When will next season start? Return to Play Negotiations

[The Yen Man]

I guess the bottom line for players is, lose a bit more, or lose it all. I commend them if they stick to their guns and just sit it out for the whole season rather than compromise. With how much it's expected owners would lose, I would think some of the owners would actually rather not have a season next year.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

There are two arguments here.

One is that the owners are wrong, the other that it doesn't matter.

You’ll have to forgive some of us for not agreeing with your position that breaking the law doesn’t matter because...wait why are you saying that doesn’t matter?

I think two of you keep bringing the first one up to people that honestly don't care.

I would agree that owners screwed up ... it was either a bad assumption as that article states that they estimated they'd have some fans in the seats. Or they didn't and had a bad model, or misjudged the financial health of some of their teams.

But the bottom line is the numbers don't add up so they have to go back to the players.

Pretty simple isn't it?

No it’s really not that simple because your entire argument is based on the assumption that the league is stupid enough to make this kind of mistake, not hold anyone within their organization accountable for that despite the huge financial liability it would have created if their position were credible, and that the additional ~6% in revenue they are looking to gain somehow outweighs the risk and associated costs of litigation from the PA in the event the league did cancel the season.

I would find the league’s position far more credible if they took a different approach to resolving the matter, but their take it or leave it approach without offering anything back to the PA in exchange for doing the league a HUGE favour is a joke and reflects very poorly on the NHL and its owners.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I guess the bottom line for players is, lose a bit more, or lose it all. I commend them if they stick to their guns and just sit it out for the whole season rather than compromise. With how much it's expected owners would lose, I would think some of the owners would actually rather not have a season next year.

The players are likely going to sue the league if there is no season, so the owners are going to lose either way.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You’ll have to forgive some of us for not agreeing with your position that breaking the law doesn’t matter because...wait why are you saying that doesn’t matter?



No it’s really not that simple because your entire argument is based on the assumption that the league is stupid enough to make this kind of mistake, not hold anyone within their organization accountable for that despite the huge financial liability it would have created if their position were credible, and that the additional ~6% in revenue they are looking to gain somehow outweighs the risk and associated costs of litigation from the PA in the event the league did cancel the season.

I would find the league’s position far more credible if they took a different approach to resolving the matter, but their take it or leave it approach without offering anything back to the PA in exchange for doing the league a HUGE favour is a joke and reflects very poorly on the NHL and its owners.

Its a pandemic.

Industries are a mess.

I don't feel the need to call it criminal to say the league needs a further adjustment given the climate.

But you can. I'm good with that.

I provided an article that states that they over stated the chances of fans or the number of fans in their negotiations, and that wasn't good enough for you.

That's fine too.

You're pro player ... and when people dig in they're not going to be swayed, which is also fine ... don't need to sway you.

But for many of us the numbers don't add up, and given the 50/50 nature of the original pre-pandemic CBA it only makes sense to get something closer to that in order to play.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The players are likely going to sue the league if there is no season, so the owners are going to lose either way.

I would bet you the players will lose any lawsuit about the cancellation of this season, if that were to occur. Besides, how long can people without jobs fund a lawsuit against a troop of billionaires?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I would bet you the players will lose any lawsuit about the cancellation of this season, if that were to occur.

What are you basing that position on? The league will most likely be found to be engaging in an illegal lockout which is a violation of the CBA.

Besides, how long can people without jobs fund a lawsuit against a troop of billionaires?

Well considering each of the 700+ players pays around $11k/year in Union dues, you can do the math but my guess would be long enough to get a ruling.

[sureLoss]

Kevin McGran @kevin_mcgran
Brian Burke @Burkie2020 just said on radio the players "have dug in on Christmas, they're not giving up Christmas with their families." If true (and I believe it) border corssing/quarantining can't begin till Dec. 26, or 27th, camps would open 14 days later.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Its a pandemic.

Industries are a mess.

I don't feel the need to call it criminal to say the league needs a further adjustment given the climate.

But you can. I'm good with that.

That isn’t what I’m saying at all, and to be honest I don’t think your approach of trying to put words in my mouth is making your position any more credible so I’d appreciate if you would refrain from doing so. The league saying they need further adjustments (whether it’s true or just posturing) isn’t illegal, but them using it as an excuse to lock the players out would be.

I provided an article that states that they over stated the chances of fans or the number of fans in their negotiations, and that wasn't good enough for you.

That's fine too.

You provided an opinion piece defending the league’s position, written by someone who as I’ve made you aware also literally defended the players’ position the next day and continues to point out how the courts may not agree with the league’s position. That being the case, why would you expect that article to change anyone’s mind?

You're pro player ... and when people dig in they're not going to be swayed, which is also fine ... don't need to sway you.

Oddly enough I’m the one who is actually defending the owners for not being as incompetent as yourself and others are trying to frame them as. I’m not trying to convince you that the players are perfect or that the owners are bad, I’m trying to help you understand how the league’s actions suggest they aren’t acting in good faith, how from a business perspective there are more reasons for them to be doing what they’re doing beyond the current terms being unmanageable and that IMO those factors will likely work against them in a court of law.

But for many of us the numbers don't add up, and given the 50/50 nature of the original pre-pandemic CBA it only makes sense to get something closer to that in order to play.

It would appear the league disagrees, otherwise they wouldn’t have signed that deal because the numbers that you claim don’t add up were the same in July as they are today.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

What are you basing that position on? The league will most likely be found to be engaging in an illegal lockout which is a violation of the CBA.



Well considering each of the 700+ players pays around $11k/year in Union dues, you can do the math but my guess would be long enough to get a ruling.

Even if you were generous and went with 800 players it's still not a large sum of money compared to what Murray Edwards has alone.

This case is a textbook definition of Force Majeure. There's a global pandemic that has muddied the intent of the agreement. Do you think a court will find that the evolving global situation around pandemic control is not disruptive enough to trigger that clause? I disagree entirely if so.

[Toonage]

If they're now on to discussing holidays and when they are to come back then I would suggest thats actually a positive sign and we'll see them start a truncated camp around the 9th of January with a season starting maybe 10 days or so after that.

You don't get pissy about Xmas if you're still hanging on dollars.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Toonage

If they're now on to discussing holidays and when they are to come back then I would suggest thats actually a positive sign and we'll see them start a truncated camp around the 9th of January with a season starting maybe 10 days or so after that.

You don't get pissy about Xmas if you're still hanging on dollars.

I agree, that is a very (subtly) positive tweet IMO. It indicates they've progressed to speaking about the physical dates and schedule rather than hang ups on revenue splits.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

That isn’t what I’m saying at all, and to be honest I don’t think your approach of trying to put words in my mouth is making your position any more credible so I’d appreciate if you would refrain from doing so. The league saying they need further adjustments (whether it’s true or just posturing) isn’t illegal, but them using it as an excuse to lock the players out would be.



You provided an opinion piece defending the league’s position, written by someone who as I’ve made you aware also literally defended the players’ position the next day and continues to point out how the courts may not agree with the league’s position. That being the case, why would you expect that article to change anyone’s mind?



Oddly enough I’m the one who is actually defending the owners for not being as incompetent as yourself and others are trying to frame them as. I’m not trying to convince you that the players are perfect or that the owners are bad, I’m trying to help you understand how the league’s actions suggest they aren’t acting in good faith, how from a business perspective there are more reasons for them to be doing what they’re doing beyond the current terms being unmanageable and that IMO those factors will likely work against them in a court of law.



It would appear the league disagrees, otherwise they wouldn’t have signed that deal because the numbers that you claim don’t add up were the same in July as they are today.

Oh please ...

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth any more than you have been mine in responding to me.

I'll make this really simple

I think things must have changed since July. That's why I think it's more about economic health of the league or franchises and teams not wanting to play than not acting in good faith.

But you don't have to agree with that.

It's common sense to me, but doesn't have to be for you.

Maybe it's time we move on.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Even if you were generous and went with 800 players it's still not a large sum of money compared to what Murray Edwards has alone.

It should be more than enough to see the case through, if it weren’t the players would have likely given in to the owners’ demands. Also I don’t know if you want to be arguing that the owners have so much money that they’ll win their case by bankrupting the PA with litigation when you’re also trying to get everyone to empathize with their position that the players should be paid less than what the owners agreed to. Just my 2 cents.

This case is a textbook definition of Force Majeure. There's a global pandemic that has muddied the intent of the agreement. Do you think a court will find that the evolving global situation around pandemic control is not disruptive enough to trigger that clause? I disagree entirely if so.

The league is going to have a hard time using force majeure as their defence when they literally predicted this outcome during their negotiations. I think it’s possible you’re not as familiar with all the facts of this case or the textbook definition of force majeure as you may think you are.

A global pandemic is something that in most cases could easily be used to void a contract with a force majeure clause, but that is not likely in a case where the contract was negotiated specifically to deal with the fallout of said pandemic.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Kevin McGran @kevin_mcgran
Brian Burke @Burkie2020 just said on radio the players "have dug in on Christmas, they're not giving up Christmas with their families." If true (and I believe it) border corssing/quarantining can't begin till Dec. 26, or 27th, camps would open 14 days later.

Makes sense.

Christmas is only a little more than 3 weeks away. At this point, they might as well spend it with their families. It's not something they get to do often during their careers, except for what is pretty much a short lay over for about a day. Might as well make the most out of this situation.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It should be more than enough to see the case through, if it weren’t the players would have likely given in to the owners’ demands. Also I don’t know if you want to be arguing that the owners have so much money that they’ll win their case by bankrupting the PA with litigation when you’re also trying to get everyone to empathize with their position that the players should be paid less than what the owners agreed to. Just my 2 cents.



The league is going to have a hard time using force majeure as their defence when they literally predicted this outcome during their negotiations. I think it’s possible you’re not as familiar with all the facts of this case or the textbook definition of force majeure as you may think you are.

A global pandemic is something that in most cases could easily be used to void a contract with a force majeure clause, but that is not likely in a case where the contract was negotiated specifically to deal with the fallout of said pandemic.

I don't even agree with that. Force majeure clauses are based on impossibility (not difficulty or unprofitability) of performance of one's contractual obligations (in addition to, as you rightly point out, such impossibility being due to unexpected and beyond reasonable human foresight and skill). Is it impossible for the NHL to fulfill its contractual obligation to have a 2020-21 season? That probably depends on the specific CA language which describes the obligation. However, I suspect it will be a very tough case to make for the NHL.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Oh please ...

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth any more than you have been mine in responding to me.

I’m going to respectfully disagree and let our posts speak for themselves.

I'll make this really simple

I think things must have changed since July. That's why I think it's more about economic health of the league or franchises and teams not wanting to play than not acting in good faith.

But you don't have to agree with that.

It's common sense to me, but doesn't have to be for you.

Maybe it's time we move on.

Do you believe that a projection of 35% of revenues based on no fans calculated in July is monetarily the same as a projection of 35% of revenues based on no fans calculated in November? Yes or no.

Answering no is really the only way you can defend your position that enough has changed since July to justify the league’s claims, but I don’t think you’re going to answer no.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I don't even agree with that. Force majeure clauses are based on impossibility (not difficulty or unprofitability) of performance of one's contractual obligations (in addition to, as you rightly point out, such impossibility being due to unexpected and beyond reasonable human foresight and skill). Is it impossible for the NHL to fulfill its contractual obligation to have a 2020-21 season? That probably depends on the specific CA language which describes the obligation. However, I suspect it will be a very tough case to make for the NHL.

Are there any clauses about player health and safety?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I don't even agree with that. Force majeure clauses are based on impossibility (not difficulty or unprofitability) of performance of one's contractual obligations (in addition to, as you rightly point out, such impossibility being due to unexpected and beyond reasonable human foresight and skill). Is it impossible for the NHL to fulfill its contractual obligation to have a 2020-21 season? That probably depends on the specific CA language which describes the obligation. However, I suspect it will be a very tough case to make for the NHL.

I agree and I probably should have used the words “some cases” rather than “most cases” but I suppose that’s why you’re the law talking guy and I just run the self scan checkouts at the local Walmart.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Kevin McGran @kevin_mcgran
Brian Burke @Burkie2020 just said on radio the players "have dug in on Christmas, they're not giving up Christmas with their families." If true (and I believe it) border corssing/quarantining can't begin till Dec. 26, or 27th, camps would open 14 days later.

Has anyone found a link to the audio of this? Depending on the context this could be positive or negative news.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Are there any clauses about player health and safety?

In fact, there doesn't even have to be (as the NHL's responsibilities under the various occupational health and safety legislation around the league stand alone [and are probably read into the collective agreement anyway]). However, other leagues are apparently able to host games while presumably fulfilling those duties. And the NHL just recently hosted games while presumably fulfilling those duties. Most damaging to this argument, I think, is the fact that the NHL seems to be taking the position that it could safely host games if the players agree to defer salary/increase escrow. It's difficult to accept the argument that the NHL cannot safely host games if the players do not agree to defer salary/increase escrow.