When will next season start? Return to Play Negotiations

[Monahammer]

Honestly, how many of you would shell out money for tickets if they were having an in person game at the dome tomorrow? Probably more than is reasonable but I definitely wouldn't want to go in there with 20K other people. Even 10K.

[powderjunkie]

I think we need to remember where things were in June when they were working on the return to play plans. Tons of people here were shouting for them to scrap it and focus on this upcoming season. Tons of people thought the bubble would fail.

It's reasonable to conclude that getting back on the ice that summer was the main priority then; the players one some major concessions in the process that helped ensure some stability moving forward. Further negotiations were inevitable in anything but the best-case-scenario. There is nothing surprising here.

The MOU tentatively included Nov. 17 and Dec. 1 for camp/season start dates. Obviously that's not happening. Both parties know a lot more now than they did when they agreed to the MOU.

The players can choose between nothing, and something. The owners can choose between a big immediate loss, or a small(ish) immediate loss.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Even if the players agreed to a formula that eliminates the artificial salary cap and escrow and actually share HRR at 50% for this season, I wonder if the owners would agree.

Because that’s revenue, not income. Would there be enough after operating costs for the owners to make a penny? Still seems like there would be significant operating costs, including travel, lodging, testing, etc.

It's funny that this has always been an issue with the structure, but is only coming up now. The flaw has been in the model since the start.

[powderjunkie]

The owners are almost certainly losing substantial money this season. I think they lose less if they don't play at all, but the damage that would do to franchise values, corporate partnerships, future TV deals, and future fan/customer engagement is tough to measure/predict.

[Rick M.]

I went to a Charlottetown Islanders vs. Halifax Moosehead game a couple of nights ago. The building holds around 3,200 but only 900 fans were allowed to attend. You had to arrive early and your section determined which entrance you could use. Lots of areas were roped off so that your route was clear and ushers directed you. My friend and I were the only people in a 4 seat corner row. Nobody was seated in the row in front of us or the row behind us. Once seated you had to stay in your seat except to visit the bathroom. Food had to be ordered on your phone and masked servers delivered it to your seat. It was a very exciting game with hitting. Charlottetown won and it helps that they are in first place in the QMJHL with the best power play and penalty kill. The experience
was fine and not too weird. God, I love hockey! Maybe a model for the NHL? It also helps that PEI has only had a total of 68 cases of covid, with zero hospitalizations or deaths.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think we need to remember where things were in June when they were working on the return to play plans. Tons of people here were shouting for them to scrap it and focus on this upcoming season. Tons of people thought the bubble would fail.

It's reasonable to conclude that getting back on the ice that summer was the main priority then; the players one some major concessions in the process that helped ensure some stability moving forward. Further negotiations were inevitable in anything but the best-case-scenario. There is nothing surprising here.

Not surprising? The league is trying to get out of a signed agreement under the terms of which they have already signed players to contracts which were structured around those conditions.

Why do the players need to be held accountable for the league’s poor decisions? No one forced the league to agree to that language and I’m still baffled they would agree to something so short sighted.

For arguments sake let’s say a lot has changed since the MOU was signed, has that much changed since the start of free agency? Had the league brought this up prior to free agency I think the players would be much more receptive, instead this probably feels like a bait and switch to them, and rightfully so.

The MOU tentatively included Nov. 17 and Dec. 1 for camp/season start dates. Obviously that's not happening. Both parties know a lot more now than they did when they agreed to the MOU.

You’re comparing apples to oranges unless the language regarding paragraph 17 explicitly stated that it was only a tentative agreement.

The players can choose between nothing, and something. The owners can choose between a big immediate loss, or a small(ish) immediate loss.

It’s not that simple for the players, and the owners know this.

A player has to consider whether the percentage of their salary that they’ll make this season is worth the risk of injury or illness, especially for players on expiring contracts playing on bad teams or inline for an increase.

Imagine being on the last year of a deal paying you $2.5M/season playing for a non playoff team, your last 5 seasons you’ve increased your point totals year over year and are likely to get a roughly $5M/year longer term contract. Is it really worth risking getting injured or having a really off year and losing $0.5-1M per season on your next contract for the under $2M paycheque this season? I get that an argument could be made that the same player would weigh the same pros and cons even if their salary weren’t being reduced but what I’m saying is the league is giving a lot more incentive to the players to do so. Not just monetarily but also from a collective bargaining perspective, the PA are not going to want to open the door for the league to arbitrarily change the terms of an agreement.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by Rick M.

I went to a Charlottetown Islanders vs. Halifax Moosehead game a couple of nights ago. The building holds around 3,200 but only 900 fans were allowed to attend. You had to arrive early and your section determined which entrance you could use. Lots of areas were roped off so that your route was clear and ushers directed you. My friend and I were the only people in a 4 seat corner row. Nobody was seated in the row in front of us or the row behind us. Once seated you had to stay in your seat except to visit the bathroom. Food had to be ordered on your phone and masked servers delivered it to your seat. It was a very exciting game with hitting. Charlottetown won and it helps that they are in first place in the QMJHL with the best power play and penalty kill. The experience
was fine and not too weird. God, I love hockey! Maybe a model for the NHL? It also helps that PEI has only had a total of 68 cases of covid, with zero hospitalizations or deaths.

I'm curious, with only 68 total cases, why does PEI even need attendance limits and other restrictions?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

I'm curious, with only 68 total cases, why does PEI even need attendance limits and other restrictions?

I suspect they want to keep the number low.

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

I'm curious, with only 68 total cases, why does PEI even need attendance limits and other restrictions?

It’s certainly arguable that they aren’t needed. Our hospitals are normally stretched to their limits during flu season. Covid could make for a disaster. That is why PEI has focused on preventing spread and stamping out cases as they occur. The Atlantic bubble has worked well here. Having a moat helps too!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Rick M.

It’s certainly arguable that they aren’t needed. Our hospitals are normally stretched to their limits during flu season. Covid could make for a disaster. That is why PEI has focused on preventing spread and stamping out cases as they occur. The Atlantic bubble has worked well here. Having a moat helps too!

Almost all islands have dealt with COVID quite well.

Its weird watching Rugby matches with fans in the stands.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Not surprising? The league is trying to get out of a signed agreement under the terms of which they have already signed players to contracts which were structured around those conditions.

Why do the players need to be held accountable for the league’s poor decisions? No one forced the league to agree to that language and I’m still baffled they would agree to something so short sighted.

For arguments sake let’s say a lot has changed since the MOU was signed, has that much changed since the start of free agency? Had the league brought this up prior to free agency I think the players would be much more receptive, instead this probably feels like a bait and switch to them, and rightfully so.



You’re comparing apples to oranges unless the language regarding paragraph 17 explicitly stated that it was only a tentative agreement.



It’s not that simple for the players, and the owners know this.

A player has to consider whether the percentage of their salary that they’ll make this season is worth the risk of injury or illness, especially for players on expiring contracts playing on bad teams or inline for an increase.

Imagine being on the last year of a deal paying you $2.5M/season playing for a non playoff team, your last 5 seasons you’ve increased your point totals year over year and are likely to get a roughly $5M/year longer term contract. Is it really worth risking getting injured or having a really off year and losing $0.5-1M per season on your next contract for the under $2M paycheque this season? I get that an argument could be made that the same player would weigh the same pros and cons even if their salary weren’t being reduced but what I’m saying is the league is giving a lot more incentive to the players to do so. Not just monetarily but also from a collective bargaining perspective, the PA are not going to want to open the door for the league to arbitrarily change the terms of an agreement.

I for one am not assigning blame at all.

But we are where we are.

The league can't possibly be healthy and manage the contract load of a salary cap based on $5B as an industry.

So the players can say forget it, you signed a deal and you need to stick to it, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But 72% of salaries won't go well when I see the league heading for something like 36% of revenue.

That can certainly be the owner's issue to manage until escrow pushes the issue to the players, but they do risk two things with that stance.

1) the owners saying we're not going to have a season then.
2) teams folding and jobs lost.

It's not as simple as holding to an agreement, or who's fault it is.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I for one am not assigning blame at all.

But we are where we are.

The league can't possibly be healthy and manage the contract load of a salary cap based on $5B as an industry.

So the players can say forget it, you signed a deal and you need to stick to it, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But 72% of salaries won't go well when I see the league heading for something like 36% of revenue.

That can certainly be the owner's issue to manage until escrow pushes the issue to the players, but they do risk two things with that stance.

1) the owners saying we're not going to have a season then.
2) teams folding and jobs lost.

It's not as simple as holding to an agreement, or who's fault it is.

In other words: Acknowledging Reality.

Not going to get into the whole argument over and over again, but some people want their benefits and everything else...regardless of the reality of the situation.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

As Jiri said earlier, the essence of the players argument seems to be the owners should be floating this differential (because interest rates are low) which will ultimately be paid back by future players.

I guess the concept of intergenerational equity is completely lost on the current members of the PA.

Thinking that the owners should borrow to inflate HRR is quite possibly the most asinine thing I've heard related to this dispute. The players are entitled to 50% of HRR nothing more and nothing less.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Honestly, how many of you would shell out money for tickets if they were having an in person game at the dome tomorrow? Probably more than is reasonable but I definitely wouldn't want to go in there with 20K other people. Even 10K.

I would go to a game at the dome if the capacity was capped at 5000 (when infections aren’t roiling the way they are now).

If it was summer levels of infection.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Honestly, how many of you would shell out money for tickets if they were having an in person game at the dome tomorrow? Probably more than is reasonable but I definitely wouldn't want to go in there with 20K other people. Even 10K.

I don't want to do the math, but I wonder what the maximum capacity could be while still being able to maintain a 2m physical distancing rule.

I am guessing it would be somewhere around 5,000.

I would actually consider attending a game in such a situation, and assuming masks were mandatory.

I don't think I would want to attend 41 home games though.

I like to start sentences with "I".

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't want to do the math, but I wonder what the maximum capacity could be while still being able to maintain a 2m physical distancing rule.

I am guessing it would be somewhere around 5,000.

It would probably be a little bit higher than that and depends on the size of the groups you are allowing inside each "bubble" or "pod". If they follow the restaruant guidelines that would be 6 per pod. I think they could do about 8,000.

[powderjunkie]

In the bigger picture, I wonder if the league re-thinks its position on a 2nd team in the GTA?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't want to do the math, but I wonder what the maximum capacity could be while still being able to maintain a 2m physical distancing rule.

I am guessing it would be somewhere around 5,000.

The bathroom situation would be horrible.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by SebC

It's funny that this has always been an issue with the structure, but is only coming up now. The flaw has been in the model since the start.

Agree. Many contracts provide for force majeure

I find it hard to believe that the parties on either side would not be contemplating this in their pursuant negotiation

It is odd that it is not reported upon.

Maybe our CP brethren in the legal profession can chip in here...

Force majeure as I understand it is an unforeseen circumstance under which a party can’t fulfil a contract. (But not necessarily one under which a party can not profitably fulfil a contract (?))

In terms of how I understand the intent of force majeure, obviously the background assumptions going in to the economic model behind the current agreement have materially changed.

I wonder where the parties are at in that regard. We can reasonably assume players are generally, under ordinary circumstances pre Covid, bitter about escrow because of a lack of thorough appreciation, yes? I get that. You sign a contract for x dollars a year, but HRR trumps and escrow takes a bite

I suspect that you have on one hand people who want to preserve that to which pre Covid contract entitles them, and others who are shell shocked at the revenue profile implications of a pandemic

Should be interesting to see this unfold

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't want to do the math, but I wonder what the maximum capacity could be while still being able to maintain a 2m physical distancing rule.

I am guessing it would be somewhere around 5,000.

I would actually consider attending a game in such a situation, and assuming masks were mandatory.

I don't think I would want to attend 41 home games though.

I like to start sentences with "I".

Ideal letter for starting sentences answering opinion questions