UPDATE: NHLPA votes for further negotiations on 24-team return to play format

[calgaryred]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

^ Again I don’t want to make any players decision for them. Not my business.

But you’re saying 7 weeks for a player who doesn’t make the playoffs is a waste. But it is their job. They will earn money for this and a shot at playoff glory. It’s not without a reward.

It is if a parent dies or their child is born without them there. Life goes on while they are locked up in a hotel like it's the CCCP in town.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

^ Again I don’t want to make any players decision for them. Not my business.

But you’re saying 7 weeks for a player who doesn’t make the playoffs is a waste. But it is their job. They will earn money for this and a shot at playoff glory. It’s not without a reward.

I would suggest many of the players would say that it isn't their job to be away from their families for so long, during a crisis event.
I think it's fair to say that's not what they signed up for.
Ultimately yes they should be asked, but the more that refuse, the less meaningful the whole idea is.

[Saqe]

It's a three month+ commitment for everyone, or that's what they have to plan for. No one is going to the playoffs wanting to lose.

[Saqe]

Also what happens if they play for a few weeks and can't keep the virus contained? Let's say one team gets it and now has to be quaranteened and drops out of the playoffs. Do the other teams move forward and one team gets a bye? Seems fishy.

Seems like so many things can go wrong.

[Harry Lime]

So the minimum time required would be 2 week isolation and personal training, 2 week on ice training, team winning percentage used to decide playoff seeding, first two round best of five alternate days, last two rounds best of seven alternate days. Two days between rounds.

So 82 days is the maximum time on a minimum schedule, for the two teams in the finals.

Teams dropping the first round would be committed to 38 days, and the non-playoff teams stay home.

That's four teams committing to a lot of time, with a lot of potential reward. If they want to finish out the season, things get complicated, and time intensive.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I would suggest many of the players would say that it isn't their job to be away from their families for so long, during a crisis event.
I think it's fair to say that's not what they signed up for.
Ultimately yes they should be asked, but the more that refuse, the less meaningful the whole idea is.

Isn’t it clear I said the players should be able to choose? It is precisely because the situation is not what they signed up for that the NHLPA has so much power in what happens next. The players and owners agreed to share in hockey related revenues so there is a financial impact to all parties.

Seems like too people want to make the decision for them based on their own values and with an extremely limited set of information.

The players are extremely fortunate to have such power and so many choices. No one signed up for their job expecting a crisis event and I have tremendous sympathy for those who don’t have the same options. How many members of the military are away from their families right now?

[Jiri Hrdina]

I think that’s what’s objectionable is comparing true essential jobs to hockey and this idea that because they are millionaires they should just do what they are paid to do (not from you but from others)

[timbit]

In the playoffs, the players make a small fraction of their season salaries, in playoff bonuses.
Even those players whose teams get to the final four.

The playoffs, along with exhibition games, is where the owners make hay. No player salaries for the owners to pay in either situation.

Too big a risk, possible illness as well as family disruption for the players. Doesn’t make any sense.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

^ Again I don’t want to make any players decision for them. Not my business.

But you’re saying 7 weeks for a player who doesn’t make the playoffs is a waste. But it is their job. They will earn money for this and a shot at playoff glory. It’s not without a reward.

That's the thing though, for about a third of the teams in the league, they're either already mathematically eliminated or might as well be. Another third of the league is securely in a playoff spot. The other third are the only ones whose fates could change by playing more regular season games.

If you were Joe Thornton or Brent Burns (or any number of players in similar situations), would you agree to put yourself through this whole process just to help the other teams determine their playoff ranking? I know I wouldn't.

That's why I think any talk of resuming the regular season just doesn't make sense. Jumping right to the playoffs cuts in half the number of people who need to put themselves through all this (because it isn't just about the 20 multi-millionaire players on each team -- it's the trainers and equipment managers and reserve players who don't make anywhere close to the money the NHLers make).

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think that’s what’s objectionable is comparing true essential jobs to hockey and this idea that because they are millionaires they should just do what they are paid to do (not from you but from others)

Yeah that’s distasteful. No argument.

I think we all place different values on what the “sacrifice” would be for the players, and that’s without even having a clear view of the facts of the situation.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by getbak

That's the thing though, for about a third of the teams in the league, they're either already mathematically eliminated or might as well be. Another third of the league is securely in a playoff spot. The other third are the only ones whose fates could change by playing more regular season games.

If you were Joe Thornton or Brent Burns (or any number of players in similar situations), would you agree to put yourself through this whole process just to help the other teams determine their playoff ranking? I know I wouldn't.

That's why I think any talk of resuming the regular season just doesn't make sense. Jumping right to the playoffs cuts in half the number of people who need to put themselves through all this (because it isn't just about the 20 multi-millionaire players on each team -- it's the trainers and equipment managers and reserve players who don't make anywhere close to the money the NHLers make).

Ok but it’s not just to determine a champion. The owners and players share in hockey related revenue. Playing more games grow the pie that they are sharing.

Now to your point, maybe there’s not much money to be made with playing the remainder of the regular season. But I suppose the playoffs would be more entertaining, and viewed by more people if there was at least some buildup and players getting game ready. A pre season with some meaning to it if you will.

[timbit]

From the Athletic:


By this point of the season, teams have played between 32 and 37 home games, meaning they will forego anywhere between $8 million and $17 million by canceling the remainder of their home dates.
The bigger hit comes in the playoffs. Ticket and concession prices are higher, teams are no longer paying their players, and interest grows in ancillary things like T-shirts and ballcaps.
“You can generally estimate a mark-up of between 20 and 100 percent in the playoffs,” said our former team executive, who still works as an industry consultant and requested anonymity.

[standinmotion]

Originally Posted by timbit

In the playoffs, the players make a small fraction of their season salaries, in playoff bonuses.
Even those players whose teams get to the final four.

The playoffs, along with exhibition games, is where the owners make hay. No player salaries for the owners to pay in either situation.

Too big a risk, possible illness as well as family disruption for the players. Doesn’t make any sense.

Isn't this about the TV contracts for next year (and beyond) though? It's never been about this season as far as I understand.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by standinmotion

Isn't this about the TV contracts for next year (and beyond) though? It's never been about this season as far as I understand.

I don’t imagine the networks will be paying the NHL for lost games this year.

[powderjunkie]

The additional risk and expenses involved in mobilizing all 31 teams is simply insane, with virtually no incremental benefit compared to figuring out how to do it with fewer.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by standinmotion

Isn't this about the TV contracts for next year (and beyond) though? It's never been about this season as far as I understand.

Yes this was addressed a couple of pages back. The teams have already received this seasons TV money which is paid out over the course of the season. They have not come close to fulfilling their national TV obligations however which accounts for ripoughly 2/3's of the revenue, somewhere in the $500 million dollar range. So this money would be credited back to sponsors for next season if there's no playoffs this year.

[standinmotion]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don’t imagine the networks will be paying the NHL for lost games this year.

I wish I could find the article(s); but i read that unless the NHL finished the season, their TV contract will be affected next year. Also, the TV contract for NBC is due for renewal after next season. The owners and the players share the TV revenues, so it will be a hit to the players pockets beyond this year.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by standinmotion

I wish I could find the article(s); but i read that unless the NHL finished the season, their TV contract will be affected next year. Also, the TV contract for NBC is due for renewal after next season. The owners and the players share the TV revenues, so it will be a hit to the players pockets beyond this year.

Yes this has been brought up in a number of interviews including one with Gary Bettman as well as LeBrun, Freidman and Duhatchek.

[standinmotion]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Yes this has been brought up in a number of interviews including one with Gary Bettman as well as LeBrun, Freidman and Duhatchek.

Yup. So that's why the NHLPA is at the table right now to consider the possibility. It's a lot of money at stakes, not a couple months of meaningless hockey (from money standpoint) like timbit and others said. The NHLPA will probably have a vote on this. If they do get the majority on "yes", it will be interesting to see how they handle the dissents. There might be legal implications if they force the dissenters to play as it might be a safety issue. On the other hand, they can't have the dissenters have a free ride either. So maybe let the dissenters stay home and make them contribute more to the escrow fund?

[CliffFletcher]

There would be enough dissenters from this plan - including star players - that the competitive legitimacy would be a joke.