When will next season start? Return to Play Negotiations

[Braden]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

As good as an all Canadian division sounds , I’m not sure how it’s going to work? I live in BC and the provincial government takes some pretty big measures when it comes to travel and covid. I can’t see them letting teams come in to play Vancouver without quarantine for 2 weeks. The same will go when Vancouver comes back from a road trip. I haven’t followed closely what other provinces guidelines would be when it comes to this matter.

I live in BC and work remotely all over Canada, probably have taken 25+ flights since covid and no, BC has never had a 2 week quarantine order for inter provincial travel, nothing like the atlantic provinces. Near the beginning it was "non essential travel was advised against" but that was it.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Braden

I live in BC and work remotely all over Canada, probably have taken 25+ flights since covid and no, BC has never had a 2 week quarantine order for inter provincial travel, nothing like the atlantic provinces. Near the beginning it was "non essential travel was advised against" but that was it.

Is hockey essential travel? Will certain governments (city or provincial) be under pressure to consider it not?

In addition...I dont think international players will be able to bypass quarantine rules. I.e... a Jan 1 start date would require 2 weeks of training camp + Christmas in between + 2 week quarantine for internationals. So basically...if there is no deal next week, Jan 15 is the new earliest date.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Why would only the Canadian teams play in a bubble, when covid is much more widespread in the U.S.?

There’s question as to whether the Canadian government would allow teams to fly cross country and play each other.

In the US, while COVID is more widespread, there’s no question that the governments would allow it because they already have with the NFL, MLB and soon the NBA.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by tkflames

Is hockey essential travel? Will certain governments (city or provincial) be under pressure to consider it not?

In addition...I dont think international players will be able to bypass quarantine rules. I.e... a Jan 1 start date would require 2 weeks of training camp + Christmas in between + 2 week quarantine for internationals. So basically...if there is no deal next week, Jan 15 is the new earliest date.

In 2012-13, training camp was only six days so there’s that option as well if they need to take it.

[Mr.Coffee]

Hey guys let’s argue over how many millions we will get until there are $0 millions.

Smrt!

[CASe333]

Originally Posted by Braden

I live in BC and work remotely all over Canada, probably have taken 25+ flights since covid and no, BC has never had a 2 week quarantine order for inter provincial travel, nothing like the atlantic provinces. Near the beginning it was "non essential travel was advised against" but that was it.

As an individual you and your travel plans are not scrutinized in the same scope as an NHL team is for good reasons.

[transplant99]

Duha gives his take on this situation through a Q&A in The Athletic.

What is the plausibility of the owners just deciding to cancel the season if a new amended deal can’t be reached with the players? Shane P

Intuitively, I believe there is a small percentage of NHL owners who’d rather not play this year, if they cannot admit fans into the building, because they’d lose less money not playing than they would by playing games, but not seeing any ticket revenue generated. Ultimately, I do not believe they will hold sway. Beyond keeping your product in the public eye, the primary value of playing would be to burn off the final year of the league’s U.S. national television deal, which means they can start taking bids from interested parties on an extension. The hope is they’ll get something that mirrors (though on a far smaller scale), the NFL national package, which is spread out among multiple rights holders.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

They calculated a no fan season and decided it was feasible to pay the players the amount they were offering. Otherwise they would have never agreed to do so.



You can’t possibly think the owners and their (high priced) negotiating team are that incompetent.

I wasn’t expecting to also have to defend the league in this discussion but here we are.

It has to be a mistake of some kind doesn't it? That's all I'm saying.

Over estimating the number of games
Assuming a percentage of fans
A bad calculation
Poor understanding of some of the team's financial situation.

Otherwise why close a deal in July that you then reopen in November?

This is becoming one of the oddest debates ever. It's so damn obvious that something has changed, but on we go ...

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It has to be a mistake of some kind doesn't it? That's all I'm saying.

Over estimating the number of games
Assuming a percentage of fans
A bad calculation
Poor understanding of some of the team's financial situation.

Otherwise why close a deal in July that you then reopen in November?

This is becoming one of the oddest debates ever. It's so damn obvious that something has changed, but on we go ...

IMO the league simply over estimated when fans would be able to return to the rink, and thus have had to re-calculate what revenue will be moving forward.

It maybe a "dumb" or "misguided" mistake but that doesnt mean they should have their feet held to the fire by the PA. The world is/has/will change and things will come along that simply were unforeseen. In every other part of the business world there are contracts that cannot be fulfilled because of circumstances beyond anyone involved ability to control. It can be seen all the way from multi-billion dollar corporations down to Fred and Sally working with their landlords on rental costs.

Clearly, as Duhatschek points out above, it will be cheaper for some teams to not play than go forward with the MOU in place. They may even be the majority depending how long a return to play takes. Something, again, out of their control.

That wont prevent unions and their sycophants from blustering their way through the tired and old refrain about honoring the deal signed...because!! No ability to see nuance and understand that things are changing, literally, daily when it comes to revenue/economy.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It has to be a mistake of some kind doesn't it? That's all I'm saying.

Over estimating the number of games
Assuming a percentage of fans
A bad calculation
Poor understanding of some of the team's financial situation.

Otherwise why close a deal in July that you then reopen in November?

This is becoming one of the oddest debates ever. It's so damn obvious that something has changed, but on we go ...

They looked at a 25 per cent chance best case scenario, a 50 per cent most likely scenario, and a 25 per cent worst case scenario, and struck a deal that would work for them for the first two scenarios and be really bad for them in the last scenario. They could have made a deal based on the worst-case scenario, but they gambled that it wouldn’t happen.

[Braden]

Originally Posted by CASe333

As an individual you and your travel plans are not scrutinized in the same scope as an NHL team is for good reasons.

I am aware of this, was just stating the point that BC didnt have a 2 week quarantine for inter provincal travel like the Atlantic bubble provinces actually did.

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by Braden

I am aware of this, was just stating the point that BC didnt have a 2 week quarantine for inter provincal travel like the Atlantic bubble provinces actually did.

Essential workers, however that is defined, avoided self-quarantine.

[Bingo]

Forbes article on the NHL trying to change the deal

Link

Requesting amendments to a ratified agreement is a big deal and the NHL knows that. So to approach the Union for further concessions means the league is seeing something new and material that requires urgent attention. Indeed, the NHL believes that its financial assumptions have so dramatically changed such that this coming season is no longer financially viable within the four corners of the existing framework.

So what has changed for the league? It’s fans - or more precisely no fans. The NHL didn’t anticipate that it wouldn’t have fans in arenas this season. Most were expecting some return to normalcy in Fall of 2020. That has now been pushed to at least the Fall of 2021. So there was a belief fans would be back; they will not.

That substantially alters the financial outlook for the league. Under the existing framework, players will take home $1.6 billion in salaries. With league revenue hovering around $1.8 to $2 billion without fans in attendance, players would account for 80% of league revenue. That’s a far cry from the typical arrangement of a 50/50 split of league revenue.

The NHLPA, however, is banking on an additional $1 billion injection of revenue by way of some fans attending some of the games. If that is indeed the case, then the players would take home closer to 53% of league revenue, which presumably would be far more palatable for both sides. At this point, however, fans in the stands for this upcoming season does not seem too likely.

Pretty much what I've been saying for days.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Forbes article on the NHL trying to change the deal

Link





Pretty much what I've been saying for days.

Ditto. No fans is completely unrealistic. So they can get a bit of something or all of nothing.

[browna]

Overall, I think the league wants the last half of the season, and playoffs, to have a decent amount / number of fans in most rinks. Now, that may end up being last third of the season, and playoffs.

So it’s a matter of timing as to start the season to time that up on the back end. That means trying to determine the practical matters of the vaccine roll out and additionally predicting the “natural” regression of the second wave, to come up with a theoretical time of when those things are going to happen. And factoring in early season rescheduling etc.

And, that changes week by week. When they started this negotiation (it was earlier then this, but let’s say) the weeks after the Cup was awarded, the Covid forecast was a lot different then now with the second wave hitting harder then many predicted. With the promise of a vaccine since, that changes things as well.

So that target is moving, nevermind the complication of 31 owners situations, regional health rules which are different everywhere, and the PA demands and handwringing on an ongoing basis.

I still think they should start sooner than later and give as much runway for getting the season done with situations dealt with as arise. Maybe it takes until July or August and not June, deal with it then, and you don’t have to pin a Game 7 SCF date down when you announce when games are going to start.

[Locke]

Its almost as though we really need to operate with a rolling, fluid CBA for one year that gives people the flexibility needed to adapt to each local situation.

"We want certainty!"

Well...you cant have it. There isnt any to be had.

The Bubbles ostensibly worked quite well, but oddly enough the cases of the virus were a lot lower back then and the Bubbles are not a realistic solution for an entire season especially when they cost so much and revenues are going to be non-existent.

And frankly, I think they're going to have a long, hard look at the cost-benefit analysis of whether or not the cost/benefit of cancelling the season and losing potential interest in the NHL and what that might cost.

[AustinL_NHL]

I wonder if the idea of potentially letting people who have been vaccinated into games for free (or very cheap tickets) and relying on their concession purchases for revenue is something the NHL has discussed, or if it's even a viable option.

While unfair to actual NHL fans willing to buy tickets, it would likely allow teams to fill up their arenas in a much bigger capacity while hoping the concession revenue outweighs the value that a smaller, more limited capacity of socially distanced un-vaccinated fans would allow.

Maybe it even opens up an opportunity for the NHL to grow their fan base by having these people that have never been to or watched a hockey game to enjoy the experience for very cheap.

Just writing what was at the top of my head so don't roast me if it's a horrible one or not even viable.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by AustinL_NHL

I wonder if the idea of potentially letting people who have been vaccinated into games for free (or very cheap tickets) and relying on their concession purchases for revenue is something the NHL has discussed, or if it's even a viable option.

While unfair to actual NHL fans willing to buy tickets, it would likely allow teams to fill up their arenas in a much bigger capacity while hoping the concession revenue outweighs the value that a smaller, more limited capacity of socially distanced un-vaccinated fans would allow.

Maybe it even opens up an opportunity for the NHL to grow their fan base by having these people that have never been to or watched a hockey game to enjoy the experience for very cheap.

Just writing what was at the top of my head so don't roast me if it's a horrible one or not even viable.

The concession revenue would have to surpass the staffing of the concessions though which might not make it worthwhile.

[browna]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The concession revenue would have to surpass the staffing of the concessions though which might not make it worthwhile.

I would assume that concessions would be limited, both in the food selection offered, and number of outlets open. Both for the overhead cost savings of staffing and purchasing of food, and logistics.

My guess too is that you'd use the Saddledome app to order said food and drink, and then it is brought to your seat. So maybe nothing is actually open, to prevent lineups. Bathrooms would be a big issue for sure, but again, I think the Dome opens in stages probably with no more then 4 or 5k attenance as the limit, to start.

Delivered concessions via text or apps are what I've heard in other places that have opened up to fans.

The Cowboys had 30k people in their stadium on Thursday. At least 10 NFL.stadiums have some fans, so the logistical model would be easy to observe and replicate, assuming AHS allows that type of attendance.

[Strange Brew]

Crazy idea but since the CBA calls for revenue to be shared 50/50, why don’t they actually do that. Advance the players 90% of their expected cut of revenue as the year goes on, adjust your estimate every month with updated revenue figures and settle up in full when you close the books at the end of the year.

Kind of like how every large partnership distributes earnings to its partners.