Will we see another lockout?

[67Blues]

The CBL is expiring in 2022. With the way salaries are going, looking at that Kane one, Tavares expected, and a host of others next year with a really good UFA class, are we going to see another lockout?

These owners are their own worst enemies. They complain when small markets are struggling to break even and yet they lay out insane contracts and keep pushing the salary cap higher and higher.

I don't know if the NHL can have 32 viable teams with the way things are going, and I don't think their current business model can work going forward.

Click to read more...

 

[Brian39]

The salary totals aren't the issue and aren't as high as they seem. We're seeing cap hits increase as teams can no longer tack on a couple cheap years at the end and players/agents are getting better about making sure they become UFA before they are too old for a long term deal. The cap is tied to revenue, so it only increases as hockey related revenue increases. If the owners "give out" too much money, they get a bunch back via escrow to make sure the players' share doesn't exceed 50% of HRR. Individual contracts aren't going to cause a lockout as the issue is the overall split of HRR.

With all that said, of course there is going to be a lockout. The owners will want to get a bigger piece of the pie like they did last time and will likely want to limit the amount of contracts that can be paid via bonuses. The players are sick of escrow and are angry about the Olympics. Bettman's entire negotiating strategy is based on using the owner's billionaire status to out wait the players once paychecks stop. The owners have twice in a row demonstrated that they would rather lose games in order to get exactly what they want than make meaningful concessions to save games. We can debate on whether or not that's a good tactic, but it is clearly their strategy.

I'd be stunned if we played a full season in 2020/21.

 

[67Blues]

The salary totals aren't the issue and aren't as high as they seem. We're seeing cap hits increase as teams can no longer tack on a couple cheap years at the end and players/agents are getting better about making sure they become UFA before they are too old for a long term deal. The cap is tied to revenue, so it only increases as hockey related revenue increases. If the owners "give out" too much money, they get a bunch back via escrow to make sure the players' share doesn't exceed 50% of HRR. Individual contracts aren't going to cause a lockout as the issue is the overall split of HRR.

With all that said, of course there is going to be a lockout. The owners will want to get a bigger piece of the pie like they did last time and will likely want to limit the amount of contracts that can be paid via bonuses. The players are sick of escrow and are angry about the Olympics. Bettman's entire negotiating strategy is based on using the owner's billionaire status to out wait the players once paychecks stop. The owners have twice in a row demonstrated that they would rather lose games in order to get exactly what they want than make meaningful concessions to save games. We can debate on whether or not that's a good tactic, but it is clearly their strategy.

I'd be stunned if we played a full season in 2020/21.

Just about the time the Blues window is in full open mode too.

 

[Brian39]

Just about the time the Blues window is in full open mode too.

I don't think we'll lose a full season. I think we'll see another shortened season like we did in 2012/13. Plus, I'd wager that another set of compliance buyouts will be part of the new CBA and may allow us an easy out of Allen/Steen's last contract year if we want or Bergie's last couple years if his play craters (which I doubt).

 

[The Real Puckhead]

I don't think so for only one reason. $1,000,000,000. That is the pile of money split 30 ways paid by Vegas and Seattle. No way do they lock out the league. They have the percentages that favor them.

 

[stl76]

I don't think so for only one reason. $1,000,000,000. That is the pile of money split 30 ways paid by Vegas and Seattle. No way do they lock out the league. They have the percentages that favor them.

What do the expansion fees have to do with the CBA issues between owners and players?

 

[Chojin]

There will be a lockout for certain. The players have a lot of grievances from the last two lockouts, and the owners, having "won" two lockouts in a row, are going to get (remain) greedy for another victory.

Then we'll get to hear all over again about how athletes are greedy, the owners are "running a business", and how average Joe would play for free so the players should be grateful for whatever they get. Rinse, repeat.

 

[ort]

 

[67Blues]

I don't think so for only one reason. $1,000,000,000. That is the pile of money split 30 ways paid by Vegas and Seattle. No way do they lock out the league. They have the percentages that favor them.

Did Vegas and Seattle get to finance their entry fees? If not, those checks will already be cashed by 2022.

 

[Thallis]

Did Vegas and Seattle get to finance their entry fees? If not, those checks will already be cashed by 2022.

True, but worries about keeping their budding fanbases with hockey during the formative years may be some incentive for the owners to extend the cba.

 

[mk80]

Simple answer is yes. There are many things in the current CBA ex. escrow that both sides want to re-negotiate.

 

[DoubleK81]

There will be a lockout for certain. The players have a lot of grievances from the last two lockouts, and the owners, having "won" two lockouts in a row, are going to get (remain) greedy for another victory.

And they'll "win" a third lockout. Their main point of contention will be that an expansion team full of 2nd/3rd liner throw-aways made it to/won the cup finals, why should you "superstars" continue to be paid more and more?

 

[Internettoughguy314]

Maybe I'm gullible but I believe that both sides will see how strong the league is and get something done. Don't forget that the new TV deal will be signed the year before and that's going to increase revenues substantially.