Potential CBA negotiation issues (was: Is a lockout actually inevitable?)

[rojac]

IMHO, I don't think any of the parties will exercice the ''1 year before'' option. Especially the PA, they will let the CBA run till end (end of 2019-20 season). But that doesn't mean the war won't start at 5 min to midnight.

The end of the CBA is September 15, 2022. The NHL can opt out (ending the CBA on September 15, 2020) on or before September 1, 2019. The NHLPA can opt out on or before September 15, 2019.

The only way that the CBA ends at the end of the 2019-20 season (actually September 15, 2020) is if one of the party opts out. Otherwise, it goes until 2022.

 

[canuckfan75]

There will be no NHL Hockey in the fall and early winter in 2020 and 2021. Look for a 48 game schedule Starting between Jan 2- to Jan 24, 2021. good time to check out Junior hockey

 

[mouser]

The end of the CBA is September 15, 2022. The NHL can opt out (ending the CBA on September 15, 2020) on or before September 1, 2019. The NHLPA can opt out on or before September 15, 2020.

The only way that the CBA ends at the end of the 2019-20 season (actually September 15, 2020) is if one of the party opts out. Otherwise, it goes until 2022.

I'm sure you meant to say Sep 15th 2019 deadline for the NHLPA.

 

[rojac]

I'm sure you meant to say Sep 15th 2019 deadline for the NHLPA.

I did indeed. Thank you for the correction. I’ll edit the original.

 

[BMOK33]

Are they really going to risk a lockout with a recent expansion team in the league and another one possibly coming in THE YEAR the lockout would occur?

 

[LadyStanley]

Owners, excluding Foley, have their cut of expansion fees.

I can see Foley voting against lockout (for form).

 

[gstommylee]

Owners, excluding Foley, have their cut of expansion fees.

I can see Foley voting against lockout (for form).

If the players opt out of the CBA, i don't see Foley being against a lockout. The last thing he would want is the players go on strike in the middle of a season or before Stanley cup playoffs.

 

[LadyStanley]

https://www.nbc4i.com/sports/nhl/nhl-1-year-away-from-key-labor-deadline/1450472526

AP article looking at milestones, issues

(nothing new, but has some player quotes)

 

[patnyrnyg]

LOM1,

Your post seems to suggest that you favor the owners in this situation. I am sorry if my assumption is incorrect.

But, in the event I am correct, I would like to point out a few things:
1- In the last labor spat, the owners 'began' the negotiations by offering that they would keep 57% revenues. Such a suggestion was obviously NOT serious, yet it remained the only suggestion the owners made until it was very near time to cancel games. If the PA had replied immediately: "How about 53% for us?" the owners would have been happy, because they could then negotiate from the point of view that 1/2 way was 48% for the players. So, there was no way for the players to respond to the 'offer' without some leverage, or they would be negotiating with themselves. So, the long impasse in negotiations is the fault of both sides, really.

Correct. The owners tactic has been to start with something that was so ridiculous, it was not even worth a counter-offer or a starting point for negotiation. Like if I see a house for sale for $500K and I offer $100K. I should not be surprised when the seller does not counter.

2- As to playing without a CBA, I believe that is legal, however, it puts the PA at a great advantage because a strike would now be legal. This is exactly the situation which cancelled the 1994 baseball playoffs. It's not 'PA sues BOG', it's "players go on strike in the middle and then the fans are REALLY mad, plus there is no playoff money to pad the owners' bank accounts."

It is legal. In most places, if you are working under a CBA and it expires you continue to work under the expired CBA's rules and terms until a new CBA is in place. Labor can elect to strike and Management can elect to lockout at any time. The 94 baseball strike and 92 NHL strike is exactly why you will never see a pro season in NA begin without a CBA in place. The players make their money in the regular season, the owners in the play-offs.

3- If the players ask for an end to escrow entirely (which is the cancellation of the 50-50 agreement), then the owners can easily reply with something like this:OK. We can do that, but it will cost you another 2% of the pie, and the way we will do it is like this:
We'll use a 5-yr growth estimate to estimate HRR for next year. Then we'll use a 5-year running average of the %age of league cap space teams actually used for salaries. Using the first number, we'll multiply by 48% to get the players' share. Then we'll divide by 31 to get each team's share. Then, we'll multiply it by the 2nd number we obtained above. And, that number will be the cap. Floor will be 20% lower than that.

And, in doing so, the players will end up with LESS $$ than they currently get.
So, I don't think that will be the tactic on the PA part.

The escrow thing seems to be calming down in the last 2 years. PA may wish for guaranteed contracts. That would be a fight, I think.

The NFL also pays the players based on a % of revenues. I NEVER hear about escrow. IIRC, it is based off the previous year's revenues and generally the tv contract. I think the players get the tv contract and the owners get the rest? I do not understand why the escrow is needed. Base it on the prior year's revenues and get rid of escrow. So, if revenues were $5B last season, the salary cap is $2.5B/31. Have revenues ever gone down dramatically from one full season to the next? If revenues do go down the following season, say to $4.8B, then the cap the following season becomes $2.4B/31.

 

[Tawnos]

The NFL also pays the players based on a % of revenues. I NEVER hear about escrow. IIRC, it is based off the previous year's revenues and generally the tv contract. I think the players get the tv contract and the owners get the rest? I do not understand why the escrow is needed. Base it on the prior year's revenues and get rid of escrow. So, if revenues were $5B last season, the salary cap is $2.5B/31. Have revenues ever gone down dramatically from one full season to the next? If revenues do go down the following season, say to $4.8B, then the cap the following season becomes $2.4B/31.

I'm not sure how the NFL has it set up, but the NBA definitely uses a similar escrow structure. It ensures that the players can make up any amount the owners spend over 50% of revenue.

The second thing: the cap isn't set at 50%. Cost certainty doesn't just ensure that the owners don't spend over 50%, it also guarantees that the players receive 50%. So if they set the cap at 50%, and not every team spent right up to the cap, the owners would owe the players money to bring them up to that total. If you set the midpoint at exactly 50% of the previous season's revenue, you'd still have a variance because more teams spend above the mid-point than below it. Meaning that the owners sign players to contracts that inevitably total out to more than 50% of the previous season's revenue. By exactly how much is not known until the entire season has transpired, so the players money goes into escrow until the real numbers are known.

 

[LeHab]

The NFL also pays the players based on a % of revenues. I NEVER hear about escrow.

In NFL, owners put money into escrow for guaranteed contracts. Apparently this comes from a time when some owners were genuinely in financial trouble and could default on payments.

Markazi: Why NBA beats NFL in guaranteed $

 

[patnyrnyg]

In NFL, owners put money into escrow for guaranteed contracts. Apparently this comes from a time when some owners were genuinely in financial trouble and could default on payments.

Markazi: Why NBA beats NFL in guaranteed $

Yeah, I learned that recently. Never realized it was the case and it makes perfect sense. Rumors were the Raiders could not sign Mack because Mark Davis did not have the cash to put the guaranteed money into escrow. However, I was talking more about the players pay being withheld and then adjusted after the revenues are calculated.

 

[LadyStanley]

Connor McDavid thinks players are 'united' when it comes to possible lockout
Connor McDavid thinks players are 'united' when it comes to possible lockout

Solidarity, solidarity, solidarity forever...

 

[LadyStanley]

DGB Grab Bag: Cap recapture, the Fortnite problem and Disco...

As seen by recent contracts of Pronger, Zetterberg, Hossa, as they have been legitimate injuries causing retirement, those teams are not getting tagged for cap recapture.

Thought is that cap recapture might go away in next CBA.

 

[ottawah]

DGB Grab Bag: Cap recapture, the Fortnite problem and Disco...

As seen by recent contracts of Pronger, Zetterberg, Hossa, as they have been legitimate injuries causing retirement, those teams are not getting tagged for cap recapture.

Thought is that cap recapture might go away in next CBA.

Yes, but as they had the rule change in the previous CBA limiting guys of a certain age from retiring and coming off the cap, they still remain.

 

[Tawnos]

Yes, but as they had the rule change in the previous CBA limiting guys of a certain age from retiring and coming off the cap, they still remain.

It isn't the age of the player when he retires that matters, it's the age when he signed the contract. Absent cap recapture, if Hossa or Zetterberg retired as healthy players, their cap hits wouldn't be on the books at all. Both signed their deals before they were 35.

 

[Name Nameless]

Still thinking if the players representative is thinking NHL can't afford a lock-out, the NHLPA will overvalue their position, ask for to much, and get a lockout. And then lose.

The only leverage the players will have, is the will among the owners to avoid it altogheter. But the will has also it's limits - even before a lockout is called. They must negociate before the lockout starts.

The moment the lockout is started, the players have lost, and it will drag on forever while they get worse and worse offers to turn down. This has happened before.

Unless the players represenatives are smart and takes the deal before the lockout, this will be bad.

And as the players will overvalue their position, the lockout is inevitable. And so is the loss for NHLPA.

 

[Wolf357]

Yes there will be a lockout The Fans have come accustomed to it and accept it.. Tgere will be the usual “I’m never watching the NHL” rhetoric on social media but the truth is we all come back.
It’s similar to the $1.40 a litre gas here in Canada...there was outrage when it hit $1.00 a litre..now we just accept it.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Still thinking if the players representative is thinking NHL can't afford a lock-out, the NHLPA will overvalue their position, ask for to much, and get a lockout. And then lose.

The only leverage the players will have, is the will among the owners to avoid it altogheter. But the will has also it's limits - even before a lockout is called. They must negociate before the lockout starts.

The moment the lockout is started, the players have lost, and it will drag on forever while they get worse and worse offers to turn down. This has happened before.

Unless the players represenatives are smart and takes the deal before the lockout, this will be bad.

And as the players will overvalue their position, the lockout is inevitable. And so is the loss for NHLPA.

I had never thought of this situation like This.

Something feels wrong about it, but I can't put my finger on it.

 

[Name Nameless]

I had never thought of this situation like This.

Something feels wrong about it, but I can't put my finger on it.

Tell me when the players won a lockout?

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Tell me when the players won a lockout?

Past results are not always an indicator of future performances.

I think they're fighting an uphill battle and the odds are stacked way against them, but I'd fall short of portraying it as a certainty.

 

[Name Nameless]

Past results are not always an indicator of future performances.

I think they're fighting an uphill battle and the odds are stacked way against them, but I'd fall short of portraying it as a certainty.

Well, if this is how the NHL players representatives thinks too, this only increases the possibility of a lockout. Which is the question here.

 

[LeHab]

Tell me when the players won a lockout?

In 94-95 owners failed to implement the salary cap which was their main bargaining point or even a luxury tax.

 

[DougieMellon]

Are they really going to risk a lockout with a recent expansion team in the league and another one possibly coming in THE YEAR the lockout would occur?

The league has changed their tune to 2021 instead of 2020. Still expecting 2020 here but the league has said it would most likely be 2021.

 

[LeHab]

“I don’t care how much money you make or what you do, you sign a contract, you feel like you’ve earned that and you expect that your employer is going to hold up his end of the deal,” Chicago Blackhawks captain Jonathan Toews said.

“At the end of each season to be told that they’re going to take back 10 or 12 or 15 or sometimes 20 percent of your contract? I think that’s a kick you-know-where. I don’t agree with that, and I think there’s a lot of things the NHL can do to promote the game and enhance the business side of the game. Their mistakes shouldn’t be coming out of the players’ pockets.”

NHL one year away from potential lock-out scenario

Toews blaming owners for not growing revenues fast enough.