When will next season start? Return to Play Negotiations

[RM14]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

On the other hand, the owners are billionaires, and the players ARE the product. Most billionaires net worth grew during the pandemic. Pay them their salaries if you want the league to continue playing.

Not sure what to think.

I wonder if the Flames owners are still billionaires after this year

[The Yen Man]

Sorry, but I don't really have much sympathy for the players either. So you get less of your millions. Either shut up and play, or cancel the season and go home. I think it's pretty reasonable owners are asking players to shoulder their fair share of the Covid costs. They wanted 50/50 revenues during the good times. Well, here's 50/50 revenues during the bad times.

[iggy_oi]

The league would probably be better off just cancelling the season if reneging on an agreement is the only way they think this can work. They’ve already had players negotiate contracts based on what the previously agreed to escrow caps would be. If they can’t find a way to make this work I’d rather see this 60 game season be lost than a full regular season due to a strike when the CBA expires.

The timing of this is terrible but the owners know people are more likely to get mad at the players because of everything else that is going on. I understand from a business perspective why they would want to try to save more money but this will cause problems between the league and the players going forward, but Bettman doesn’t have to worry about that since it’s unlikely he’s around by the time this CBA expires.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Sorry, but I don't really have much sympathy for the players either. So you get less of your millions. Either shut up and play, or cancel the season and go home. I think it's pretty reasonable owners are asking players to shoulder their fair share of the Covid costs. They wanted 50/50 revenues during the good times. Well, here's 50/50 revenues during the bad times.

Pretty sure they wanted more than 50% in the good times but don’t let that ruin your narrative. I gotta say it’s kind of hilarious how jealous some fans seem to be of the players.

To use your same argument though, here’s what the owners agreed to and wanted in the “good times” they can take it in the bad times too. Oh wait that doesn’t help your narrative either. Oh well.

[Toonage]

I can't see a season being cancelled on the cusp of trying for a new TV deal in the States. The damage on that cost would bury the league.

[Locke]

I dont see the problem here. The players wanted to be partners. 50/50.

If the revenue isnt there, they have to shoulder their share. Regardless of the previous agreement.

Things changed.

Its annoying that people want to be in for the good times, but sheltered from the pot-holes.

They see the owners making a lot of money and they want their share, but when things go bad they want no part of it.

Yeah, the owners make a lot of money, but they also take a lot of risk. You wanted in and now you're looking at the downside? Who are these clowns?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont see the problem here. The players wanted to be partners. 50/50.

If the revenue isnt there, they have to shoulder their share. Regardless of the previous agreement.

Things changed.

Its annoying that people want to be in for the good times, but sheltered from the pot-holes.

They see the owners making a lot of money and they want their share, but when things go bad they want no part of it.

Yeah, the owners make a lot of money, but they also take a lot of risk. You wanted in and now you're looking at the downside? Who are these clowns?

Was this current agreement not what the league wanted when it was signed?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Was this current agreement not what the league wanted when it was signed?

Yeah....and the landscape of life and sports hasnt changed at all since then.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah....and the landscape of life and sports hasnt changed at all since then.

They signed this deal a few months ago, knowing full well the uncertainty going into it. Keep trying Locke.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

They signed this deal a few months ago, knowing full well the uncertainty going into it. Keep trying Locke.

I am not sure you can make this argument. When the agreement was signed, it still seemed likely that most governments would take strong corrective action against rising case numbers.

As we have seen, due largely to incompetence and political cowardice, they have not been willing or able to take these strong corrective actions outside of a few notable cases. As such the pandemic has dramatically worsened over the last couple of months. Alberta, for example, has seen over 1/4 of it's total deaths due to the virus in just the last 2 weeks.

So no, I don't think they anticipated THIS level of uncertainty and problems still incumbent in 2021.

[powderjunkie]

The re-negotiated agreement was pretty obviously a 'best-case-scenario' when it was signed. Unfortunately, we're pretty fair off from that scenario.

The owners always have more leverage, as hockey is a secondary business for [almost?] all of them. It's pretty much the players' only option for a livelihood.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The re-negotiated agreement was pretty obviously a 'best-case-scenario' when it was signed. Unfortunately, we're pretty fair off from that scenario.

The owners always have more leverage, as hockey is a secondary business for [almost?] all of them. It's pretty much the players' only option for a livelihood.

Agreed. I somehow doubt that franchise values are going up at the moment and if the owners can lose less money cancelling the season, they will probably go that route. The players have much more to lose.

And while I do not "feel sorry" for billionaire owners, they are still responsible to their companies and employees outside of hockey. If I worked for them and saw them subsidizing hockey players while my livelihood was in peril, I probably wouldn't be too happy. If they are going to use their personal wealth to keep people afloat during COVID, it would be better used to help the middle class 9-5ers who work for them, as opposed to millionaire hockey players.

It would be a much better financial decision for hockey players to take a big cut now and hopefully raise their value (and the value of the product in general) in the post-COVID future than to sit out and not do anything to increase their worth and let fans get used to having no NHL hockey.

I have supported the players in past labour disputes where the owners were the ones responsible for creating detrimental economic situations, but this one is beyond their control.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

My initial reaction was "players won't have much choice, as I'm sure the league will just kick start the force majeure clause(s)". So, I googled it and this Larry Brooks article came up;

https://nypost.com/2020/09/26/nhl-un...ns-over-money/

League agreed to waive force majeure for the 20/21 season and stick with the 72% pro-rated salary.

I understand why the players may be pissed now.

That's interesting. So does this mean that the owners can't unilaterally cancel the season?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

If I'm the owners, I say fine we're sticking to the original guidelines but it's going to be an 82-game season that starts in May to full crowds. Regular season ends mid-October and playoffs go until the end of November. Then one month off, kick off 21-22 with the Winter Classic and run 82 games again, reg season ends June 30 and Cup awarded end of August. 22-23 then starts around mid-October and we're back on schedule.

Players then ask themselves if they prefer two short offseasons to the deferred payment and the negotiation goes from there.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I am not sure you can make this argument. When the agreement was signed, it still seemed likely that most governments would take strong corrective action against rising case numbers.

As we have seen, due largely to incompetence and political cowardice, they have not been willing or able to take these strong corrective actions outside of a few notable cases. As such the pandemic has dramatically worsened over the last couple of months. Alberta, for example, has seen over 1/4 of it's total deaths due to the virus in just the last 2 weeks.

So no, I don't think they anticipated THIS level of uncertainty and problems still incumbent in 2021.

What level of uncertainty did you think they expected? Serious question. There was no vaccine and everyone was under lockdown or just coming out of it at the time this agreement was signed. I think the league ought to have known that a second or third wave was likely, if they didn’t they likely wouldn’t had made provisions for the next 3 years in this deal.

The flip side of this coin is that we now know a vaccine will likely be available by early next year which will likely make the following seasons much more “normal” yet I’m sure the league is still expecting the players to adhere to the elevated escrow levels and cap freezes they’ve agreed to for those seasons.

Unless I’m wrong and the league has committed to renegotiating those rates if things recover then this just comes off as the league trying to have their cake and eat it too. I understand from the businesses perspective why they’re trying to do it but I think it’s a pretty short sighted move and undoes a lot of the work that has been done to mend fences between the NHL and the NHLPA.

[Locke]

Yeah, sports leagues are notorious for their ability to accurately analytically project the virility of Global Pandemics and the ensuing socio-economic repercussions.

They never set a foot wrong in that arena.

I think you expect too much from employers. The players want to be partners in terms of revenue and employees in terms of benefits and consequences.

You cant have it both ways.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

That's interesting. So does this mean that the owners can't unilaterally cancel the season?

I would imagine they are still able to cancel the season, government’s might not give them a choice in the matter anyhow. All this language means is that if they do play the players are entitled to the amount agreed to as the NHL has waived their right to use another clause in the CBA which could challenge that.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

What level of uncertainty did you think they expected? Serious question. There was no vaccine and everyone was under lockdown or just coming out of it at the time this agreement was signed. I think the league ought to have known that a second or third wave was likely, if they didn’t they likely wouldn’t had made provisions for the next 3 years in this deal.

The flip side of this coin is that we now know a vaccine will likely be available by early next year which will likely make the following seasons much more “normal” yet I’m sure the league is still expecting the players to adhere to the elevated escrow levels and cap freezes they’ve agreed to for those seasons...

Based on everything I have seen the availability of vaccines to the wider public will not occur until summer 2021 at the earliest.

I honestly don't care about who wins the optics war in this new fight between owners and players, so long as there is a feasible and sustainable model for NHL hockey beyond 2021. If the players insist on enforcement of the current agreement with no regard to the certain revenue-loss for this season, then I believe that future is very much in doubt. As much as you see "the league trying to have their cake and eat it too," I think this applies just as clearly to the PA, which seems set on jeopardizing long-term sustainability for immediate compensation.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

The players want to be partners in terms of revenue and employees in terms of benefits and consequences.

When did the players ask to be partners or to take on the consequences of revenue loss? Agreeing to a 50/50 split to keep working isn’t the same as saying you want to be partners and make up for any poor decisions made by the league. Consider the fact that the players don’t want to pay escrow and that should be enough to show you how big of an appetite they have for wanting to take on that risk.

You cant have it both ways.

I agree, but that seems to be what the league is trying to do here. They made an agreement where both sides agreed in good faith to take risks, they should stick with it unless they want to give the NHLPA the option to open up the CBA whenever they’re not happy about how something is working out for them, which I can’t imagine the league doing. Ever.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

What level of uncertainty did you think they expected? Serious question. There was no vaccine and everyone was under lockdown or just coming out of it at the time this agreement was signed. I think the league ought to have known that a second or third wave was likely, if they didn’t they likely wouldn’t had made provisions for the next 3 years in this deal.

The flip side of this coin is that we now know a vaccine will likely be available by early next year which will likely make the following seasons much more “normal” yet I’m sure the league is still expecting the players to adhere to the elevated escrow levels and cap freezes they’ve agreed to for those seasons.

Unless I’m wrong and the league has committed to renegotiating those rates if things recover then this just comes off as the league trying to have their cake and eat it too. I understand from the businesses perspective why they’re trying to do it but I think it’s a pretty short sighted move and undoes a lot of the work that has been done to mend fences between the NHL and the NHLPA.

Look at what Australia did. Maybe some of the owners were thinking that governments here would be that bold and there'd be enough of a tamper on numbers to host some type of public events again. They're about to host a 52,000 person event in Brisbane: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-...ntage/12892044