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

[MacFlame]

The players want the Escrow "capped". Capping escrow does not tie revenue to the players share of the revenue, which is what the owners fought so hard for in the year long lockout.

This is Fehr's way of systematically breaking the salary cap.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Players have some poor guidance.

They never tend to win CBA negotiations - and this year they are fighting for "Escrow"

Which makes no sense since they put the Escrow issue on themselves by using the cap escalator every year.

If they use the escalator to increase the cap by a bigger percentage then what the % increase in revenue was then guess what - you are going to be paying more escrow.

When they say they want to negotiate escrow what they mean is they want to destroy the direct linkage.

They know payrolls gravitate towards the cap ceiling rather than the floor. They know the cap will always be in play so what they want to do is have the cap set at a percentage of revenues but remove the guarantee the owners have that they will never spend more than X%. IN an ideal world for the players they get the cap limits set as they are now but get rid of linage and escrow so that they get more as teams spend to the cap.

The problem is to get that they will have to trade a couple of things at a minimum:

1) the escalator. No way the owners allow that if the linkage is gone

2) much lower cap. The owners will then push to make the cap ceiling what the mid-range number is right now to ensure that linkage still exists even if it's not explicit.


So yes there is another lockout coming and IMO it won't be on the owners at all. They are willing to extend and go along as they have now which has worked well for the league and the players. The players don't like escrow but exasperate the issue every chance they get.

edit: as pointed out in the post above me...this is the first step in Fehr trying to break the cap. First destroy linkage and then net time around destroy the cap altogether. Players better do some soul searching on this I think. Make really darn sure they think it's worth losing another year of salary when trying to blow up a system that really does appear to be working. It's not perfect but it's working.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by zukes

NHL/NHLPA, please use the MLB/MLBPA as an example to learn from. Very little rhetoric (yes some late floating of the idea of a lockout, but nothing like these clowns) and a deal done before the deadline. 32 years of labour peace.

There has been labour "peace" in MLB because Fehr effectively castrated MLB during labour disputes.

MLB has a terrible system.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

If they strike again in 2 years, that may be the last time I buy a NHL game ticket/merchandise.

Would be tough for me as well. No other league has had a work stoppage this century. NHL already has had 2 with a full and half season missed. I'd be really bitter.

[photon]

Originally Posted by ernie

When they say they want to negotiate escrow what they mean is they want to destroy the direct linkage.

That's what I was wondering but I thought 'surely not', but that does make more sense as something to actually be upset over and want changed (rather than being upset over when the final balancing takes place).

Framing it as a problem with 'escrow' though seems pretty disingenuous, as escrow is just the mechanism. I wonder if it's the PA that's telling the players to frame it that way, or if the players are just being fed a line from the PA and repeating it.

[GirlySports]

there is no way the players should have to give up something to go to the other side of the world to play for free.

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.

[Locke]

If the players want to eliminate direct linkage they're essentially invalidating the salary cap.

Every team sport in North America has a salry cap, that is the model of North American sports.

[MacFlame]

[QUOTE=GirlySports;6031880]there is no way the players should have to give up something to go to the other side of the world to play for free.

QUOTE]

They're not playing "for free". The owners are effectively paying for them to go as the league is shut down for two weeks.

[Robbob]

I think some players really want to go. Ovechkin threatened to leave just leave the NHL, contract be damned, to play in Sochi.

[Benched]

every time they strike I care a little less.

I'm not so naive as to think I won't be suckered back in after the next strike, but it does hurt the product.

[Mister Yamoto]

The players do want Olympics but they are not willing to give up their precious 2020 work stoppage to get it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I think some players really want to go. Ovechkin threatened to leave just leave the NHL, contract be damned, to play in Sochi.

Okay, I hate to be the conspiracy theorist but I've mentioned this many times, Ovechkin's consistently over-the-top patriotism seems....forced? I think theres other factors at play there and they may or may not rhyme with 'Rutin.'

That being said, they're not really 'playing for free' but they kind of are. I dont know if they get some sort of additional compensation but they are playing games and as far as I know they're getting paid the same whether they go or not.

So, boiled down its more work for the same pay, as far as I know.

[Steveyoto]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

If they strike again in 2 years, that may be the last time I buy a NHL game ticket/merchandise.

Already ahead of you. I do not pay for tickets.. I am a huge fan, which makes it difficult. I have been on ticket purchase boycott since the last lockout.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

If they strike again in 2 years, that may be the last time I buy a NHL game ticket/merchandise.

I will be thoroughly pissed and it will definitely affect my already dwindling interest in the game but I doubt I'd never buy a ticket again.

[Erick Estrada]

Strikes never really bother me that much. It's a necessary evil especially in a league where Canadian teams are competing with US teams and everyone is paying salaries in US dollars. Expecting the owners to roll over to avoid a work stoppage would eventually lead to the Flames and other Canadian teams relocating. There's always another sport to watch and there's so much quality television programming these days that I can easily go a season without NHL.

[shadowlord]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah, I've been thinking the same thing. Something is missing.

What is the players' actual complaint in regards to escrow?

I think this article explains it, although I'll have to read it again in more detail later:

http://nhlnumbers.com/2016/8/12/how-...ern-in-the-nhl

In the example given, a player who signed a contract for, say, $5 million/year, only gets $4.31 million with 13.8% escrow. If the escalator clause is activated by the NHL or NHLPA, then it goes down to $4.20 million.

That escrow account ensures that both the owners and players get their 50% of hockey-related revenue (HRR). At the end of the season, whichever group (players vs owners) didn't get 50% will receive the contents of the escrow. My guess is that, in reality, for most seasons, the amount in the escrow account ended up going to the owners (i.e. the players were getting more than their 50%, and thus were overpaid based on HRR-estimate which determines how much % was put into escrow).

The article then goes on to say that when the players activate the escalator, it increases the salary cap (duh), so teams can spend more on salary, but it doesn't increase HRR. Therefore, at the end of the season, even more of the escrow account is given to the owners to balance out the 50/50 split.

As a result, the escalator "takes" money out of the escrow account paid in by players on existing contracts to pay/allow for the increased salaries (as a result of the escalator) for free-agent players on newly signed contracts.

I hope I got that right. Feel free to tear this apart if it's incorrect.

[Steveyoto]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

there is no way the players should have to give up something to go to the other side of the world to play for free.

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.

It's an honour I doubt you nor I will ever be in the situation to make that decision. Representing your country in the Olympics is an amazing opportunity that not very many NHLers would pass up. I doubt you would either if ever presented with such decision.

[_Q_]

Yeah I find the NBA and CFL mildly entertaining enough. I find MLS and various European soccer leagues very entertaining. I actually watched last night's Toronto vs Montreal MLS eastern final rather than the first half of the Flames game. I probably would not have discovered all that if it wasn't for all the NHL lock outs. I consider myself a very hard core hockey fan, but I'm starting to care less with each lock out.

[Mister Yamoto]

I'd like to see other leagues be proactive with the the 2020 lockout and try to cash on on the NHL/NHLPAs' greed.

For example, what if the NLL went from a 16 game schedule to say a 24 game season and put a couple of expansion teams in NHL markets for 2020?

[zukes]

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

Actually 22 years

#neverforget

My math is not so good...