When will next season start? Return to Play Negotiations

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Are you trying to use some form of thin logic to say that if the escrow balance before the 23/24 is less than $125M, that the parties don't actually get back to EXACTLY 50/50?

Is that your argument?

I’m saying that since the deal doesn’t guarantee a 50/50 split in revenue, the deal doesn’t guarantee a 50/50 split in revenue.

If yes, I'll bet you are a hit at parties.

I am a hit at parties so anyone would be foolish to take you up on that bet

[DoubleK]

Fair. Answer me this. Why do you think that escrow is capped in any given year of the MOU?

To the extent that utilizing the Maximum Escrow Percentage for a given League Year results in an Escrow Balance or does not eliminate an Escrow Balance, any such Escrow Balance shall carry forward into (and be factored into the setting of the Escrow Percentage for) the following League Year (with the exception of the 2021/22 League Year).

Hint: It's not. It's not 10% then 6% thereafter due to that exact clause. Of HRR doesn't recover after the 21/22 season, escrow will make up the difference.

Escrow is "capped" for the next two seasons, but it's really not as the balance is made up in future seasons.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Guessing they'll have no choice but to push things back or kill it two weeks from now

https://twitter.com/user/status/1331286193875640322

I’m not sure that active flights are the right way to look at it, nor do I really understand the source of that information.

TSA throughput is at 40% (or less depending on the day) of last years numbers so far.

https://www.tsa.gov/coronavirus/passenger-throughput

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m saying that since the deal doesn’t guarantee a 50/50 split in revenue, the deal doesn’t guarantee a 50/50 split in revenue.



I am a hit at parties so anyone would be foolish to take you up on that bet

Okay...do you agree the intention of the MOU was to maintain a 50/50 split, or at least something very close?

The >$250M thing is definitely weird. It seems the parties felt confident enough about the scenarios/projections to include it. I'm sure there are oodles of projections that we will never see, but the parties involved understand what they were and still are trying to do (notwithstanding the current public posturing)

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Fair. Answer me this. Why do you think that escrow is capped in any given year of the MOU?



Hint: It's not. It's not 10% then 6% thereafter due to that exact clause. Of HRR doesn't recover after the 21/22 season, escrow will make up the difference.

Escrow is "capped" for the next two seasons, but it's really not as the balance is made up in future seasons.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article...9MwdAmn8BBvEWE

Players agreed to a 10-per cent deferral for the upcoming year. Escrow caps are: 20 per cent for 2020-21; 14-18 per cent (although everyone assumes it will be 18) in 2021-22; 10 per cent in 2022-23; and six per cent for the remaining three seasons. (A one-year extension will be tacked on the end of the CBA if the players owe the league between $125-$250 million after 2024-25; the cap on that would be nine per cent.)

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

The 2004/2005 canceled season resulted in contracts being burned for a year. So there’s already precedent of this happening.

That is true.

My memory might be a little fuzzy, but I seem to recall that it wasn't a given at the time and it had to be discussed between the NHLPA and NHL. They eventually agreed to push the contracts a year forward without losing a year.

Assuming I remember correctly, which I may not, that would suggest that the topic could once again be up for discussion. I'm not sure having it happen once sets a precedent in a legal sense. But if it is hill to die on for the NHLPA, I could see the NHL throwing them a bone in exchange for goodwill or some kind of concession from the them.

That's one thing the NHL has been really sly about when it comes to negotiating with the NHLPA. They have a lot more that they can propose to take away that really aren't deal breakers for them but is for the NHLPA, but then give them back while negotiating, leaving the players to feel like they won something.

It's like taking a toy away from your kid and holding it until they clean their room. You don't really want the toy, but since you technically own everything in the house, you can use it as leverage.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article...9MwdAmn8BBvEWE

I quote the MOU, you quote an article on Sportsnet.

See you in court.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I quote the MOU, you quote an article on Sportsnet.

See you in court.

THis whole thread is like the last lockout discussion, how the players have all the rights and the league are trying to screw them. And when it was all done and settled the NHLPA signed for what was offered in the first month.

If the players feel so hard done by then stay home. The contract will carry for another year and they are in the same boat when they come back but out a years salary.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Fair. Answer me this. Why do you think that escrow is capped in any given year of the MOU?



Hint: It's not. It's not 10% then 6% thereafter due to that exact clause. Of HRR doesn't recover after the 21/22 season, escrow will make up the difference.

Escrow is "capped" for the next two seasons, but it's really not as the balance is made up in future seasons.

Pretty sure you're wrong on this actually. That sentence is related to reducing the escrow rate once the balance is paid off (not raising it when it seems impossible to be paid off).

The schedule below lists the maximum Escrow Percentages for a
given League Year (“Maximum Escrow Percentages”). With the
exception of the Escrow Percentage for the 2021/22 League Year
(which shall be determined as set forth below), the applicable
Maximum Escrow Percentage shall be utilized for a given League
Year. However, in the event that the Maximum Escrow
Percentage would, based on jointly-developed forecasts for HRR
and League-wide Player Compensation for that League Year,
result in an Escrow Balance of zero following the completion of
that League Year, the parties may negotiate a lower Escrow
Percentage for that League Year (i.e., the goal being to get the
Escrow Balance to zero). To the extent that utilizing the
Maximum Escrow Percentage for a given League Year results in
an Escrow Balance or does not eliminate an Escrow Balance, any
such Escrow Balance shall carry forward into (and be factored
into the setting of the Escrow Percentage for) the following
League Year (with the exception of the 2021/22 League Year).
2020/21 20%
2021/22 14% if Preliminary HRR for the 2020/21
League Year equals or exceeds $3.3
Billion; 18% if Preliminary HRR for the
2020/21 League Year equals or is below
$1.8 Billion; pro-rata rate in between $1.8
Billion and $3.3 Billion (e.g. Escrow
Percentage of 16% if HRR is $2.55 Billion)
2022/23 10%
2023/24 6%
2024/25 6%
2025/26 6%

The wording is a bit weird, but there is nothing that that contradicts the idea that the specified numbers are in fact 'maximums'.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Okay...do you agree the intention of the MOU was to maintain a 50/50 split, or at least something very close?

That was the hope, I’m not debating that. What I’ve been saying is that this MOU does not guarantee it as a number of posters are suggesting. The last CBA guaranteed the owners 50/50 because they were able to adjust the escrow being withheld throughout the season if it’s current level wasn’t high enough. Barring an extended or worsening pandemic this CBA ought to end up fairly close to 50/50 but when a 1% difference is literally tens of millions of dollars I think considering that the same as an exact 50/50 split is asinine.

[Locke]

Oh yeah....this is going to go well.

You have players stamping their feet and pounding their fists like toddlers in a supermarket demanding their 'fair share' from a business that isnt making money anytime soon.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I quote the MOU, you quote an article on Sportsnet.

Here is the the link to the MOU. The portion powderjunkie quoted is on page 4 of 71. You’ll have to forgive me for quoting a week old article by a credible media outlet that hadn’t had the portion I quoted retracted rather than bother wasting my time going through a 70+ page document.

See you in court.

Labour court? Sure, sounds fun.

[Mr.Coffee]

They are going to lose the season aren’t they?

What a bunch of losers, all of them. Figure it out greedmongers.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

They are going to lose the season aren’t they?

What a bunch of losers, all of them. Figure it out greedmongers.

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.

[ricardodw]

How will the contracts be handled in a cancelled season?

Do they pretend that the year did not happen and the Flames get Gio for 2 years at 38 and 39 or would he be down to his last year on his current contract.

It would obviously be better for him to have 2 more full seasons at 6.75 less escrow rather than some half season at half pay.

Does an ELC slide apply for Dube who misses a year of hockey? ie does he come back in 2021-22 as a RFA?

Valimaki is playing development hockey in his last ELC year. Does he get the same treatment as Dube?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

How will the contracts be handled in a cancelled season?

Do they pretend that the year did not happen and the Flames get Gio for 2 years at 38 and 39 or would he be down to his last year on his current contract.

It would obviously be better for him to have 2 more full seasons at 6.75 less escrow rather than some half season at half pay.

Does an ELC slide apply for Dube who misses a year of hockey? ie does he come back in 2021-22 as a RFA?

Valimaki is playing development hockey in his last ELC year. Does he get the same treatment as Dube?

This would have to be negotiated, I'm sure.

Most likely, a year of the contract would be lost as opposed to it sliding a year since that's what happened in 04-05 but there was no CBA in 04-05 so I wouldn't necessarily call that a precedent.

What I wonder is, the MOU in the new CBA says that the NHLPA needs to approve if the schedule is less than 82 games. NHLPA will not approve 0 games I'm sure so I don't know if the NHL can even cancel the season. Them writing that ability out of the CBA really backed them into a corner.

This makes me think that they'll just try and play as few games as possible since they lose money each game they play. Most think that means a 48-game season but also don't forget that in the last-ditch effort to save the 04-05 season, a 32-game season was on the table at one point.

What would be interesting is if the PA (or the NHL) played hardball on wanting the full 82 games. If that happened, you could see the season starting in May or June when full or mostly full fans is a possibility. That would mess up the calendar for years to come. If the NHLPA is guaranteed 72% of their salary no matter what, they might be fine with a 32-game season played in front of fans for most of it.

Lots of possible outcomes in this one, still!

[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

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

They are going to lose the season aren’t they?

What a bunch of losers, all of them. Figure it out greedmongers.

It might not be the worst thing.

Dont misunderstand me, I want the season to go ahead. Selfishly, obviously.

But running a season with a revenue split and precious little revenue? It just may not be worth it. For anyone.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Locke

It might not be the worst thing.

Dont misunderstand me, I want the season to go ahead. Selfishly, obviously.

But running a season with a revenue split and precious little revenue? It just may not be worth it. For anyone.

Totally not worth it, especially now with a vaccine on the horizon. Push it to next September and get some gate revenue.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

This would have to be negotiated, I'm sure.

Most likely, a year of the contract would be lost as opposed to it sliding a year since that's what happened in 04-05 but there was no CBA in 04-05 so I wouldn't necessarily call that a precedent.

What I wonder is, the MOU in the new CBA says that the NHLPA needs to approve if the schedule is less than 82 games. NHLPA will not approve 0 games I'm sure so I don't know if the NHL can even cancel the season. Them writing that ability out of the CBA really backed them into a corner.

This makes me think that they'll just try and play as few games as possible since they lose money each game they play. Most think that means a 48-game season but also don't forget that in the last-ditch effort to save the 04-05 season, a 32-game season was on the table at one point.

What would be interesting is if the PA (or the NHL) played hardball on wanting the full 82 games. If that happened, you could see the season starting in May or June when full or mostly full fans is a possibility. That would mess up the calendar for years to come. If the NHLPA is guaranteed 72% of their salary no matter what, they might be fine with a 32-game season played in front of fans for most of it.

Lots of possible outcomes in this one, still!

Where do you see the bolded? They revised 16.5, but nothing else in the scheduling section, including the key phrase below:

16.3 ..."the final
decision making authority shall remain with the League."