When will next season start? Return to Play Negotiations

[Bingo]

What's the average player's career these days though?

Used to be 7.

I'd rather make $3M of my $5M deal than watch 14% of my career just slip away.

I think the star players and young future star players, are good to sit it out. Additionally the established market teams.

But the average to below average player, and the precarious market owners are likely a little nervous.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

I think a deal gets done but not before we get a "season is about to be cancelled" article or tweet from an insider.

This is troubling:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1331597621023150081

When you look back at the 2013-14 season, they didn't come to an agreement until around January 5 for a January 20 season start so there's still a fair bit of time here (but not if they refuse to talk). You probably can't be that tight this time around because of quarantine situations but you can probably start a 48-game season as late as mid-February so this might run on for awhile.

That's playing with fire this year...even for a Canadian division with 5/7 Canadian teams on full lockdown...the government is not going to jump for joy approving 50-70 people per team travelling all around the country...

[iggy_oi]

There’s bigger implications for the players long term than just losing more of their already reduced salary.

From a labour relations perspective the players agreeing to this amendment in the manner it’s been presented would have a similar effect to their bargaining relationship with the league as if the players went on a wild cat strike demanding a share of the Seattle franchise fee when it was announced and the owners gave in.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

There’s bigger implications for the players long term than just losing more of their already reduced salary.

From a labour relations perspective the players agreeing to this amendment in the manner it’s been presented would have a similar effect to their bargaining relationship with the league as if the players went on a wild cat strike demanding a share of the Seattle franchise fee when it was announced and the owners gave in.

Is the league asking for much more than proration relative to season length? Because there is a very strong argument that is where the signed agreement already stands...

Without knowing the owners specific demands it’s hard to say, but it’s possible the players are the ones backing out of the deal as signed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flamenspiel]

From a Flame fans standpoint I would not mind a few of these unsustainable franchises going bankrupt and redistributing their players. I’d like to see the league back down to 28 teams.

Why does the league need two Florida teams?Also Nashville, Arizona, and Columbus are heavily subsidized. The bottom 4 teams lost around 70 million dollars in the last full season.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Is the league asking for much more than proration relative to season length? Because there is a very strong argument that is where the signed agreement already stands...

To my knowledge the league’s demands are not connected to proration based on a specific number of games. As far as I’m aware at the time of both the CBA extension and the league proposing this amendment, the league’s plan was to have an 82 game season.

Without knowing the owners specific demands it’s hard to say, but it’s possible the players are the ones backing out of the deal as signed

The owners’ new demands for increasing both the salary deferral and caps on escrow are well documented and a pretty big departure from the numbers agreed to in the MOU. The players are wanting the deal they originally agreed to do I’m not sure how anyone could argue they are the ones backing out of it.

[powderjunkie]

I got off my butt and found it:
https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article...ent-proposals/

According to several sources, the league submitted two proposals. The first asked for changes solely to the upcoming season. Deferred compensation went to 20 per cent; escrow to 25. There were no other alterations.

The second asked for deferred compensation to be raised to 26 per cent for next season. Escrow was not touched until years four-to-six of the CBA, rising from six per cent to between 8.5 and nine.

Unclear if there would be any further proration.


Still, it boils down to whether you think the league actually frittered away the linkage that they fought so hard to acquire (at the cost of a full season), or if they gave the players a big win in the form of a loan based on general principle of maintaining 50/50 linkage. Perhaps they needed a few more 'will negotiate in good faith' statements in the MOU, but they still hold the hammer here so it doesn't ultimately matter.


As it stands, the players would make 80% - 10% additional deferral to play ~73% of a season. It's pretty hard to see that as a realistic/reasonable outcome given the current circumstances.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Still, it boils down to whether you think the league actually frittered away the linkage that they fought so hard to acquire (at the cost of a full season), or if they gave the players a big win in the form of a loan based on general principle of maintaining 50/50 linkage.

It’s a bit of a combination of both. The league wanted to keep the previous CBA terms but also knew that players likely wouldn’t play next season at all if there was the potential that they would play 82 games for significantly less than half of their salary. So both sides came to an agreement where neither side got exactly what they wanted but it set them both up reasonably well to re-enter into a guaranteed 50/50 split in revenue for the next CBA.

Perhaps they needed a few more 'will negotiate in good faith' statements in the MOU, but they still hold the hammer here so it doesn't ultimately matter.

The league always has the option of shutting down their operation, they just don’t usually have the benefit of a global pandemic to give them a potential way around it being considered an illegal employer lockout.

As it stands, the players would make 80% - 10% additional deferral to play ~73% of a season. It's pretty hard to see that as a realistic/reasonable outcome given the current circumstances.

The circumstances are the exact same as when the league agreed to this MOU. The league, by it’s own admission, knew where we are at right now was a potential outcome and agreed to the deal knowing that. The league even went a step further to shoot themselves in the foot by agreeing to ridiculous back loaded contracts in free agency when they knew it would further reduce the amount they would receive from escrow for this upcoming season.

[powderjunkie]

To be fair, the current circumstance was probably pretty low on the probability list (though with hindsight it shouldn't have been).

Successful bubble playoffs --> likely bode well for successful winter/spring season
Unsuccessful bubble playoff --> unlikely for this season to happen at all

We're in a weird mushy middle right now.

Remember what half the MOU was about: return to play for the summer. It would have been a waste of everyone's time to grind every detail of every possible scenario. They can do that now.

[Bingo]

Yeah I wouldn't say the circumstances are the exact same ... as last week. Let alone July.

If the owners negotiated a dumb deal the players have every right to hold them too it. But if the view is 50/50 either within this time frame or down the road it doesn't make a lot of sense to damage the industry and their own livelihoods when the situation is obviously worse, and not that hard to prove.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

To be fair, the current circumstance was probably pretty low on the probability list (though with hindsight it shouldn't have been).

Its likelihood is irrelevant since the league could have and ought to have asked for more language to protect itself in that scenario, the same as the players did by asking for language to reduce escrow should revenues bounce back sooner than expected. The league for whatever reason opted not to do that.

Successful bubble playoffs --> likely bode well for successful winter/spring season
Unsuccessful bubble playoff --> unlikely for this season to happen at all

We're in a weird mushy middle right now.

Remember what half the MOU was about: return to play for the summer. It would have been a waste of everyone's time to grind every detail of every possible scenario. They can do that now.

“Half” might be an overstatement but regardless, this isn’t how you negotiate in good faith. If the league needed to have two separate MOUs they could have done that, instead they opted to get it all done under one which makes it comprehensive and now they want a do-over after they already got the first “half” of what they were to receive from it.

To be clear I’m not trying to badger the league here for trying to get more money out of the deal, that’s just business and I get that they have to try, especially when that is the mandate given by the owners. But the way they are going about this is wrong. Under the previous agreement the players didn’t like escrow, but they agreed to pay it so they did. The league should do the same here unless they can prove that there has been an actual significant material change in circumstances from what they thought could be a possible outcome when they signed this MOU.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Its likelihood is irrelevant since the league could have and ought to have asked for more language to protect itself in that scenario, the same as the players did by asking for language to reduce escrow should revenues bounce back sooner than expected. The league for whatever reason opted not to do that.



“Half” might be an overstatement but regardless, this isn’t how you negotiate in good faith. If the league needed to have two separate MOUs they could have done that, instead they opted to get it all done under one which makes it comprehensive and now they want a do-over after they already got the first “half” of what they were to receive from it.

To be clear I’m not trying to badger the league here for trying to get more money out of the deal, that’s just business and I get that they have to try, especially when that is the mandate given by the owners. But the way they are going about this is wrong. Under the previous agreement the players didn’t like escrow, but they agreed to pay it so they did. The league should do the same here unless they can prove that there has been an actual significant material change in circumstances from what they thought could be a possible outcome when they signed this MOU.

I think that's exactly what's going on isn't it?

It's pretty easy to see they underestimated the downward impact to the industry or they wouldn't have negotiated such a small deferral.

I don't think anyone is debating that at all.

Nor am I debating whose fault it is.

But they are where they are. The players had better have a good sense of both roads if they're firmly going to make the owners stick to a road that will see them lose billions.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah I wouldn't say the circumstances are the exact same ... as last week. Let alone July.

None of us have a crystal ball to predict the future but the league used a number of projection models to predict as many possible outcomes for where we would be at, none of which would have been exactly right but at least one of the potential outcomes was a scenario very similar to where we are right now.

If that is the case it works against an argument that the circumstances have obviously worsened because the stats/circumstances related to the pandemic aren’t the circumstances that the league needs to argue have changed. The league would need to argue that there was no way they could have foreseen this decrease in revenue happening when they signed the MOU, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here.

If the owners negotiated a dumb deal the players have every right to hold them too it. But if the view is 50/50 either within this time frame or down the road it doesn't make a lot of sense to damage the industry and their own livelihoods when the situation is obviously worse, and not that hard to prove.

I don’t think the players are trying to harm the league, rather they are trying to protect themselves from having the league attempt to get out of any agreements negotiated in the future as that could potentially have a much more deleterious effect on the PA going forward than a lost season would. .

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

None of us have a crystal ball to predict the future but the league used a number of projection models to predict as many possible outcomes for where we would be at, none of which would have been exactly right but at least one of the potential outcomes was a scenario very similar to where we are right now.

If that is the case it works against an argument that the circumstances have obviously worsened because the stats/circumstances related to the pandemic aren’t the circumstances that the league needs to argue have changed. The league would need to argue that there was no way they could have foreseen this decrease in revenue happening when they signed the MOU, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here.



I don’t think the players are trying to harm the league, rather they are trying to protect themselves from having the league attempt to get out of any agreements negotiated in the future as that could potentially have a much more deleterious effect on the PA going forward than a lost season would. .

Seems like you’re willing to die on the hill that the players should hold the owners to an MOU they signed earlier in a pandemic.

Then RIP I guess. Owners aren’t obligated to stage games in empty arenas.

See each other next season.

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

I could care less about the salary/owner income disputes.... To me it seems like the season is fast slipping away. Covid calling the shots now

Really, how much less would you care?

(Sorry, I had to)
;-)

[Erick Estrada]

The NFL has poured a lot of money into tracking COVID and they are having lots of COVID issues with teams only travelling once a week. I just don't see how the NHL could pull it off in this current environment with all the travel involved. Unless they do another bubble tournament I just don't see it being feasible to play regular season hockey as there would be a lot of cancelled games. I find it annoying enough watching the Raiders with a COVID depleted lineup and can't imagine what it would be like if say the entire 1st line was quarantined and the Flames were playing with AHL rosters for extended periods.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

None of us have a crystal ball to predict the future but the league used a number of projection models to predict as many possible outcomes for where we would be at, none of which would have been exactly right but at least one of the potential outcomes was a scenario very similar to where we are right now.

If that is the case it works against an argument that the circumstances have obviously worsened because the stats/circumstances related to the pandemic aren’t the circumstances that the league needs to argue have changed. The league would need to argue that there was no way they could have foreseen this decrease in revenue happening when they signed the MOU, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here.



I don’t think the players are trying to harm the league, rather they are trying to protect themselves from having the league attempt to get out of any agreements negotiated in the future as that could potentially have a much more deleterious effect on the PA going forward than a lost season would. .

None of us know the exact assumptions used and models generated when they negotiated ... agreed.

But the logic of them wanting an adjustment pretty much proves that they underestimated a few parameters doesn't it?

And never said the players are trying to harm the league.

They could harm the league, and their union however if they're not careful.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

None of us know the exact assumptions used and models generated when they negotiated ... agreed.

I didn’t suggest that at all but we can agree to a certain extent, though there were some reports that gave some details regarding some of the projected outcomes.

But the logic of them wanting an adjustment pretty much proves that they underestimated a few parameters doesn't it?

Not at all. All that you or I could really say with the admittedly limited information we have is that the NHL would prefer to have these amendments because they will reduce their potential losses. The NHL was almost certainly going to lose money in the first season of this CBA. Whether that was $10M per team or $20M, or even more we don’t really know. But we can probably agree that the league would prefer to reduce those losses as much as possible, so we can also agree they have an incentive to try and get the players to agree to this even if the league did agree in good faith back in the summer with the assumption that each team would lose say $20M in the first season.

The league’s entire approach here raises a lot of red flags to me. For all we know the league could very well have signed this MOU with the intention of getting the playoffs done as a test to see what some of the added costs would look like and then make a determination on whether or not to cancel the upcoming season or ask the PA for concessions on the existing deal. I’m not insinuating that has happened, but to be honest I find that much easier to believe than assuming the league’s highly experienced negotiating committee could drop the ball so badly on their projections 4 months ago but have now magically figured it out.

And never said the players are trying to harm the league.

Fair enough, though you did say damage their industry and considering they are the only major professional hockey league in North America I don’t see much of a difference.

They could harm the league, and their union however if they're not careful.

Agreeing to concessions when the league is essentially holding a gun to their heads would have serious long term effects on the Union’s leverage in bargaining going forward. If the players agreed to their demands it would open the door for the league to do this unilaterally anytime they want something changed during the term of a CBA. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room to try and negotiate a resolution if the league can present a legitimate case to the PA for doing so, but this take it or leave it approach that the league has opted for is leaving the PA very little choice other than to say no. Whether you agree with them or not the PA is always going to look out for what is in the long term best interest of their bargaining unit.

Originally Posted by Bingo

But they are where they are. The players had better have a good sense of both roads if they're firmly going to make the owners stick to a road that will see them lose billions.

These amendments won’t be saving the league billions so I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

[Bingo]

^I guess we will just disagree then.

If I sign something in July that doesn't work for me now I think it's a pretty good assumption that either

a) I buggered up the negotiation in the first place (bad math, bad assumptions, mistake)
or
b) things have changed to the worse from my expectations

Sure that doesn't prove anything, but it follows logic.

If the league pulls in 35% of their $5B profit, and pays out 72% of the players salaries they will as a group lose something over a billion yes.

Is that the players fault no? But if you go down a road that makes that number worse it could create a tipping point for some franchises.

[Karl]

If the NHL wants to do the bubble tournament again then maybe. If no bubble then forget about it with COVID wildly out of control in the US.