHLPA right now, don't make any plans to follow the Flames on the road in October 2019.

2020. The players can give notice to the league by September 1, 2019 that they want to terminate the CBA early, but it's a one-year notice. The actual early termination date would be September 15, 2020.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And you obviously read nothing of what I wrote.

Don Fehr wanted to cancel another World Series. The dude has a pathological hatred of ownership and management - not entirely unreasonble given the example MLB owners set when he was moving up the MLBPA ranks - but it defines how he operates.

In the end, however, it was his players, collectively, that saved the 2002 MLB season. So, please, spare me your "no union is one man" garbage lecture because I made it clear that it was the collective that came to the resolution.

What I am saying is that as long as the NHL players follow Don Fehr, there will always be lock outs. It will be incumbent on the players as a group to tell Don Fehr to get a deal done without one, but since the hawks rule the NHLPA right now, don't make any plans to follow the Flames on the road in October 2019.

The NHLPA bargained in good faith during the last CBAs. They were the first party to reach 50/50 split of revenue while the league was at 42/58 split in favor of the owners. You do know that Fehr has no say in a lock-outs, don't you? That's the owners who lock players out of the buildings. Fehr and the NHLPA only determine strikes. And the last four labour stoppage have been exercised by the owners, not the players.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

The NHLPA bargained in good faith during the last CBAs. They were the first party to reach 50/50 split of revenue while the league was at 42/58 split in favor of the owners. You do know that Fehr has no say in a lock-outs, don't you? That's the owners who lock players out of the buildings. Fehr and the NHLPA only determine strikes. And the last four labour stoppage have been exercised by the owners, not the players.

That is a very simplistic way of looking at things. Yes the owners are responsible for locking out the players, but its basically a mutual decision.

Yes, they're the ones that lock the doors because they're the ones responsible for them. The players arent responsible for anything other than showing up and doing their jobs.

[Dentoman]

Discussion ramping up already .... I eagerly await an EddyBeers return.

[Resolute 14]

Fehr has a lot of say in a lockout, dude. He knows as well as everyone else that no CBA = no start to a season. So when he completely refuses to negotiate at all prior to the start of a lockout, he and his players are as responsible for it as Bettman and his owners are.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

if i were an NHL player the olympics would not interest me at all. I want to be the best (Calgary Flame) i can be.

Some players just really like the competition and have a desire to win on the biggest stage whether it be the NHL/Stanley Cup or the Olympics/Gold medal.

For some players (like Iggy and Ovi) winning an Olympic medal might be the pinnacle of their careers.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The dude has a pathological hatred of ownership and management

This is just a garbage statement to make, I know we typically don't see eye to eye in these types of discussions but I think you've got enough sense to realize that opinion based statements passed off as fact don't really add to the discussion. Fehr is paid to represent the NHLPA, he doesn't care what anyone thinks except the players, nor should he, he uses all available options to give them as much leverage as they can get, same as bettman does for the owners.

[sureLoss]

David Pagnotta @TheFourthPeriod
Interested to see how NHL reacts to NHLPA response after CBA rejection reg escrow figures - been told PA could ask to "cap" # with spillover

David Pagnotta @TheFourthPeriod
Example, if annual escrow "cap" is at 10% but actual figure hits 13%, the 3% would carry over to next season until eventually evening out

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

This is just a garbage statement to make, I know we typically don't see eye to eye in these types of discussions but I think you've got enough sense to realize that opinion based statements passed off as fact don't really add to the discussion. Fehr is paid to represent the NHLPA, he doesn't care what anyone thinks except the players, nor should he, he uses all available options to give them as much leverage as they can get, same as bettman does for the owners.

I disagree...normally conflicts between employers and employees can be....difficult...and I would normally agree with you, but Don Fehr has a track record.

Originally Posted by sureLoss

David Pagnotta @TheFourthPeriod
Interested to see how NHL reacts to NHLPA response after CBA rejection reg escrow figures - been told PA could ask to "cap" # with spillover

David Pagnotta @TheFourthPeriod
Example, if annual escrow "cap" is at 10% but actual figure hits 13%, the 3% would carry over to next season until eventually evening out

What? That sounds insanely complicated? I mean, at the end of the day its the same number of dollars isnt it?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

I disagree...normally conflicts between employers and employees can be....difficult...and I would normally agree with you, but Don Fehr has a track record.

He uses all available legal options, even extreme ones, to best represent the people who pay him. To suggest he has a pathological hatred for owners simply because they are the opposition would be like saying Johnny Cochran had a pathological hatred for law enforcement.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

He uses all available legal options, even extreme ones, to best represent the people who pay him. To suggest he has a pathological hatred for owners simply because they are the opposition would be like saying Johnny Cochran had a pathological hatred for law enforcement.

He uses the extreme option as a first and only resort, sorry, that means hes bad at his job.

While he plays Brinkmanship his members, the people he is paid to represent, lose money and burn time on already typically short careers. While he gets paid.

These are not hallmarks of competence.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

He uses the extreme option as a first and only resort, sorry, that means hes bad at his job.

While he plays Brinkmanship his members, the people he is paid to represent, lose money and burn time on already typically short careers. While he gets paid.

These are not hallmarks of competence.

What other leverage does the PA have in negotiations? I'm not sure if you've noticed but they've taken it on the chin the last 2 rounds of bargaining, do you really feel they would have gotten a better deal the last round without having put financial pressure on the league?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

What other leverage does the PA have in negotiations? I'm not sure if you've noticed but they've taken it on the chin the last 2 rounds of bargaining, do you really feel they would have gotten a better deal the last round without having put financial pressure on the league?

Yes, 50/50 was available day 1. Everyone knew that's where it was going to end up.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Yes, 50/50 was available day 1. Everyone knew that's where it was going to end up.

That's not the only thing the CBA covers. Also the league was starting at 46%.

[Resolute 14]

Of course the league was starting at 46, Iggy_oi. If your goal is 50, you don't start at 50, because the other side will work to negotiate up from your starting point.

As far as Don Fehr goes, I stand by my statement. And I also indicated both why, and why I said it wasn't entirely unreasonable. Fehr cut his teeth with the MLBPA at the peak of the fight for free agency and became that union's head when the owners were engaging in a massive collusion scheme. But his entire career has been spent as a warmonger. The only times his unions have ever enjoyed peace was when the players themselves demanded it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Of course the league was starting at 46, Iggy_oi. If your goal is 50, you don't start at 50, because the other side will work to negotiate up from your starting point.

I was responding to the statement he made that 50% was available on day 1, while hypothetically it was, it was not offered. At the end of the day everything that was agreed to in the end was available on day 1, but don't kid yourself that the owners would not have tried for less if the PA countered with 50% initially.

As far as Don Fehr goes, I stand by my statement. And I also indicated both why, and why I said it wasn't entirely unreasonable. Fehr cut his teeth with the MLBPA at the peak of the fight for free agency and became that union's head when the owners were engaging in a massive collusion scheme. But his entire career has been spent as a warmonger. The only times his unions have ever enjoyed peace was when the players themselves demanded it.

Each round of bargaining is unique, some rounds the stakes are higher than others. There can be a lockout or strike in one round and the next round could be settled in a few meetings, I'm speaking from experience on that. Would you say that goodenow had a bigger "pathological hatred" towards owners since the work stoppage under his tenure was longer than Fehr's?