[Rumour] NHL offers Olympic participation in exchange for the NHLPA agreeing to extend CBA

[Locke]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

If there's a lockout in any other year after their bonus, how would they still make the same amount?

A bonus just means they get the money up front before the lockout would take place so no they wouldn't get every penny they would have otherwise if there's a lockout.

Unless I'm mistaken the bonus still counts towards the salary. For someone like Gaudreau where the salary is pretty much the same throughout his contract it would make a difference.

Originally Posted by Parallex

No it won't, if it's agreed to (and it won't) they'll still get everything they agreed to. It's just that all the new UFA's will get "lockout protected" contracts with bonuses for the new potential lockout year.

Hes actually right, I think I get what hes saying now.

Players negotiated contracts based on the potential of a lockout in that specific year whereas if they extend the CBA that potential lockout is happening later in contract years that arent lockout protected with bonuses that are paid out prior to the expiry of the CBA.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Ok well I was thinking the contract would state the year they get that bonus and it can't be changed.

Yes, that's true, but considering the lockout would then be 9 years away, every contract would be over by then.

So it's not like their lockout protected year is wasted on the wrong year, it's that they wouldn't need a lockout protected year at all.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yes, that's true, but considering the lockout would then be 9 years away, every contract would be over by then.

So it's not like their lockout protected year is wasted on the wrong year, it's that they wouldn't need a lockout protected year at all.

We don't know that yet. They could only extend it by 2 years.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Ok well I was thinking the contract would state the year they get that bonus and it can't be changed.

Oh, then you're right. I was thinking that you were talking about the players as a collective. But like PepsiFree says it doesn't really make a difference. Although maybe Bettman is going to get the owners to engage in a "gentleman's agreement" (AKA collusion) to not sign those types of deals. So who knows.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

We don't know that yet. They could only extend it by 2 years.

And all 8 year contracts would still be over by then.

EDIT: That's not actually true, a few 8 year contracts start next year, so they would still have 1 year left. It's worth noting that none of them have "lockout protection" bonuses though.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And all 8 year contracts would still be over by then.

The CBA expires in 2022, but both the NHLPA and NHL have the option of terminating it in 2020.

When the NHL is offering the Olympic deal to extend it they must be talking past 2020 since they have no leverage.

And with the escrow issue I don't think there's a chance the NHLPA doesn't terminate the CBA in 2020.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

The CBA expires in 2022, but both the NHLPA and NHL have the option of terminating it in 2020.

When the NHL is offering the Olympic deal to extend it they must be talking past 2020 since they have no leverage.

And with the escrow issue I don't think there's a chance the NHLPA doesn't terminate the CBA in 2020.

Well, they are talking about extending it past 2022, not 2020.

Not sure what it would do to the opt-out clause, but I assume it would also push that by 3 years.

[dino7c]

Are either of these sides really stupid enough for a work stoppage? The pro sports model is dying

[Flash Walken]

I wonder if Rogers has an out clause in their TV deal with the league in the case of a work stoppage.

If so, that is likely the main motivator for Bettman to avoid a stoppage. Unlikely the league will be able to get those kind of terms on a new deal.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Are either of these sides really stupid enough for a work stoppage? The pro sports model is dying

While I don't want work stoppages either, I think the reason we've seen so many in the NHL is truly because they don't actually impact the league all that negatively, and from the league perspective, the negative from cancelling half a season, or in some cases a full season don't outweigh the benefits for driving the better agreement from the owners perspective (at least in the negotiations to date, who knows if the math holds up on the new issues that will be discussed).

Truth is, afterwards the league says all the right things about brand damage and fan impact, but there really wasn't much impact. The fans in Canada just keep coming back, and IMO always will, there is no actually enough is a enough point, at least not in the numbers required to matter (despite levels of emotional tough talk that goes on during the stoppages). And in the States, the fans just don't care enough, especially for a half season lock out given Americans that do really care don't actually get ramped up until post NFL season anyway.

Work stoppages occur frequently in the NHL because the impact of them actually isn't that bad on the league IMO, relatively speaking, and it's a tool the owners are more then willing to use to drive a better deal (which also speaks volumes to the fact that they are probably right in looking to drive those deals).

[thefoss1957]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Are either of these sides really stupid enough for a work stoppage? The pro sports model is dying

I think that the owners have shown that they are not afraid to try to break the NHLPA, via lockouts...they have done it many times, now, with Bettman in charge.

In this case, though, I think that the 700, or so, non-Olympian NHLPA members reject this offer, and only the 70 or so potential Olympians even consider accepting. The offer is token, and, a little ridiculous, as posturing by Bettman.

[rhino]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Oh, that's absolutely brilliant. Our 19 year old kids against the KHL, SEL, liiga, etc's best pros. Nothing could possibly go wrong there.

I meant all countries..... sorry I thought that was implied.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The simplest method would set the cap itself at 50% HRR and have the owners top up since not every team would spend to it. So instead of $63.5 million being the midpoint (ignoring the escalator), it becomes the cap. The players would really hate that since it would have meant a $10 million decrease in the cap if such a plan were implemented this year.


Not since Goodenow overplayed his hand in 2004-05, no. Sports labour negotiations is in a rather interesting place right now where, after decades of ownership controlling everything with an iron fist, and the pendulum swinging wildly in the players' favour, it is starting to swing back. How long it progresses back to ownerships' side before the players reach a point of their own where they are willing to go to the wall is unknown.

It seems pretty clear that the NHLPA is going to try and break linkage in the next negotiation. I don't see the owners going for it unless the cap itself swings wildly into their favour.

How can the cap be 50% of HRR when we don't know what HRR is until the season is finished? Unless we are linking it to the previous year's HRR or the average of the last several years?

If the players are looking to get rid of linkage then we're looking at the longest lockout yet.