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

[ottawah]

I would have to assume its 100%. Or else the players should fire Fehr. It would mean he cost them the Olympics for nothing other than his own grand standing.

And what can the players hope to get? They lose everytime on lockouts, why do they think it will be different this time around? The league has lost a whole season and a half 10 years later, and no one can argue the revenue growth of the league during the last 15 years has been anything less than equal to its peers (NFL 108%, NBA 100%, NHL 100% - 110% ) indicating that lockouts do not cause anything other than short term damage to owners and very low damage at that vs fair damage ot the players (likely 10% of their career earning lost per season on average).

Forcing a lockout means they want something more, but what could they possibly want? Higher percentage of revenue? Not going to happen. You can argue escrow lower, but that just means other rules have to be tweaked to manage the guaranteed 50% level. Changing escrow is really utterly pointless if the 50% number does not change, one way or another the players would not be earning a buck more.

I've never been mystified more about a lockout. I could see the rational for the last two, but this one seems entirely pointless. And its inarguable that this one will rest 100% on the players heads.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

Think ottawah (above) nailed it The 50% revenue sharing isn't going to change, so why should be the player strike over escrow. The money gets paid/or not depending revenue.
It's like if you make 100,000 a year and you have bonuses for another 15% potential on top of that. If your company doesn't make a profit, you aren't entitled to any bonuses (per your contract). It's delusional if you think you are guaranteed that 15% every year.

 

[byrath]

Think ottawah (above) nailed it The 50% revenue sharing isn't going to change, so why should be the player strike over escrow. The money gets paid/or not depending revenue.
It's like if you make 100,000 a year and you have bonuses for another 15% potential on top of that. If your company doesn't make a profit, you aren't entitled to any bonuses (per your contract). It's delusional if you think you are guaranteed that 15% every year.

Revenue determines what the cap will be the following year but I don't think it's directly related to escrow...iirc the halfway point between the cap floor and ceiling is based on the 50% of HRR .. and because 20-25 teams spend pretty much to the cap every year, total salaries come in well above 50%, and escrow makes up the difference.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

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.

 

[rojac]

If a lockout happens, it happens. Just spend the energy you would spend on the NHL on your other interests. When the lockout's over, you can shift that energy back or move on. Seems simple enough.

 

[LadyStanley]

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.

Until you're the player that has a career ending injury?

Teams can only have up to five contracts covered by insurance. So, if a team picks the wrong one(s), they could be paying out of pocket. (And insurance doesn't kick in until after the first month of disability, AIUI.)

 

[Flukeshot]

The fact that the NHL tried to use th Olympics as carrot to get the CBA extended proves they can live with it as is.

The fact that the players didn't accept means the collective has larger concerns. As a percentage of the roughly 700 PA members less than 25% stand a chance to go to the Olympics.

The frustrating part about escrow, which is a big PA issue, is that it is within the PA's power to minimize it already by not using their 5% cap inflator and I believe the NHL would be receptive to a year with minimal cap growth.

I think it is 50/50 on any kind of work stoppage.

 

[MNNumbers]

I'm actually mystified by the whole thing now. For a long time I thought escrow as the problem. But, the PA and the owners decided on a VERY modest use of the escalator this year, which should, by itself, ease escrow quite a bit. So, that's not the problem.

I really don't know what the fight would be over.

The last time, the owners started by offering the players 43% of HRR, which was ridiculous. Not a real offer in any way. In light of that, I don't blame Fehr for his negotiations. If the owners weren't serious, why should he be? If you counter to that offer, you start on the ground the owners want to play on. Better to wait....

This time, unless the owners want 52% for themselves, or something, I can't see any issue except escrow, and that seems to be taking care of itself, really.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

Until you're the player that has a career ending injury?

Teams can only have up to five contracts covered by insurance. So, if a team picks the wrong one(s), they could be paying out of pocket. (And insurance doesn't kick in until after the first month of disability, AIUI.)

????? No, I believe players have to paid when disabled. I just saying the NHLPA hates teams like Arizona using the cap to avoid paying players to play. Arizona could a 7m cap hit for Datysuk for not playing and not collecting any salary. And long term Bolland, Hossa, the NHLPA doesn't want Arizona avoiding signing other players and using those LTIR for cap space.

 

[tony d]

Could happen, have to see what happens. Still it'd be Bettman's 4th lockout in 26 yrs. as commish, that's not good at all.

 

[JadedLeaf]

Could happen, have to see what happens. Still it'd be Bettman's 4th lockout in 26 yrs. as commish, that's not good at all.

I'll give him a pass on the 04 lockout since it quite literally saved a handful of teams and made the league stronger but it does look bad.

I'm curious to why Donald Fehr doesn't get as much or more blame for the lockouts? I was too young to really pay attention to the finer details of the lockouts besides the last one.

 

[innitfam]

Either side can end the CBA in 2019, correct? And if neither does, its until 2022?

 

[ottawah]

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.

So to the first sentence, it really does not matter in the least. Thats because the players get 50% of HRR. As they are getting well over 50% (with escrow evening it out), changing that means not a thing to their paycheck.

To see how it works is simple. Lets say Arizona is reaching the floor via 10M in LTIR. Lets get rid of that rule. So they go out and spend 10M more in some manner (pay current players more, bid up free agents, etc). Ripple effects aside, it raises salaries by 10M. So then the escrow is raised to make up the 10M difference. collectively the players get zero dollars more (just spread around differently).

If the players brought on a lockout over that, it is obvious their basic math skills (of players and agents) are far less than I thought.

 

[StreetHawk]

Either side can end the CBA in 2019, correct? And if neither does, its until 2022?

The option to end it must be formally presented to the other side by September 2019. That makes the 19-20 season the final year under the CBA. Thus, the CBA would then expire sometime in September 2020, before the season begins. So, everyone operates as normal during the off-season of 2020. If there is no early opt out, then yes, the CBA runs until the expiry date of the agreement.

The major impact is on the Seattle Expansion as you wouldn't have an expansion draft in 2020 if you don't have a CBA in place for the coming season. No way the NHL risks Seattle's inaugural season with a work stoppage. Have to delay to 2021. That does impact teams with regards to their prospects and whether they sign them from the NCAA and burn a year of their protection. I believe Adam Lowry, who got signed out of Michigan by Winnipeg in 2015 played 1 game for the Jets in 14-15, and had to be protected for the Vegas ED. With a 2020 ED, Nashville could sign Fabbro out of BU when his JR year ends and he'd be exempt for a 2020 ED. But, if it's pushed to 2021 and they sign him and he plays in 18-19, he'll need to be protected for a 2021 ED. But, the Preds won't know that when his season ends in March 2019. So, interesting times ahead.

 

[Melrose Munch]

I'll give him a pass on the 04 lockout since it quite literally saved a handful of teams and made the league stronger but it does look bad.

I'm curious to why Donald Fehr doesn't get as much or more blame for the lockouts? I was too young to really pay attention to the finer details of the lockouts besides the last one.

He wasn't in office at that time.

 

[Bookie21]

Fehr single handedly ruined the Montreal Expos and led to their demise.....for that I'll never forgive him. The players should send this self righteous prima donna packing otherwise they will get bent over the barrel again by the owners

 

[Sam Spade]

100% yes.

 

[JadedLeaf]

He wasn't in office at that time.

For the 2004 lockout he was wasn't he?

 

[My3Sons]

The NHLPA is largely made up of second line and lower players. If a team has 23 guys on it the best teams have maybe 9 or 10 big money guys but most have five or six. If I’m a third or fourth liner why are my interests aligned with the star players. Whatever extra the top players get will only be taken out on the lower tier players. It’s a salary cap league so a zero sum game. A vet over 30 on the last year of an old lucrative deal probably never sees his last payday in a lockout. Unless the NHLPA comes up with some demand to help the average player it’s hard to see why the average player should care about the difference between a 6 or 7 year deal.

 

[Tawnos]

It depends on what the league asks for.

In my mind, there is only one issue that will cause a lockout: revenue share. If the owners demand more, we will have a lockout. If they don’t, I think the other issues can be resolved without missing time.

 

[Melrose Munch]

For the 2004 lockout he was wasn't he?

No. That was bob goodenow

 

[Melrose Munch]

Fehr single handedly ruined the Montreal Expos and led to their demise.....for that I'll never forgive him. The players should send this self righteous prima donna packing otherwise they will get bent over the barrel again by the owners

Loria did. Ownership is everything.

 

[LadyStanley]

Lockout = owners stopping the action.

Strike = players stopping the action.


So, do the owners have enough incentive to do a lockout? Or are they just unwilling to start a season without a new labor deal in place?

 

[Baccus]

I find it difficult to believe the league would go into a season without a new deal in place. The leverage switch would be dramatic as the season progressed.

As others have mentioned, with the previous ownership offer of continuing the CBA for Olympics, I haven't seen much evidence that the league itself is particularly unhappy with the current CBA. The players seem to mostly want escrow "fixed" which means they need a math tutor or to stop using the escalator. The Olympics are something the players will have to give to get, if that means actual concessions or just a continuation of the existing agreement, who knows.

The only real extended lockout reasons I can currently imagine would be if players are actually that adamant about changing escrow (ie a serious change of how the cap system works) or if the owners are going for another money grab on the revenue split.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Lockout = owners stopping the action.

Strike = players stopping the action.


So, do the owners have enough incentive to do a lockout? Or are they just unwilling to start a season without a new labor deal in place?

No way in hell the owners don't lock the players out if there is no CBA in place before the season starts. Absolutely no way. As the previous posters said, they would lose all their leverage and risk the players do what the MLB players did in 1994.