When will next season start? Return to Play Negotiations

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I think you have the leverage backwards. The owners will pay the players 1.9 Billion (after the 20% escrow) as per the CBA amendment they agreed to in July unless they can get some court to agree to void the CBA. I cannot really think of a strong legal argument that they have that would allow the league to win in court and void a binding agreement. At some point I would worry about the legitimate risk of losing in court,, fronting that type of money with no revenue coming in and hoping you can get it back through escrow between 2022 and 2026.

Not if they "can't" have a season...with government restrictions its not really hard to argue IMO.

[powderjunkie]

In the event of a lawsuit (highly unlikely IMO), is an MOU even enforceable? It's especially hard to see it in this case...

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

In the event of a lawsuit (highly unlikely IMO), is an MOU even enforceable? It's especially hard to see it in this case...

You can read the "MOU" here: https://www.nhlpa.com/the-pa/cba

In my humble opinion, although it is titled "MOU", it is quite clear that it is more of an amending/extension agreement (with respect to the current CBA) than a memorandum of understanding:

Upon ratification of the terms hereof by each of the parties, the process of incorporating the terms of the MOU into the full text of the CBA shall be strictly limited, as set forth herein. Beginning on a date as agreed between the NHL and NHLPA, and unless otherwise agreed to, the parties shall meet on an ongoing basis for the purpose incorporating the terms of the MOU into the full text of the CBA (“Drafting Period”). The parties will endeavor to work as expeditiously as possible. The Drafting Period
shall be for the sole purpose of attempting to reach agreement on full text CBA language where the language in the MOU is insufficient for that purpose. Conversely, where the language in this MOU is sufficiently detailed to adequately constitute full text CBA language, no alteration of the MOU language shall be required or permitted, except on mutual consent, and such language shall be incorporated as full text into the CBA. Until replaced by agreement on formal CBA language, the provisions of this MOU shall be binding and enforceable to the same extent as if formally incorporated into the CBA.

So, yes, I think a labour arbitrator or labour relations board would find that the MOU is as binding as a collective agreement.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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

Today’s Sportsnet Fan 590 Hockey Central at Noon

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

And it pays them 50% of HRR, which if their salaries exceed they pay back in the form of escrow, which has been negotiated to extend for a longer period of time so they don't get hit with 80% escrow in one year. All other talking points are fluff.

I'll just leave this here:

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/...rying-back-cba

I think it’s pretty clear that the current CBA no longer guarantees a 50/50 split in revenue due to the caps on escrow. Otherwise the league would just let the CBA balance it out.

From your article where Bettman reaffirms the NHL’s position:

"Under our deal and the one we've had for more than a decade with the players' association, whatever the revenues are, the players only get 50%" Bettman said.

This quote was the most intriguing thing I took away from what Bettman had to say. Basically if you’re right and a 50/50 revenue split is guaranteed then that means Gary’s only wrong about 1 thing in that sentence, but if I’m right then he’s wrong about 2.

The players clearly wouldn’t have wanted to play next season at such a high escrow amount, no one’s debating that but they were contractual obligated to do so. At the same time the league also needed to get buy-in from the PA to modify/extend player contracts and significantly alter both their working and living conditions(the bubble) so that the league could put on the playoffs during the summer. This CBA extension wasn’t an act of benevolence from the owners, it was a negotiation where both sides made concessions.

[DeluxeMoustache]

50/50 is the agreement. Escrow is just a tool. When revenues are predictable within a certain range, escrow levels can be set such that they can subsequently return a portion of escrow and land at 50/50

When the top line revenue is far out of line with projections, there is a potential scenario where fixing escrow can’t arrive at a 50/50 outcome

It’s really not that complicated, but likely beyond the understanding of a lot of players. No offence

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

50/50 is the agreement. Escrow is just a tool. When revenues are predictable within a certain range, escrow levels can be set such that they can subsequently return a portion of escrow and land at 50/50

When the top line revenue is far out of line with projections, there is a potential scenario where fixing escrow can’t arrive at a 50/50 outcome

It’s really not that complicated, but likely beyond the understanding of a lot of players. No offence

And the agreement is that the league has to pay the players, regardless of whether there is a game played this year their salaries less 20% escrow. Next year the binding contract says they have to pay the players their contract less a 18 or 14% escrow with the escrow sliding down after that.

I suspect that binding contract is almost certainly beyond the understanding of most of the owners no offence to the owners. The one part that I think the players do understand that you cited is that there is a scenario where fixing escrow does not fix the 50/50 problem and the CBA runs out and the players get more than 50 percent of HRR over the term of the CBA. I do not think the players have a problem with that potential scenario and they carefully read the binding July addendum to the CBA to make sure their interests were protected. Unfortunately it appears the owners did not.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Not if they "can't" have a season...with government restrictions its not really hard to argue IMO.

The NFL is able to have a season and the NBA is able to have a season. Maybe I am missing something but what government restriction is preventing the NHL from having a season?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The NFL is able to have a season and the NBA is able to have a season. Maybe I am missing something but what government restriction is preventing the NHL from having a season?

the NFL and NBA are both playing in only one country.
(the Raptors still don't have a home)

[scotty2hotty]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The NFL is able to have a season and the NBA is able to have a season. Maybe I am missing something but what government restriction is preventing the NHL from having a season?

Canada

[sec304]

Is there a good article out there that explains what the players and owners are arguing about? I haven't paid too much attention in the last month or so. I just figured if the revenue was split 50/50 and they played the season, the players would understand the paycut would be huge if revenue dipped without fans.

Are they just arguing about what their salaries would be if they play a shortened season?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

One question I have is, are the players still allowed to utilize their 5% cap inflator? If so, that could essentially nullify the 6% escrow in the latter half of the deal.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by sec304

Is there a good article out there that explains what the players and owners are arguing about? I haven't paid too much attention in the last month or so. I just figured if the revenue was split 50/50 and they played the season, the players would understand the paycut would be huge if revenue dipped without fans.

Are they just arguing about what their salaries would be if they play a shortened season?

My guess is if the season is played and its an even 50/50 split, the owners 50% wont even be close to covering operating costs.

The 50/50 must be before operating costs correct or else the league would have Hollywood accountants and never make a "profit".

[ricardodw]

Any player that does not have the covid immunity antibody could be declared unable to play.

Sort of a prerequisite taken at the medical check in at the start of training camp.

You get the antibody by getting covid or by a vaccine.

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

And the agreement is that the league has to pay the players, regardless of whether there is a game played this year their salaries less 20% escrow. Next year the binding contract says they have to pay the players their contract less a 18 or 14% escrow with the escrow sliding down after that.

I suspect that binding contract is almost certainly beyond the understanding of most of the owners no offence to the owners. The one part that I think the players do understand that you cited is that there is a scenario where fixing escrow does not fix the 50/50 problem and the CBA runs out and the players get more than 50 percent of HRR over the term of the CBA. I do not think the players have a problem with that potential scenario and they carefully read the binding July addendum to the CBA to make sure their interests were protected. Unfortunately it appears the owners did not.

I suspect that all of the owners know more about this than you do.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

One question I have is, are the players still allowed to utilize their 5% cap inflator? If so, that could essentially nullify the 6% escrow in the latter half of the deal.

I don’t think they are able to use the escalator since part of the deal(and I use that term loosely at this point) is that the cap is frozen at $81.5M. The difference in what the league is now seeking in deference/escrow from what is stated in the MOU is also much more than 6%.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Any player that does not have the covid immunity antibody could be declared unable to play.

Sort of a prerequisite taken at the medical check in at the start of training camp.

You get the antibody by getting covid or by a vaccine.

That's not a practical suggestion, at least until maybe fall of next year.
So basically that would mean cancelling the season.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

That's not a practical suggestion, at least until maybe fall of next year.
So basically that would mean cancelling the season.

I don’t think the league could force players to be vaccinated even if they wanted to.

IMO if they aren’t going to cancel the season over this MOU fiasco they’re definitely not going to cancel it over vaccinations.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I don’t think the league could force players to be vaccinated even if they wanted to.

IMO if they aren’t going to cancel the season over this MOU fiasco they’re definitely not going to cancel it over vaccinations.

Gyms are being opened with the science being followed was that anyone who was getting covid at the Gym already had it, recovered and are immune.

Herd immunity on a small part of the herd.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Gyms are being opened with the science being followed was that anyone who was getting covid at the Gym already had it, recovered and are immune.

Herd immunity on a small part of the herd.

Um..what?