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

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by dino7c

A factor for me is this tourney will alter next season too...It's not "oh you don't like hockey? quit complaining"

Sounds like they will address the seeding issues though. As for "you will be watching" if this starts Aug. long weekend I can assure you I won't be, won't even have the option.

Next season is altered regardless of any playoffs this summer though.

It's highly unlikely that the NHL plays reg. season games until fans are allowed. Fans wont be allowed (in many of the cities) until there is a vaccine available. A vaccine won't be available for at least 6 more months (at best and on a grand scale), then you have the time frame to make, distribute and administer it.

The league is looking at a very long haul IMO.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by getbak

Based on what some of the media have indicated, it sounds like it would have been a lot closer to 50-50.

It seems statistically improbable that a 50/50 split amongst the players would have resulted in 29/31 teams voting in favor. You’d have to think at least 60% of players were good with this for the outcome to be what it was. Which is either a strong majority or a sizable dissenting vote depending how you want to look at it.

Will some players refuse to play and forgo their salaries? I doubt it but we’ll see I guess (hopefully).

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

What salaries? It's the playoffs. There are no salaries for the playoffs.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

What salaries? It's the playoffs. There are no salaries for the playoffs.

The players' total compensation is linked to the league's total revenue. I'm not sure if there would be a clawback beyond the full escrow amount for this year, or if escrow would be increased significantly over the next few years to spread the pain a bit.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Next season is altered regardless of any playoffs this summer though.

It's highly unlikely that the NHL plays reg. season games until fans are allowed. Fans wont be allowed (in many of the cities) until there is a vaccine available. A vaccine won't be available for at least 6 more months (at best and on a grand scale), then you have the time frame to make, distribute and administer it.

The league is looking at a very long haul IMO.

If that is the case, there is a chance we never see NHL hockey again as a vaccine is not guaranteed. Vaccines for different versions of coronaviruses have proved unsuccessful in the past. It's a very scary possibility that people don't seem to want to talk about.

I think they give it until January 2021 and if no vaccine seems imminent, professional sports will open to fans and the there will be a new reality where daily life just becomes riskier and people accept it.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Next season is altered regardless of any playoffs this summer though.

It's highly unlikely that the NHL plays reg. season games until fans are allowed. Fans wont be allowed (in many of the cities) until there is a vaccine available. A vaccine won't be available for at least 6 more months (at best and on a grand scale), then you have the time frame to make, distribute and administer it.

The league is looking at a very long haul IMO.

They could have a proper schedule without fans...at least start in the fall which I would prefer to August. I'm not around the TV much in the summer and will keep it that way.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

What salaries? It's the playoffs. There are no salaries for the playoffs.

Well that’s true. They are playing for their share of hockey revenue of course so if individual players choose not to play they will benefit from those who do.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by dino7c

They could have a proper schedule without fans...at least start in the fall which I would prefer to August. I'm not around the TV much in the summer and will keep it that way.

Disagree.....unless the PA agrees as a collective to take way way less money either through reduced contracts or escrow out the wazoo.

There just isn't enough revenue coming in without gate totals to cover salaries.

And next season will come on the heels of at least a 600M dollar loss of revenue from this season, with an additional 600M in signing bonuses due before next season begins.

Its a bit of a boondoggle and why the league sees it as imperative that this playoffs gets done come hell or high water.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by dino7c

They could have a proper schedule without fans...at least start in the fall which I would prefer to August. I'm not around the TV much in the summer and will keep it that way.

No they can’t. They will wait as long as they can to have as many regular season games as possible with gate revenue. The traditional calendar is out the window for the next couple of years before they can get back on track.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Disagree.....unless the PA agrees as a collective to take way way less money either through reduced contracts or escrow out the wazoo.

There just isn't enough revenue coming in without gate totals to cover salaries.

And next season will come on the heels of at least a 600M dollar loss of revenue from this season, with an additional 600M in signing bonuses due before next season begins.

Its a bit of a boondoggle and why the league sees it as imperative that this playoffs gets done come hell or high water.

Not $600M, it's 600/2350(ish) of the 50% of projected HRR for the upcoming year, and still subject to escrow.

The league and PA will have to discuss how to handle this, but they probably significantly revise the HRR forecasts for the next several years. It seems we were around $4.4B HRR before this...it's anyone's guess what they think the future holds. If they say $1B, the players are splitting up $500M, which means ~$125M in signing bonuses.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by getbak

Killorn confirms to The Athletic that the Lightning were one of the two "no" votes:

There are also the same concerns we've heard before about being isolated away from their families for an extended period of time.

I'll play. I'd love to be isolated away from my family for an extended period of time.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

No they can’t. They will wait as long as they can to have as many regular season games as possible with gate revenue. The traditional calendar is out the window for the next couple of years before they can get back on track.

Yeah they are obviously so good at waiting. If next season is a wash anyway do this tourney in the fall not in the middle of Summer. The NHL will play next season without fans if need be IMO, the prefer some money to no money and that won't change.

Besides, two weeks ago we were gonna be in lockdown until at least September...things change quickly.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Yeah they are obviously so good at waiting. If next season is a wash anyway do this tourney in the fall not in the middle of Summer. The NHL will play next season without fans if need be IMO, the prefer some money to no money and that won't change.

Besides, two weeks ago we were gonna be in lockdown until at least September...things change quickly.

Next season’s not a wash. It’s going to start late to allow fans in the building,
hopefully.

Hockey in the summer is far from ideal but I don’t see how waiting until September for this year’s playoffs is going to work.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

As cool as I think it'd be for the province, I don't see the players, NHLPA or NHL agreeing to spend weeks/months in Edmonton when there are other, more attractive options available.
It's not attractive from a players or a marketing standpoint.

Of course, how many other cities can tempt the NHL and players with two bootlegger and two the source locations in the same mall? Or banners commemorating 9 sold out concerts? so maybe?

What does it matter if a destination is "attractive" or not? The players aren't supposed to be out and about in the city.

Edmonton would be a way safer environment. If Memorial Day Weekend in America is any indication, it won't be long before Vegas is a complete mess of people running around, massive crowds, etc. By August/September it'll be a complete gong show.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1264545926460383232

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

What does it matter if a destination is "attractive" or not? The players aren't supposed to be out and about in the city.

Edmonton would be a way safer environment. If Memorial Day Weekend in America is any indication, it won't be long before Vegas is a complete mess of people running around, massive crowds, etc. By August/September it'll be a complete gong show.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1264545926460383232

First of all, I'd be happy if I'm wrong. I think it'd be great exposure for Edmonton and Alberta.
But from a marketing and and livability standpoint, Edmonton and Calgary for that matter, are on the bottom of the list.
What's more marketable, Live from Edmonton, or Live from Vegas?
It's why they hold the awards show in Vegas, it's why Alberta hasn't hosted an Allstar game in over 30 years. The NHL is always marketing to the American audience. And if you're playing in empty arenas, you have to know they're looking to maximize tv exposure.
If you're a player, and you aren't going to be out and about, where would you rather be, in a hotel in Vegas or a hotel in Edmonton?
We'll know soon enough.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

First of all, I'd be happy if I'm wrong. I think it'd be great exposure for Edmonton and Alberta.
But from a marketing and and livability standpoint, Edmonton and Calgary for that matter, are on the bottom of the list.
What's more marketable, Live from Edmonton, or Live from Vegas?
It's why they hold the awards show in Vegas, it's why Alberta hasn't hosted an Allstar game in over 30 years. The NHL is always marketing to the American audience. And if you're playing in empty arenas, you have to know they're looking to maximize tv exposure.
If you're a player, and you aren't going to be out and about, where would you rather be, in a hotel in Vegas or a hotel in Edmonton?
We'll know soon enough.

It's nicer in Edmonton in June than Vegas weather wise. Especially when all the nightlife is closed.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

First of all, I'd be happy if I'm wrong. I think it'd be great exposure for Edmonton and Alberta.
But from a marketing and and livability standpoint, Edmonton and Calgary for that matter, are on the bottom of the list.
What's more marketable, Live from Edmonton, or Live from Vegas?
It's why they hold the awards show in Vegas, it's why Alberta hasn't hosted an Allstar game in over 30 years. The NHL is always marketing to the American audience. And if you're playing in empty arenas, you have to know they're looking to maximize tv exposure.
If you're a player, and you aren't going to be out and about, where would you rather be, in a hotel in Vegas or a hotel in Edmonton?
We'll know soon enough.

Incredibly flimsy argument here. I don’t think what empty arena they play in or the ability to say live from wherever changes anything. No fans it doesn’t matter as long as the teams have what they need during their time in that hub.

As a fan I could not care less where the games are played as long as they are being played during prime time hours and with good production value. I think Vegas makes more sense than Edmonton because they have far larger and better accommodations

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

The above points are definitely valid but my thinking is more around the fact that at some point, certainly in August/September Vegas is going to be open for business and that means people coming from all over.

Edmonton is a region that might have zero active cases a month from now. Considering that a swath of players getting infected is the one thing that could shut all this down, it seems like choosing Vegas over Edmonton is not worth the risk for any potential upsides.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Incredibly flimsy argument here. I don’t think what empty arena they play in or the ability to say live from wherever changes anything. No fans it doesn’t matter as long as the teams have what they need during their time in that hub.

As a fan I could not care less where the games are played as long as they are being played during prime time hours and with good production value. I think Vegas makes more sense than Edmonton because they have far larger and better accommodations

There will be games in the evening/prime time for sure, but only one from each venue.

If they go with the two arena proposal, there will be 12 teams playing out of each one. So thats 3 games a day if they go with a day off in between for every series. That means start times will be something like 2:00, 5:00, and 8:00 local times.

Add all that together and certain teams fans are not going to be very happy. Maybe they alternate start times within every series, but with TV execs being a large voice in such an undertaking, you will see the Leafs/Canadiens/Rangers/Hawks/Pens etc....getting the prime starting times depending on their time zone.

Flames and Canucks will likely get the 8PM slots regardless...but some teams will be playing in the afternoon for it to work.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

The above points are definitely valid but my thinking is more around the fact that at some point, certainly in August/September Vegas is going to be open for business and that means people coming from all over.

Edmonton is a region that might have zero active cases a month from now. Considering that a swath of players getting infected is the one thing that could shut all this down, it seems like choosing Vegas over Edmonton is not worth the risk for any potential upsides.

Yep...Edmonton makes a lot more sense than Vegas for a few reasons.

Just not having that allure for players of going out and mingling with thousands of people at night in a country that has very little control over the virus being the biggest.

One or 2 guys on a team get it and test positive....it could derail the entire undertaking.