Friedman: NHL and NHLPA "quietly renegotiating CBA" (upd: neither party opts out for 2020)

Llama19

Registered User
Jan 19, 2013
7,276
1,105
Outside GZ
NHL, NHLPA set to meet again to talk CBA extension

To quote:

""I said this to (NHLPA executive director Don Fehr) when I told him we weren't reopening: 'Listen, we've been at this since February. Whatever you need in the next two weeks subject to existing commitments ... we're at your disposal,'" Bettman said Thursday. "Whatever (players) want in their period of having to decide what to do, we'll try to be as accommodating as possible.""

Source: www.yahoo.com/news/nhl-nhlpa-set-meet-again-201553684.html
 

WingsMJN2965

Registered User
Oct 13, 2017
18,106
17,699
Opting out would be pretty stupid.

Seattle expansion coming. New TV deal right after that. There's a lot of money on the table.
 

Ernie

Registered User
Aug 3, 2004
12,838
2,289


Hopeful. Would be relief for many. (Angst for the fear mongers)


Most interesting part of that story:

Of note is the fact that Olympic participation hasn’t really been broached a whole lot during these bargaining sessions. Which is not to say the NHLPA doesn’t still want to re-enter the Olympics. The players want back in. But what is says is that both sides understand the biggest issue is the IOC and the way it botched everything last time around. I also think that if indeed there’s a February 2021 NHL-NHLPA World Cup of Hockey as is currently being discussed as part of a CBA extension, that the NHLPA would want some kind of assurance that every effort is being made to include the Olympics if at all possible, depending on future negotiations with the IOC.
Kind of interesting that the NHLPA isn't making the Olympics an issue. Kinda shows where the average NHLer's priorities are.
 

Noldo

Registered User
May 28, 2007
1,668
253
Kind of interesting that the NHLPA isn't making the Olympics an issue. Kinda shows where the average NHLer's priorities are.

I suspect that the players are well aware that (I) there is mutual interest to get back to the Olympics (in China); and (II) many issues related to the Olympics apply equally to other international competitions (World Cup). Therefore the NHLPA has no reason to make the Olympics an issue, and give the League a bargaining chip, but they are better off by seeing whether the practical concerns can be resolved in connection with the World Cup and merely push to extend the same solution to the Olympics.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,658
2,536
I'm really not sure the NHL wants to go to China. It seems like an opportunity in one way, but in another....

No NHL Olympians: All the way through February, hockey fans go...."Let's see..who won, who got loser points, Ovechkin is really playing well, my Wild are at home tonight...." etc...

With Olympics, fans, go..."All right US v Canada. Russia is really good. Did you see that shootout move in the 1/4 finals??!?!??!!!!" for 3 weeks, and then, it's "Let's see now, where were we in the NHL Standings?"

It's really a distraction. Bettman has said this multiple times. Without some financial benefit, there isn't much upside to going.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,364
12,737
South Mountain
Most interesting part of that story:

Of note is the fact that Olympic participation hasn’t really been broached a whole lot during these bargaining sessions. Which is not to say the NHLPA doesn’t still want to re-enter the Olympics. The players want back in. But what is says is that both sides understand the biggest issue is the IOC and the way it botched everything last time around. I also think that if indeed there’s a February 2021 NHL-NHLPA World Cup of Hockey as is currently being discussed as part of a CBA extension, that the NHLPA would want some kind of assurance that every effort is being made to include the Olympics if at all possible, depending on future negotiations with the IOC.
Kind of interesting that the NHLPA isn't making the Olympics an issue. Kinda shows where the average NHLer's priorities are.

If I'm the PA I'm trying to get the Olympics done as a minor throw in, rather then making it a core issue that the NHL is going to ask for concessions on.
 

SupremeNachos

Registered User
Dec 6, 2011
3,130
792
Minnesota
Not sure what this has to do with you claiming, "The owners don't want to share", when the owners just waived their opt-out option.
Doesn't mean they don't want to share. Just because I decide to compromise with someone doesn't mean that I truly want to give in to some of their requests. All I'm saying is if the owners had it their way the revenue split would be even worse than 50/50.
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
26,243
9,785
If I'm the PA I'm trying to get the Olympics done as a minor throw in, rather then making it a core issue that the NHL is going to ask for concessions on.
Absolutely. Canada, USA, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Czechs, Slovakia are you big nations though the Czechs and Slovaks have fallen on hard time internationally for a while now. Still around 140 players from the nhl would fill out those rosters plus some for smaller nations like Switzerland, Ukraine, etc. Add another 25 players. Talking roughly 170 or so players impacted while the rest of the 550 players get a 2-3 week break.

Hardly worth making it a major point of contention.

Personally whether it’s 2020 or 2022 the 2 sides need to hammer out a new agreement. Not just going to roll the current one over.
 

WingsMJN2965

Registered User
Oct 13, 2017
18,106
17,699
Doesn't mean they don't want to share. Just because I decide to compromise with someone doesn't mean that I truly want to give in to some of their requests. All I'm saying is if the owners had it their way the revenue split would be even worse than 50/50.

Lol, but I'm sure if they players could decide on any revenue split, they'd still choose 50/50.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing at this point. Actually, I'm not even sure you're sure.
 

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,957
6,259
If I'm the PA I'm trying to get the Olympics done as a minor throw in, rather then making it a core issue that the NHL is going to ask for concessions on.

Publicly PA are making Olympics a big deal but I think this is mainly to gain fan support. We know NHLPA were not willing to extend current CBA in exchange of Olympics and, as far as I know, did not even attempt to negotiate/counter NHL offer at the time. The few players who vowed to sit, quickly went silent once it became clear Olympics were a no go.

It is a good opportunity for most to take a vacation but I doubt it holds much value compared to other issues.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,364
12,737
South Mountain
Publicly PA are making Olympics a big deal but I think this is mainly to gain fan support. We know NHLPA were not willing to extend current CBA in exchange of Olympics and, as far as I know, did not even attempt to negotiate/counter NHL offer at the time. The few players who vowed to sit, quickly went silent once it became clear Olympics were a no go.

It is a good opportunity for most to take a vacation but I doubt it holds much value compared to other issues.

I probably should have clarified my take. IMO even if the PA thinks the Olympics are a big issue they want included, I don’t think it’s to the PA’s benefit to include that as one of the major negotiation points right now. Include it as a smaller sweetener towards the end of the CBA negotiations.
 

SupremeNachos

Registered User
Dec 6, 2011
3,130
792
Minnesota
Lol, but I'm sure if they players could decide on any revenue split, they'd still choose 50/50.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing at this point. Actually, I'm not even sure you're sure.
That the owners are greedy and would gladly screw the NHLPA over if they could get away with it.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,658
2,536
I'm no sure why anyone has to argue whether the owners are greedy or not. Of course they are. There are many decisions they have made that were made for money's sake, and control's sake, rather than the good of the game.

Start with the salary cap. Really, the cap is a means by which the owners pass a rule to limit their own spending. That's a greedy rule. Without it, each one individually would spend much more, to get the best players and have a chance to win. Then, the most recent lost half-season. Bettman said, "We are simply paying too much to the players."

Of course they are greedy. It's a business. No one should expect anything less.

Players? Greedy as well. Very few ever make decisions on contracts and 'where to play' based on what's best for their families. Look....most people are greedy one way or another. It's not bad. It's just the way humans are. Trying to reasonably discuss the players is difficult because one much balance, in one's own mind, the competing ideas that they are getting paid a lot to play a game on one hand, but that's a job on the other hand, and they deserve employee's rights with that. Coupled with the short lived nature of most careers, and it's a difficult combination to wrap one's mind around.

In the case of a CBA, however, the owners' greed usually has power to win out, because
1- They have deeper pockets and can last longer with no games being played
2- The nature of the players' careers is such that few play for very long, which decreases their leverage in 'games being canceled' situations
3- In spite of their educations, the players often don't analyze the numbers very well. MudTheACAS has posted here that the players wanted things like towels written into the CBA in certain ways, when they should have been looking more closely at escrow's effects, for example. Or, thinking about redefining HRR.

In my opinion, the real thing that the players should be up in arms over is how HRR is defined. I am sure that they are leaving $$ on the table there, and I am also certain that the accounting being done today, at the pace it is being done today, leaves room for the owners to launder some money away, so that the players aren't getting what they should get anyway.

In regards to the last.....
I still don't understand why it takes so many months (up to a year?) for the final league wide HRR to be calculated. The money is all coming from somewhere. It's coming out of some account. I know that banks and the US/Canada financial system have controls on them, but not the type of controls which delay figures that much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mouser and Llama19

Ernie

Registered User
Aug 3, 2004
12,838
2,289
Talking roughly 170 or so players impacted while the rest of the 550 players get a 2-3 week break.

Hardly worth making it a major point of contention.

Heh. It does seem like those players really enjoy that 2-3 week break though. Gives them time to relax mid season and reconnect with their families. Which is maybe why the next world cup is tentatively scheduled for February 2021.

IMO I think the NHL could do more to the limit the length of time the players are absent. Also, there's no reason that the games can't be scheduled for media friendly times in North America. I refuse to believe that having ice hockey as the premier sport at the Winter Olympics isn't an overall win for the NHL, but I can see how the IOC can do a lot more to improve that exposure.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,658
2,536
Heh. It does seem like those players really enjoy that 2-3 week break though. Gives them time to relax mid season and reconnect with their families. Which is maybe why the next world cup is tentatively scheduled for February 2021.

IMO I think the NHL could do more to the limit the length of time the players are absent. Also, there's no reason that the games can't be scheduled for media friendly times in North America. I refuse to believe that having ice hockey as the premier sport at the Winter Olympics isn't an overall win for the NHL, but I can see how the IOC can do a lot more to improve that exposure.

What overall positives do you see? And, can you put some numbers to them, even if they are estimates?

I continue to see the balance for the NHL like this:
Go to Olympics = more exposure which could lead to merchandise and media sales in China. This is the ONLY benefit.

Don't go = No player gets injured, which means that we don't lose start players whose jerseys sell really well, and we don't lose the media excitement of having them in the last games of the season.

Don't g0 = The eyes of hockey fans in North America stay focused on us. The NHL. We don't have to give up the spotlight and then get it back.

In general, I don't see much positive about going.

Game times? Well, China is about 12 hours different than New York, for example. 12 hours. That means that a 7:30 New York start time begins at 7:30 AM for the players in China. There would be few tickets purchased at that time, and the play wouldn't get the best, either, because the players' body clocks are not well adjusted to that.

Try to play a Saturday afternoon matinee? It has to start at 4 AM China time.

It doesn't work. And, the IOC isn't going to want to make concessions to get the players there.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad