Are we heading towards another lockout?

[SmoggyTwinkles]

Legitimate? How so?

List a few real items showing the beginning of some friction between players and management. They do not exist.

This thread is pure grandstanding / owner-bashing

Signing bonuses are going to be a big deal I think, they're getting abused for sure and there's going to be issues with them that hurt teams/the league.

There's certainly a discussion to be had here on many fronts.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Owners love letting their GM's hand out ridiculous contracts so they can whine about them after the fact.

 

[scrubadam]

What could the owners go to a lockout over?

I think it would be greedy of them to want a bigger % in the split but owners going to be owners.

The only item that I think they should push for is to limit contracts to 5 years. I just don't think thats something that both sides would be willing to throw a season away on.

 

[Pukboy5kroner]

What could the owners go to a lockout over?

I think it would be greedy of them to want a bigger % in the split but owners going to be owners.

The only item that I think they should push for is to limit contracts to 5 years. I just don't think thats something that both sides would be willing to throw a season away on.

If it's only that contract limit, I could see younger players going for it, if significant changes are made in relation to RFA status. Based on the most recent batch of UFA signings, I think the leagues already trending in that direction.

 

[McJeety McJeet]

The owners will lockout the players every time they are able

At least part of that is due to Donald Fehr. The book on the NHL players now, post 2004, is wait them out and you'll win. The NHL will employ that strategy until it stops working or the players change their strategy.

Another thing working against the players is, it appears career durations are getting shorter for the average player. This makes it less likely that any one set of players are going to pick a hill to die on. The NHL has smart people they know as long as they don't push the envelope too much they'll get what they want.

The player's new strategy should be to start negotiations with the NHL asap, and make sure everyone and their dog knows they are doing it. That's their ace in the hole. Get the fan support (aka the money) on their side early and the NHL might have to make a few concessions. Fans don't want to dislike NHL players but the NHL has done a great job getting the average fan on their side these last two CBA rounds. Fans would have no problem disliking the owners though, if the players can clearly say "see, we tried but they wanted this lockout" the NHL might have to cave to their customers before the players would have to cave to the owners.

 

[Frosty415]

The owners will lockout the players every time they are able

Players should stop being greedy then.

 

[syc]

Only an fool would be surprised to see a lockout when this contract expires.

So the answer to your question is yes.

 

[syc]

Meanwhile the NBA is just about to finalize their deal without even a whisper of a lockout. Great job Bettman.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Those massive contracts do get scraped back in escrow, since the players make 50% of league revenues regardless of any individual contract.

That is a point completely missed by 98% of the posters (and honestly many of the players complaining about escrow.)

I don't see a lockout happening. It is really hard to complain about a 50/50 split of HRR. I just don't see an issue worth shutting the league down over.

The issues that would be deal breaker right from the start:
1) Escrow (no escrow = no cap)
2) Removal of hard cap
3) No guaranteed contracts.
4) HRR split other than 50/50

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Signing bonuses are going to be a big deal I think, they're getting abused for sure and there's going to be issues with them that hurt teams/the league.

There's certainly a discussion to be had here on many fronts.

Total non issue. Essentially everything paid to players is included in HRR. If those contracts get bought out, NHLPA memebers get their $'s, and the owners alcan't spend that on other players.

 

[UnrefinedCrude]

The players and also Fehr have made lockouts inevitable.

The very first shortened season in 1992 was a players strike. The players chose to strike on April first when the players had received almost all of their salaries, but is the time period where the teams actually reach profitability. They put all playoff revenue in jeopardy.

As a result the owners actually caved, and the players got a lot of concessions, it really changed the dynamic. This is the reason the owners hired Bettman.

Fehr also used a players strike in baseball that killed the end of the season, and actually prevented the World Series. This cost a lot of revenue.

So the owners are never going to let a work stoppage happen mid season. It has proven less harmful to them to scuttle a full season than to let the players control when the stoppage happens.

Unless there is a ratified agreement in place that prevents a stoppage the owners will not let the season start. If the payers want to play, they have to get a deal done before the season starts.

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

NHL needs to get rid of guaranteed contracts; it will help with fluidity of the league roster moves.

 

[UnrefinedCrude]

NHL needs to get rid of guaranteed contracts; it will help with fluidity of the league roster moves.

I think that is the next fight.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Yes 100%. The owners were able to get a better deal for themselves and make more money because of it. Look at Jeremy Jacobs and the Bruins. He was the leader pushing for a lockout and not only did he get a better deal, but his long season ticket waitlist ensures the fallout from a lockout will be minimal for him. Most NHL fans came rushing back, hungry for their hockey fix, so why not do the same thing again?

Lockouts are great for business!!

The big perk for a Bruins fan returning from the lockout was a complimentary jumbo sized meatball.

The STH list dwindles as well.

 

[Langdon Alger]

The players and also Fehr have made lockouts inevitable.

The very first shortened season in 1992 was a players strike. The players chose to strike on April first when the players had received almost all of their salaries, but is the time period where the teams actually reach profitability. They put all playoff revenue in jeopardy.

As a result the owners actually caved, and the players got a lot of concessions, it really changed the dynamic. This is the reason the owners hired Bettman.

Fehr also used a players strike in baseball that killed the end of the season, and actually prevented the World Series. This cost a lot of revenue.

So the owners are never going to let a work stoppage happen mid season. It has proven less harmful to them to scuttle a full season than to let the players control when the stoppage happens.

Unless there is a ratified agreement in place that prevents a stoppage the owners will not let the season start. If the payers want to play, they have to get a deal done before the season starts.

Why are the players to blame for work stoppages and not the owners?

 

[Hot Water Bottle]

Lockouts are actually kinda fun in a perverse way. I learned a lot about law, labor relations and stuff like that.

 

[TOGuy14]

I think we are, and that isn't because there has to be one every few years, but specifically because Bettman hasn't grown revenues enough.

Right now the owners and players are fighting over (relative) crumbs

Look at the NBA, all acrimony between the union and owners vanished with that shiny new TV contract. When everyone is getting fat, nobody wants to disrupt a good thing.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

What could the owners go to a lockout over?

I think it would be greedy of them to want a bigger % in the split but owners going to be owners.

The only item that I think they should push for is to limit contracts to 5 years. I just don't think thats something that both sides would be willing to throw a season away on.

Remember that in 2012 the owners' first proposal included the players share going from 57% to 43%, limiting contracts to 5 years, increasing UFA status to 10 years, getting rid of arbitration, extending Entry Level Contracts to 5 years, reducing what's included in Hockey Related Revenue, and toyed with getting rid of signing bonuses.

There's plenty of fodder for when they lock the players out again.

 

[Mayor Bee]

[deleted]

 

[UnrefinedCrude]

Why are the players to blame for work stoppages and not the owners?

They share the blame, but ever since the players and their new union boss proved that they will use the nuclear option, owners have no choice but to act first and remove that option from the players.

 

[Butch 19]

Signing bonuses are going to be a big deal I think, they're getting abused for sure and there's going to be issues with them that hurt teams/the league.

?? how are SB getting abused?

There's certainly a discussion to be had here on many fronts.

many fronts? You listed one item and can't explain in 2 or 3 sentences what that issue is.

 

[McDLT]

?? how are SB getting abused?

They allow for "buyout proof" contracts. 3 big ones were handed out this year (Ladd, Okposo, and Lucic) and I wouldn't be surprised if every big name UFA demands one from now on. This might lead to more clarkson type of situations where a team has a crappy contract that they cant get any relief from.

I think that we've entered an era where teams wont be able to sign a good 30+ UFA unless they offer a long-term buyout proof contract.

Edit: Stamkos' contract is also super buyout-proof

 

[Yzerman1919*]

Totally.

The league has become all about stacking their pockets with money.

The product is boring, low scoring, not physical, passionless, and they are trying to make it super "safe" to save themselves lawsuits to boot.

Contracts are ridiculous, 8 year contracts, guys like Darren helm making almost 4 mil.

The NHL isn't heading in the right direction if you ask me.

 

[Street Hawk]

I think we are, and that isn't because there has to be one every few years, but specifically because Bettman hasn't grown revenues enough.

Right now the owners and players are fighting over (relative) crumbs

Look at the NBA, all acrimony between the union and owners vanished with that shiny new TV contract. When everyone is getting fat, nobody wants to disrupt a good thing.

In the NBA, the superstars like LeBron are getting involved in the negotiations. As a superstar, they drive the business. Everyone knows that.

Do we see Crosby, McDavid, Eichel, Mathews, McKinnon, etc taking the lead in negotiations?

NBA cap jumped up quite a bit this past off-season.

There are always topics to bring up in a CBA.

HRR - % allocation to each side
HRR - what is included
Arbitration rights - do players out of ELC get them or do they still go a year or 2 after ELC without them
Buyout %
Cap Floor and Ceiling spread
etc.

 

[exporta]

It's inevitable. CBA is designed to do this, and it creates new excitement for a product that can lack in excitement at times.