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

[Jumptheshark]

NHLPA's Don Fehr: 'Players made enormous concessions' in past negotiations - Sportsnet.ca

Fehr is banging the drum already

I predict another lost season

 

[BLONG7]

NHLPA's Don Fehr: 'Players made enormous concessions' in past negotiations - Sportsnet.ca

Fehr is banging the drum already

I predict another lost season

I don't think it will be a lost season, they went that route, and got destroyed. This is a game, The Don has thrown the first rock.

The players hate escrow...if it can be revised somehow they will get a deal done.

 

[mouser]

NHLPA's Don Fehr: 'Players made enormous concessions' in past negotiations - Sportsnet.ca

Fehr is banging the drum already

I predict another lost season

That's a core part of his job to bang the drum in support of the PA. At this stage I don't think it means anything more then business as usual.

 

[Fourier]

That's a core part of his job to bang the drum in support of the PA. At this stage I don't think it means anything more then business as usual.

Bingo. Fehr knows that the vast majority of those "concessions" will never be reversed. So this could easily be about trying to dissuade any plans for further gains by the owners.

Under this CBA player salaries have gone up by about 33% even with a substantial drop in the $CDN. For the vast majority of players losing 1/2 a years salary is not recoverable. At current rates even the complete elimination of escrow, something that would probably result in a lost season to accomplish, would take 7-8 years to get back the lost dollars. And a significant percentage the NHLPA would never see a net benefit.

 

[MNNumbers]

Bingo. Fehr knows that the vast majority of those "concessions" will never be reversed. So this could easily be about trying to dissuade any plans for further gains by the owners.

Under this CBA player salaries have gone up by about 33% even with a substantial drop in the $CDN. For the vast majority of players losing 1/2 a years salary is not recoverable. At current rates even the complete elimination of escrow, something that would probably result in a lost season to accomplish, would take 7-8 years to get back the lost dollars. And a significant percentage the NHLPA would never see a net benefit.

How did you calculate 33%? The cap isn't up that much.

 

[Fourier]

How did you calculate 33%? The cap isn't up that much.

79.5/60=1.325

 

[MNNumbers]

79.5/60=1.325

Does that include escrow losses?

 

[Noldo]

That's a core part of his job to bang the drum in support of the PA. At this stage I don't think it means anything more then business as usual.

I understand that this is Fehr’s duty, and he is telling the truth: players gave more in 2005 and 2013. But the important part is naturally missing:

What have changed since 2013 that would give the players more leverage than they had in 2013?

The sad and ugly truth is that nothing has changed. Without an agreement there will be a lockout and the players have more to lose if it comes to that.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

Just the economics say the NHL isn't changing the 50% revenue split with players. So any negotiation or strike who just be an allocation of what group of players gets that 50% of the players share.
I doubt if the bottom half the salary structure,,,,guys who making under 1.5m, want to risk their short term earning years so the stars can earn more money or reach UFA sooner.

 

[MNNumbers]

I suppose there might be....

A fight from the players as to the definition of HRR.

That could be a bargaining chip.

Otherwise they are simply negotiating with themselves.

 

[Bookie21]

The players can't negotiate escrow with the owners. Escrow is entirely in the players hands whether they want to invoke the escalator and by which percentage. If they bring escrow into the bargaining room the players will literally be fighting with themselves. Owners are not giving up the 50% share

 

[LadyStanley]

The players can't negotiate escrow with the owners. Escrow is entirely in the players hands whether they want to invoke the escalator and by which percentage. If they bring escrow into the bargaining room the players will literally be fighting with themselves. Owners are not giving up the 50% share

Not exactly. The escalator is negotiated between NHL and NHLPA.

 

[Wallet Inspector]

Man I just don't want a lockout because a whole season lost will affect the Sens' draft pick if it ends up being an almost completely open draft like it was in 2005.

 

[LadyStanley]

Man I just don't want a lockout because a whole season lost will affect the Sens' draft pick if it ends up being an almost completely open draft like it was in 2005.

Not exactly. They did a weighted average of finish placings for the previous two seasons and did a lottery of all 30 teams based on that.

Then it was a "snake" lottery (i.e., team that picks last in round 1 picks first in round two, last in round 3, first in round 4, last in round 5, first in round 6, etc.).

 

[Fish on The Sand]

One issue the player have is the abuse of the LTIR (Arizona) as a means of spending to the cap. Players want salaries as part of the 50% share, not insurance paid injury reserve.

Wait, are you saying the players don't want injured players to get paid?

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

Wait, are you saying the players don't want injured players to get paid?

No. But right now LTIR players can be considered part of the cap. The NHLPA wants the cap to used for players that are actually on the ice, not players that paid by insurance companies.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

What gives you any indication the players would have gone on strike while playing under the preexisting CBA in either 2004 or 2012? In fact we know they wouldn't have because they still had the option to go on strike after those CBAs, which were significantly and objectively worse for the players than the CBAs being replaced, went into effect and chose not to.

NHL stars are being completely screwed over, especially relative to the other major pro sports leagues. Jaromir Jagr made $11.5 million in 2003. That's in 2003 dollars. The highest paid player in the NHL last season was Patrick Kane at $13.8 million. in 2018 dollars. League revenue has more than doubled in that time period. That's egregious and yet the players still haven't shut down a season by exercising their right to go on strike.

A different argument would be that NHL stars in 2003 were egregiously overpaid and what we see now is a correction.

As for the players right to go on strike, I am fairly confident that in each of the last 2 CBAs they bargained away their right to go on strike during the agreement.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

No. But right now LTIR players can be considered part of the cap. The NHLPA wants the cap to used for players that are actually on the ice, not players that paid by insurance companies.

You can't argue that injured players should still be paid but not can't against the players' share of HRR. That asinine. Right now players get 50% of HRR and LTIR doesn't affect that. LTIR does not affect revenue brought in to the league, ergo it doesn't affect how much players get paid.

 

[mouser]

No. But right now LTIR players can be considered part of the cap. The NHLPA wants the cap to used for players that are actually on the ice, not players that paid by insurance companies.

Arizona has reached the cap floor every year without LTIR contracts. They’re using their cap space as an asset to take on LTIR deals. No different then Toronto using their cap space and money to take on LTIR deals.

LTIR players count against the player 50% share of HRR. So if you want LTIR players to not count against the cap then you either need to reduce the cap formula or expect the players escrow losses to increase.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

You can't argue that injured players should still be paid but not can't against the players' share of HRR. That asinine. Right now players get 50% of HRR and LTIR doesn't affect that. LTIR does not affect revenue brought in to the league, ergo it doesn't affect how much players get paid.

I'm certainly not arguing that injured players shouldn't get paid. Don't know where you came up with that. You're asinine to think so. I am suggesting as the NHLPA has that LTIR players can be used as part of the cap for a team.
Gee, of course LTIR isn't revenue source, so what?

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

Arizona has reached the cap floor every year without LTIR contracts. They’re using their cap space as an asset to take on LTIR deals. No different then Toronto using their cap space and money to take on LTIR deals.

LTIR players count against the player 50% share of HRR. So if you want LTIR players to not count against the cap then you either need to reduce the cap formula or expect the players escrow losses to increase.

Agreed, I go nuts when folks constantly say, that Arizona needs to trade for LTIR or even bad contracts to reach the cap. As you suggest, they use these LTIR players to fill the cap between the minimum and the maximum cap.

 

[ottawah]

I'm certainly not arguing that injured players shouldn't get paid. Don't know where you came up with that. You're asinine to think so. I am suggesting as the NHLPA has that LTIR players can be used as part of the cap for a team.
Gee, of course LTIR isn't revenue source, so what?

Yes, but if it did not count against the cap, and the team was using that to get to the floor, they would then have to spend more money on players to get to the floor. That increases how much over the 50% they are and it adds more to escrow. In essence the players are paying for it, not the owners (in the broad sense).

The one question I would have is insurance payouts counted as HRR?


When it gets right down to it there are only two issues. What constitutes HRR and what percentage the players get. There is nothing else. The chance the player get more in percentage is not going to happen. They may get some budge on HRR, but never enough to make a lockout worth it.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

I don't know what the players want, but they seem angry. More angry than the issues seem to dictate. This is why I think the PA is still harbouring grudges from 2005. They are mad as hell, but I don't see anything worth being mad about.

If they want a recalculation on how HRR is calculated to reduce escrow, they shouldn't be that angry. Owners will demand the revenue split will stay at 50/50, and the way it happens for them doesn't really matter. If the players can propose a system that takes Escrow out of their contracts, but keeps the 50/50 revenue split, then I assume the owners would be fine with it.

I guess they could argue for an expansion on the definition of HRR? But they don't seem to be banging the drum about that. Regardless, The owners wanted to make some tweaks to HRR in 2013, so I assume there is a give and take possible here.*

If they want the Olympics, well, the NHL made it clear they're fine with going to the olympics, because they offered it to extend the CBA.

I guess they could want to change the way 2nd contracts/team control is dealt with, but what would they bargain with to reduce team control a year or two?

In conclusion:

THE NHLPA DEMANDS MORE WHALES!



*SI Article from 2013:

They want to be able to subtract from HRR what it costs them to occupy their arenas and a percentage of their finance, support and general management expenses. That could mean millions of dollars taken from the available HRR to be shared by the players.

lol I can see why that didn't change one way or another for the players. If they push to include new stuff to the definition of HRR, the NHL will drop that bomb on them.

 

[mouser]

Yes, but if it did not count against the cap, and the team was using that to get to the floor, they would then have to spend more money on players to get to the floor. That increases how much over the 50% they are and it adds more to escrow. In essence the players are paying for it, not the owners (in the broad sense).

The one question I would have is insurance payouts counted as HRR?


When it gets right down to it there are only two issues. What constitutes HRR and what percentage the players get. There is nothing else. The chance the player get more in percentage is not going to happen. They may get some budge on HRR, but never enough to make a lockout worth it.

Insurance policies are excluded from HRR, and rightfully so. FWIW, the NHL should be running a net loss on the insurance policies in most years. Otherwise the insurance company is doing a poor actuary job and losing money.

Note: for any that aren't clear--contract injury insurance pays the Owner, not the Player. The Owner was already on the hook for 100% of the Player's guaranteed contract if they're injured.

 

[KevFu]

I think the ultimate problem (and really one of the only big problems) for the NHL financially is how their system of “league average HRR” guarantees that the "have not" franchises fall further and further behind.

The league average was about 12th in revenue, making 16 to 19 teams “below average” in revenue.

The cap goes up, the floor goes up. The bottom 16-19 team's ability to spend does not.

So those 16-19 teams say “let’s go with another prospect instead of a veteran to save a million.”

In the last three years, unused cap space has grown from $70 million to $183 million.

The players get angry at teams not spending.
The owners say "16-to-19 of us can't afford to spend, we need concessions in compensation."

They need to make the cap/floor based on MEDIAN, not average. (adjusting the percentage to about the same amount)
And modify revenue sharing because the top 10 paying the bottom 10 doesn't work when the top 10 make money and the bottom 20 are struggling to keep up.