When will next season start? Return to Play Negotiations

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

lol

They signed a CBA agreeing to exactly that. Those are the facts.

Yes and that’s a very different statement than suggesting it’s what they wanted, which you and Locke have been doing.

The fact is this current CBA actually delinks revenues and salaries. You’re aware of that right? Well actually you’re probably not since you think the 50/50 revenue splitting factors into this discussion at all.

If you’re going to criticize my position that you’re both out to lunch in your assessment that the players were the ones who wanted a 50/50 partnership and split of revenues, please explain how they ended up with 57% share of revenues in the CBA after the first lockout.

And as powderjunkie pointed out, there’s a big difference between agreeing to something to get a deal done and having wanted that outcome.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I don’t think the players have opposed prorating their contracts based on games played, in fact they already did so for next season. I’m not really sure what that has to do with this.



https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thes...agreement.html



Previously escrow was calculated multiple times throughout the season based on a formula, now it is set at a fixed rate so even if the league recovers quicker than expected the players will still pay the higher escrow amounts. I haven’t read the actual MOU between the league and the players but my interpretation is that these caps aren’t caps so much as they are set escrow amounts(with the exception of the second year which I’ve previously seen reported as being 14-18%)



I agree that is how their contracts essentially work out, though it’s a bit of an oversimplification because I don’t believe excess revenue is split amongst the players based on their salary, could be wrong about that though. What I’m saying is the players understand this too, but they don’t like that system because they prefer the monetary guarantee over the percentage of revenue guarantee. The pros and cons of either is a whole other debate.

1. I don't see anything related to season length. It was all related to HRR projections.

2. It's still escrow. It's held back because the final value is uncertain. It is distributed back to each party once the value is known. The amount the player's put into escrow is fixed/capped. It's just a matter of how long before they get any of it back.

3. Excess revenue would absolutely be split back among the players. It's just never happened because the cap was designed on a false notion that most teams wouldn't end up spending over the mid-point (and the escalators). The owners pay into escrow, too (at least theoretically).

[Bingo]

I'm not really interested in a player's side vs owner's side argument ... it's been done to death.

But the bottom line is that a $5B industry is about to be turned into a $1.7B industry, and clearly the owners won't or can't take that hit and survive with a two or three year escrow.

Honestly the players hate escrow, but they're going to hate the living hell out of it if they don't prorate salaries lower than what was in the new CBA (did they agree on a % for this troubled season?). The financial hit is going to be massive and since they both signed a 50/50 split partnership they'd better work together to ensure the league still has 31(32) teams when the dust settles.

I don't blame the players for hating it, but then who's happy in this mess?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The fact is this current CBA actually delinks revenues and salaries. You’re aware of that right? Well actually you’re probably not since you think the 50/50 revenue splitting factors into this discussion at all.

No, it doesn't. It unlinks them on an annual basis and instead makes it over the course of the deal. If the players aren't within $175M of 50% by 2026, the deal is extended by one year.

It's unclear if/how the players would have to make things totally whole that year if they were still waaaaay over their share of 50%.

[powderjunkie]

This is a pretty good summary (a few details may be out of date?):
https://novacapsfans.com/2020/07/04/...ion-agreement/

Escrow
players cannot pay a higher escrow percentage than:
2020-21: 20%
2021-22: 14-18% (TBD)
2022-23: 10%
2023-24-2025-26: 6%

Salary Deferral
Players will put off 10% of both salary and signing bonus for next season, which will be paid back to players in three equal payments in 2023-24, 2024-25, and 2025-26

10% deferral on top of the 20% escrow is where people keep arriving at the 72% figure for next year.

All of the return to play details were coming out at the same time, so naturally the CBA minutia didn't get as much press.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

1. I don't see anything related to season length. It was all related to HRR projections.

The Larry brooks article posted in here mentioned it. Next season the players are receiving 72% of their salary due to the 60 game schedule.

2. It's still escrow. It's held back because the final value is uncertain. It is distributed back to each party once the value is known. The amount the player's put into escrow is fixed/capped. It's just a matter of how long before they get any of it back.

I agree. All I said is that they’d be stuck paying the elevated escrow because they are fixed and you asked for a citation so I gave you one. I’m aware they get it back if revenues go high enough.

3. Excess revenue would absolutely be split back among the players. It's just never happened because the cap was designed on a false notion that most teams wouldn't end up spending over the mid-point (and the escalators). The owners pay into escrow, too (at least theoretically).

I thought the players had received payment when the league had higher than expected revenues in some previous seasons but in any event I’m not disagreeing with you at all on the principles of escrow. My comment about the potential oversimplification was simply based on the fact that I don’t know if the excess revenue paid back to players is divided equally or if its division is weighted based on the players individual salaries. Maybe someone on here knows those details.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The Larry brooks article posted in here mentioned it. Next season the players are receiving 72% of their salary due to the 60 game schedule.



I agree. All I said is that they’d be stuck paying the elevated escrow because they are fixed and you asked for a citation so I gave you one. I’m aware they get it back if revenues go high enough.



I thought the players had received payment when the league had higher than expected revenues in some previous seasons but in any event I’m not disagreeing with you at all on the principles of escrow. My comment about the potential oversimplification was simply based on the fact that I don’t know if the excess revenue paid back to players is divided equally or if its division is weighted based on the players individual salaries. Maybe someone on here knows those details.

You might be right about over-payment in the earliest years...it certainly hasn't happened recently.

I missed the Brooks article; just gave it a read. There isn't any connection between the 60 games and 72%, but all of the paragraph 17 stuff is interesting. I know somebody posted it before, but here it is again:

In connection with this agreement, (i) for the 2019-20 League
Year, the NHL agrees to waive any potential applicability of SPC
Paragraph 17 solely on account of the loss of games due to the
COVID-19 pandemic on a non-precedential and without
prejudice basis for future League Years, (ii) For the 2020-21
League Year, the NHL agrees to waive any potential applicability
of Paragraph 17(c) in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic
on a non-precedential and without prejudice basis for future
League Years, and (iii) such waivers do not affect any other rights
or positions of the parties with respect to SPC Paragraph 17.

IANAL so I can't parse the difference between verbage for '19-20 vs. this upcoming season, but they must have been worded differently for a reason.

I think the league's argument may be: season length is being dictated by the calendar (and perhaps economic conditions), not COVID. If games get cancelled because of COVID outbreaks, you will still get paid.

[powderjunkie]

Here is Paragraph 17 from an SPC

17. If because of any condition arising from a state of war or other cause beyond the control
of the League or of the Club, it shall be deemed advisable by the League or the Club to suspend
or cease or reduce operations, then:
(a) in the event of suspension of operations, the Player shall be entitled only to the
proportion of Paragraph 1 Salary due at the date of suspension,
(b) in the event of cessation of operations, the Paragraph 1 Salary shall be
automatically canceled on the date of cessation, and
(c) in the event of reduction of operations, the Paragraph 1 Salary shall be replaced
by that mutually agreed upon between the Club and the Player, or, in the absence of mutual
agreement, by that determined by neutral arbitration.

I read those as a reactive measures to games already scheduled. I wonder if there is any other language related to season length in the CBA or MOU?

[powderjunkie]

From the CBA:

16.1 League Schedule. During each Playing Season covered by this Agreement, each Club shall play not more than 82 Regular Season Games. No game provided for in Article 24 shall be deemed to be an additional Regular Season Game for the purposes of the preceding sentence or of any Player's SPC. Each SPC between a Player and a Club shall be deemed to contemplate a schedule of 82 Regular Season Games unless prior to entering into the SPC the Club and the Player confirm in writing that a lower number is scheduled with respect to any Playing Season covered by the SPC. If, in the absence of such written confirmation, the number of Regular Season Games should be decreased, other than by reason of the Player's participation in one or more games provided for in Article 24, the Player's Paragraph 1 Salary shall be decreased in proportion to the number of games scheduled.

There's a bit of noise in there, but it basically says less games = less money.

Are article 16 of the CBA and the adjustments to paragraph 17 of an SPC via the MOU in conflict? Maybe...the CBA references games scheduled, while the MOU/SPC is about games cancelled.

Can games be cancelled if they were never scheduled to begin with?

16.3 Length of Season, Balance and Consistency. (a) Without the NHLPA's advance written consent, the Regular Season will be scheduled over a period of not less than 184 days. (b) Each Club will play at least one (1) NHL Game during the first three (3) days of the Regular Season and at least one (1) NHL Game during the last three (3) days of the Regular Season. (c) In preparing each Club's Regular Season schedule, the League will use reasonable efforts to ensure balance and consistency in terms of the number of Games scheduled for each Club on a week-to-week and month-to-month basis.
(d) Prior to finalizing the Regular Season schedule, the League shall provide the NHLPA with a draft schedule. The NHLPA shall be given an opportunity to comment on the schedule. This opportunity for the NHLPA to comment shall be provided at a point when the NHL has the ability to adjust the schedule based on the NHLPA's comments and shall include a meeting at the NHL's offices with the Vice President, Scheduling, Research & Operations (or his equivalent) responsible for assembling the schedule and a League attorney. The League will give good faith consideration to specific scheduling requests made by the NHLPA and will provide an
explanation if any of the NHLPA's requests will not be accommodated; however, the final decision making authority shall remain with the League.

The 184 day stuff is mildly interesting, but the clear takeaway here for me is that the league has final decision making authority with regards to the schedule. But, there is certainly enough ambiguity for further negotiation, but IMO the league has a strong position here.

[Mr.Coffee]

Part of me kinda wants the players to get absolutely smashed on this. Is that bad?

They are so INSANELY out of touch with their actual value, in today’s market.

Also hey NHL, guess what happens when you decide hitting needs to be eliminated from the game?

Less intensity = less excitement = worse product.

That’s reality.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm not really interested in a player's side vs owner's side argument ... it's been done to death.

But the bottom line is that a $5B industry is about to be turned into a $1.7B industry, and clearly the owners won't or can't take that hit and survive with a two or three year escrow.

Honestly the players hate escrow, but they're going to hate the living hell out of it if they don't prorate salaries lower than what was in the new CBA (did they agree on a % for this troubled season?). The financial hit is going to be massive and since they both signed a 50/50 split partnership they'd better work together to ensure the league still has 31(32) teams when the dust settles.

I don't blame the players for hating it, but then who's happy in this mess?

It was unreasonable for the players to expect the owners to stand by the deal they agreed to in July. This is November and it is a different month.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

You might be right about over-payment in the earliest years...it certainly hasn't happened recently.

I just remember someone on here arguing that it happened at one point and that’s really all I’m basing that on lol.

I missed the Brooks article; just gave it a read. There isn't any connection between the 60 games and 72%, but all of the paragraph 17 stuff is interesting. I know somebody posted it before, but here it is again:

You’re right, I either misread or mixed it up with another article. I thought I had read the plan for 60 games next season was already confirmed but upon further reading 60 games is only one of the scenarios the league is contemplating.(seems odd that the league negotiated anything related to revenue without deciding on a number of games first)

After reading that Brooks article a little more closely it’s interesting that the league used a number of forecasting models that pegged revenues anywhere between $1.3B-$5B yet still thought it made sense to sign off on this deal and are now complaining because things are looking closer to their anticipated worse case scenario than the best case scenario.

IANAL so I can't parse the difference between verbage for '19-20 vs. this upcoming season, but they must have been worded differently for a reason.

I think the league's argument may be: season length is being dictated by the calendar (and perhaps economic conditions), not COVID. If games get cancelled because of COVID outbreaks, you will still get paid.

I think the difference is that the league can use paragraph 17 for last season if they are to only argue that lower than forecasted revenues during the portion of the season played before any game losses incurred from the pandemic are the reason for their claim, but next season they won’t be able to apply it at all as they already know there will be lost games and other covid related risk factors going into this season.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Part of me kinda wants the players to get absolutely smashed on this. Is that bad?

They are so INSANELY out of touch with their actual value, in today’s market.

Also hey NHL, guess what happens when you decide hitting needs to be eliminated from the game?

Less intensity = less excitement = worse product.

That’s reality.

Are they though? Maybe they are just looking at comparables. Perhaps we can't do direct comparisons to other major league sports, but I would absolutely be making the comparison if I was a player.

From what little understanding I have on this situation, I also think that the players will need to take more of a pay-cut to keep things going, but I don't think their dissapointment in the league proposal is unwarranted.


NBA
https://thesportsrush.com/nba-news-s...ew-nba-season/

MLB
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/13/mone...021-talks.html

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

It was unreasonable for the players to expect the owners to stand by the deal they agreed to in July. This is November and it is a different month.

I assume that you're being sarcastic?

They don't have to do anything. But if my numbers are right then they're just going to get hammered in escrow further down the road. As a union member I'd want to know how those two outcomes work.

Keep your own money now, that's a good thing.

Have two or three teams fold ... that's a bad thing.

The whole world is changing day to day. A partnership should look to update the model for the health of the business ultimately.

You don't think things have changed since July?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by krynski

Are they though? Maybe they are just looking at comparables. Perhaps we can't do direct comparisons to other major league sports, but I would absolutely be making the comparison if I was a player.

From what little understanding I have on this situation, I also think that the players will need to take more of a pay-cut to keep things going, but I don't think their dissapointment in the league proposal is unwarranted.


NBA
https://thesportsrush.com/nba-news-s...ew-nba-season/

MLB
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/13/mone...021-talks.html

unlike Mr. coffee, I don't want the players to get smashed on this.

I just hope they understand the gravity of the situation and it isn't the time to want to "get paid". To me, they have to realize any paycheque is a good thing, and the league isn't trying to screw them over for more profit.
everyone is screwed.

look at the pay cuts the NBA players have to eat, and their TV contracts are way higher.
I think the NHL TV contracts between Rogers and NBC pay the league 600M per year. The NBA gets about 2.6B per year.

I honestly think the best thing for the league is to shut down until September 2021.
I hate to think how COVID is affecting the smaller leagues from the AHL all the way down.
this virus could screw up hockey for a generation of players.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I assume that you're being sarcastic?

They don't have to do anything. But if my numbers are right then they're just going to get hammered in escrow further down the road. As a union member I'd want to know how those two outcomes work.

Keep your own money now, that's a good thing.

Have two or three teams fold ... that's a bad thing.

The whole world is changing day to day. A partnership should look to update the model for the health of the business ultimately.

You don't think things have changed since July?

Well that's the question isn't it. The NHL's history is too littered with work stoppages to suggest either side truly sees this as a partnership. But maybe things are changing.

[Bingo]

For sure.

But they are where they are.

Guessing the NHL has a large contingent of owners that don't want to play until there are fans so they want to get a better cost structure to match a tough situation, and get the product on the ice.

If the players want to call that bluff they can, but they'd better get their heads around what they're calling. They'll still end up paying their 50% of a huge loss season.

[SuperMatt18]

Raptors were not granted approval to play in Toronto.

So sounds like if the NHL does come back that the Canadian division will very likely be a thing.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Raptors were not granted approval to play in Toronto.

So sounds like if the NHL does come back that the Canadian division will very likely be a thing.

Will there be fans? In a Canadian Division every road game for the Habs and Leafs is like an extra home game.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by troutman

Will there be fans? In a Canadian Division every road game for the Habs and Leafs is like an extra home game.

I doubt there would be fans in Canada anytime close to the proposed Jan 1 start date.

Don't see how they could justify it with pretty much everything else being limited right now.