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

[mrkajz44]

Every time Escrow comes up with the NHLPA I wonder how players cannot understand it is a balancing mechanism for the 50/50 split of HRR. Then I remember the Sean Avery article where he somehow computed that a player with career gross earnings of $13.2M only ends up with $660k of take home money. Then I understand why the players have no idea how escrow works.

Here's a link to the article for those that don't remember or missed it: http://www.theplayerstribune.com/the-new-avery-rule/

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Compensate? For what? They all agreed to the revenue split all the players are asking for is for the owners to get their own house in order so that less of their half of the split is withheld. Think of it this way... right now 100% of the onus to comply is on the players. They want ownership to share in that onus.

Escrow is by and large taken out because the owners spend more then they agreed to spend... the correct solution is for them to pay what they should be paying. IMO the appropriate response would be to counter by narrowing the distance between the floor, midpoint, and ceiling.

Not sure what you are getting at. Escrow ensures that the split is 50/50. If the issue is that the estimate of HRR is too high, well, I suppose the owners could be more conservative on the HRR estimate, but I don't see how the players would actual want a lower HRR.

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

Every time Escrow comes up with the NHLPA I wonder how players cannot understand it is a balancing mechanism for the 50/50 split of HRR. Then I remember the Sean Avery article where he somehow computed that a player with career gross earnings of $13.2M only ends up with $660k of take home money. Then I understand why the players have no idea how escrow works.

Here's a link to the article for those that don't remember or missed it: http://www.theplayerstribune.com/the-new-avery-rule/

But if only the GM's would control themselves, escrow would be less! LOL never mind the escalator that the nhlpa insisted on, and votes in every damned year.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Well 50/50 is just a logical split if you are partners.

That's a pretty good split considering one side of the partnership assumes zero risk, while the other could potentially lose money.

I wouldn't say zero risk. Obviously, they are the ones exposed to the health and safety risks. Not to mention that they have relatively short careers compared to an owner. They also split up their 50% among a much larger group.

And what risk do the owners take? When was the last time a franchise folded or was sold for less than what it was bought for? Don't be fooled... they always come out ahead one war another. Whether that is from straight forward revenue, asset value, side businesses indirectly related to the team, or getting people to fund their arenas. Most owners come out well ahead just like players.

50/50 just seems like an arbitrary and convenient split. There is no doubt that 50/50 is equal, but that is not the same as being "fair" or "equitable".

Or maybe 50/50 favours the players too much? i don't see it, but I could be convinced to change my mind.

[Resolute 14]

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.

Don Fehr was prepared to cancel the 2002 World Series. His players gave him a mandate to do so. Fortunately, the players also wanted to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past as much as the owners did.

The NHL will never know labour peace while someone like Don Fehr is head of the NHLPA because the NHL knows full well the damage MLB did to itself in 1994 and almost repeated in 2002. There will never be a season started without a CBA, and Don Fehr's entire history is one of brinksmanship. This is not a recipe for labour peace.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

There was a time when baseball's system could be categorized as terrible. I think it's pretty decent now though. Most teams are financially healthy and making money. Lots of teams have a shot with good development from within their systems. Teams can keep their star players under team control into their prime. They have a good system of revenue sharing, luxury tax, and player control rules.

The NHL's current system leaves a lot to be desired, and it came with a lot of missed games. It's not a good system if it leads to lockouts with every re-negotiation either. And it is definitely not a fan friendly system by any means.

I disagree. Larger markets still have a substantial advantage in MLB. As a fan, I honestly don't care if every team is making money or losing money. I just want a competitive playing field....Baseball is not....there are still the haves and the have nots.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Compensate? For what? They all agreed to the revenue split all the players are asking for is for the owners to get their own house in order so that less of their half of the split is withheld.

You do realize that what you are claiming is that the NHLPA wants the owners to spend less on player salaries, right? I can tell you that is not what the union wants, and their annual use of the 5% escalator clause is exhibit A.

Think of it this way... right now 100% of the onus to comply is on the players. They want ownership to share in that onus.

Except you are wrong. If the players end up being paid less than 50% of HRR, the onus is on the owners to top it up. And that has happened.

The system is, however, designed to assume the salary midpoint is also 50%HRR. The players shoot themselves in the foot every year by using the escalator, and given they already knew this is how things worked when they went into the 2012-13 negotiation, they have nobody to blame but themselves for not changing the scale to something like 50% HRR being placed at 75% or 100% of the cap.

Escrow is by and large taken out because the owners spend more then they agreed to spend... the correct solution is for them to pay what they should be paying. IMO the appropriate response would be to counter by narrowing the distance between the floor, midpoint, and ceiling.

As I state above, the "correct" response if the players never want to face escrow again is to set the 50% HRR at the salary cap. This means that the players contracted salaries will collectively fall below 50% HRR every year, but instead of escrow payments, they will get top-up bonuses.

The players won't want to go there for two reasons:
1. They don't want to see an immediate $10 million reduction in the salary cap
2. They now share the risk and burden of stagnating or falling revenues.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

You will have me convinced if you can show me when escrow has ever caused the owners to get more than their share of HRR after it's all said and done.

As far as we know it hasn't. That's immaterial to the matter at hand (escrow).

When you get right down to it all they want is to get paid what their contracts say they should get paid (less taxes). Some escrow is unavoidable but they want a mechanism that forces ownership to assume responsibility for it's own fiscal prudence (or lack thereof).

I think the NHL should do it (Cap Escrow at around 10%) but also narrow some of the distance between the upper and lower limit. I mean really all it is is the players saying "pay us what you agreed to pay us and if you guys can't follow your own rules then that should be on you".

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Parallex

As far as we know it hasn't. That's immaterial to the matter at hand (escrow).

When you get right down to it all they want is to get paid what their contracts say they should get paid (less taxes). Some escrow is unavoidable but they want a mechanism that forces ownership to assume responsibility for it's own fiscal prudence (or lack thereof).

If that was truly what they wanted, then they already have it. The system self-corrects so that the owners can't massively overspend.

I think the NHL should do it (Cap Escrow at around 10%) but also narrow some of the distance between the upper and lower limit. I mean really all it is is the players saying "pay us what you agreed to pay us and if you guys can't follow your own rules then that should be on you".

What the hell are you even arguing? The NHL is following its own rules - the very same rules the players themselves agreed to. And the players are paid what the league agreed to pay them: 50% of HRR.

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by Parallex

As far as we know it hasn't. That's immaterial to the matter at hand (escrow).

When you get right down to it all they want is to get paid what their contracts say they should get paid (less taxes). Some escrow is unavoidable but they want a mechanism that forces ownership to assume responsibility for it's own fiscal prudence (or lack thereof).

I think the NHL should do it (Cap Escrow at around 10%) but also narrow some of the distance between the upper and lower limit. I mean really all it is is the players saying "pay us what you agreed to pay us and if you guys can't follow your own rules then that should be on you".

I would be more on board with your argument if the NHLPA didn't invoke the escalator every year, helping increase the escrow they so despise. They are talking out of both sides of their mouth and it's annoying.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I wouldn't say zero risk. Obviously, they are the ones exposed to the health and safety risks. Not to mention that they have relatively short careers compared to an owner. They also split up their 50% among a much larger group.

And what risk do the owners take? When was the last time a franchise folded or was sold for less than what it was bought for? Don't be fooled... they always come out ahead one war another. Whether that is from straight forward revenue, asset value, side businesses indirectly related to the team, or getting people to fund their arenas. Most owners come out well ahead just like players.

50/50 just seems like an arbitrary and convenient split. There is no doubt that 50/50 is equal, but that is not the same as being "fair" or "equitable".

Or maybe 50/50 favours the players too much? i don't see it, but I could be convinced to change my mind.

Pittsburgh went broke one year to the point that they couldn't pay their players. Mario got paid in shares.

In fact there are a lot of examples of NHL teams going bankrupt. When your team goes bankrupt the owner doesn't get any of that money from the sale of the franchise if his debts are larger than his revenue from the sale.

I'd say it's way more risky financially to own a team than play for one.

Player contracts on the other hand are guaranteed, even in the case of injury.

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by Parallex

As far as we know it hasn't. That's immaterial to the matter at hand (escrow).

When you get right down to it all they want is to get paid what their contracts say they should get paid (less taxes). Some escrow is unavoidable but they want a mechanism that forces ownership to assume responsibility for it's own fiscal prudence (or lack thereof).

I think the NHL should do it (Cap Escrow at around 10%) but also narrow some of the distance between the upper and lower limit. I mean really all it is is the players saying "pay us what you agreed to pay us and if you guys can't follow your own rules then that should be on you".

Can you maybe answer some of Resolute's questions? I'm curious as to the answers as he seems to be making some excellent points that you are missing... or ignoring??

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Parallex

As far as we know it hasn't. That's immaterial to the matter at hand (escrow).

When you get right down to it all they want is to get paid what their contracts say they should get paid (less taxes). Some escrow is unavoidable but they want a mechanism that forces ownership to assume responsibility for it's own fiscal prudence (or lack thereof).

I think the NHL should do it (Cap Escrow at around 10%) but also narrow some of the distance between the upper and lower limit. I mean really all it is is the players saying "pay us what you agreed to pay us and if you guys can't follow your own rules then that should be on you".

If I'm reading this correctly, the players are trying to keep the salary cap but unlink their salaries from HRR. We're gonna have a 2 year lock-out if they think that's gonna happen.

[dissentowner]

The silver lining here is that it sounds like no NHL players at Olympics.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Pittsburgh went broke one year to the point that they couldn't pay their players. Mario got paid in shares.

In fact there are a lot of examples of NHL teams going bankrupt. When your team goes bankrupt the owner doesn't get any of that money from the sale of the franchise if his debts are larger than his revenue from the sale.

I'd say it's way more risky financially to own a team than play for one.

Player contracts on the other hand are guaranteed, even in the case of injury.

There are examples, sure. Just like there are examples of players going broke. But I would bet that in those situations, there is a lot more going on behind the scenes.

One is more financially risky (but also potentially and usually more lucrative) and the other is riskier to the health and short earning duration.

As for escrow alone, the players are starting the negotiations at a high point. But in the end, they will trade down for something else. Just like the owners aren't going to use the current deal as their starting point. If anything, it is fishy that they were willing to extend it for 3 years. They must think their portion is very favourable for themselves, otherwise they wouldn't have offered. When the real negotiations happen, they will be starting lower.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You do realize that what you are claiming is that the NHLPA wants the owners to spend less on player salaries, right?

No I'm not I'm claiming they want less withheld and for the owners to assume some of the onus on assuring that it isn't.

Except you are wrong. If the players end up being paid less than 50% of HRR, the onus is on the owners to top it up. And that has happened.

Fair point. The owners top up liability should be capped by roughly the same amount.

The system is, however, designed to assume the salary midpoint is also 50%HRR. The players shoot themselves in the foot every year by using the escalator

Don't front like the escalator is the principal cause of high escrow. The owners exceeding the midpoint is far more to blame.

As I state above, the "correct" response if the players never want to face escrow again is to set the 50% HRR at the salary cap. This means that the players contracted salaries will collectively fall below 50% HRR every year, but instead of escrow payments, they will get top-up bonuses.

Then time value of money becomes an an issue. I much prefer a narrower band of floor and ceiling. Plus capped escrow should encourage better management. God forbid we actually get management in this league that doesn't need a work stoppage every damn cycle to save it from itself.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Parallex

The owners exceeding the midpoint is far more to blame.

What midpoint? Between the cap and the floor? What's special about the midpoint, why should the owners be not exceeding it? EDIT: Invoking the escalator moves the midpoint as well, and staying at the midpoint would require paying players less salaries, which you said you aren't suggesting.

Since HRR aren't known until after the season, there has to be some kind of adjustment mechanism, be it escrow or just players doing what the league does; just pay out the imbalance out of pocket when the final numbers are known.

[Coach]

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.

Originally Posted by Locke

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.'

I don't know if that's true. As someone who grew up without the old Canada Cups and what not of the past, playing in the Olympics is what I would look at as the pinnacle of the game. The Stanley Cup would still be my priority, but a Gold Medal would be a very close second and only so because the Cup is the Cup. Being a part of the Olympics, being a member of Team Canada (not just the hockey team) and being recognized as one of the top ~25 players from my nation, would be a completely different but likely equally gratifying feeling.

If I was a player of Ovechkin's skill level (ie, they're not just going to replace him, or fire him, he's fricken OV), I would totally do the same. And I don't have Trudeau breathing down my neck.

EDIT:

And in regards to the news:

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I don't know if that's true. As someone who grew up without the old Canada Cups and what not of the past, playing in the Olympics is what I would look at as the pinnacle of the game. The Stanley Cup would still be my priority, but a Gold Medal would be a very close second and only so because the Cup is the Cup.]

I forget who it was but I remember before the last Olympics in an interview one player said the Stanley Cup represents the pinnicle as a hockey player but the Olympics represents the pinnicle as an athlete

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I forget who it was but I remember before the last Olympics in an interview one player said the Stanley Cup represents the pinnicle as a hockey player but the Olympics represents the pinnicle as an athlete

Yeah that's a good way to put it.