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

Tom ServoMST3K

In search of a Steinbach Hero
Nov 2, 2010
27,814
18,619
What's your excuse?
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?

Donald Fehr is why no sports league will EVER again start a season without a labour deal.

Even if eventually the stench of that baseball season leaves labour negotiations, when the man responsible is heading up the Union side, there is zero chance of that happening.

The players made that decision when they decided to hire Donald Fehr.
 

KingsFan7824

Registered User
Dec 4, 2003
19,378
7,463
Visit site
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.

Or what the NHLPA itself did in 1992.
 

kgboomer

Registered User
Nov 12, 2014
1,253
998
Or what the NHLPA itself did in 1992.

Yep, the players waited until they were able to cash their last pay cheque and went on strike right before the playoff.

As I remember it ended up with a 2 yrs CBA, out went President Ziegler, an interim for 1 yr while the owners were searching for a Commissioner, a guy specifically working for what the owners wanted. That's how we got Bettman to do their dirty work.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,689
2,131
I think if Fehr hadn't have screwed that 1994 season up, the Expos may win the World Series, and things may have been different on the ownership side......resulting in Loria never being involved
Well you have always been pro owner, but it should tell you everything that Loria did the same thing in Miami and yet they are still there.
 

Bookie21

Registered User
Dec 26, 2017
556
293
Well you have always been pro owner, but it should tell you everything that Loria did the same thing in Miami and yet they are still there.
Loria was able to get tax payers to build him a new stadium in Miami, he wasn't so lucky in Montreal
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
29,065
10,758
Charlotte, NC
I don't think you understand how lockouts work...

Bettman locks out the league due to the owners' wishes, not because Gary is this super smart master evil genius or something...

It’s really not that simple. Bettman does what the owners tell him to do, but just as often they tell him to do what he’s advised them to do.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: um

ottawah

Registered User
Jan 7, 2011
3,489
620
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?
Unwilling as the players will strike just before the playoffs.

Really, they have to have a deal in place, lockouts or strikes in major league sports is 50% owners, 50% players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Name Nameless

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
I don't think you understand how lockouts work...

Bettman locks out the league due to the owners' wishes, not because Gary is this super smart master evil genius or something...

You don't, eh?

well I would say in return that you are a poor student of history.
 

Noldo

Registered User
May 28, 2007
1,668
253
The next CBA round will be interesting because I find it difficult to see that the players would have any major leverage. Postponing the start of the season or playing a shortened season would look bad on the owners but based on prior precedents the financial risk is quite limited.

At the same time the owners would appear relatively happy with status quo as they were willing to extend the CBA for quite minor concession (the Olympics). And since every CBA negotiation is very much a publicity game, the owners do not have very appealing demands to make since 50-50 is in a sense inherently fair and demanding more will make the owners look greedy (although they may not care). Elimination of bridge deals (5 year ECL was on the table last time around)? Further limits on contract length?

I actually think that the owners are happy with the guaranteed contracts, because opening the possibility to renegotiate deals would open possibility for holdouts.

On the players side the situation is equally strange. They clearly want the fight - if they do not intend to use the option to open the CBA they should have gotten the Olympics as concession from the League for doing so. Unless that was pure power play but still the NHLPA will look silly if they refused to trade in the option for the Olympics and end up not using the option anyway.

But I struggle to see what the players could reasonably target. A case could be made that players coming out of ELC are in a poor position because they lack arbitration rights. But they are such a marginal group that it would be strange for the Union to step up for them. Longer ELCs would practically have to be compensated by earlier UFA age. Five year ELC and straight to UFA would be the Union selling the stars (who would have most to lose during the extended ELC) to benefit the rank and file .

But the Escrow... since I don’t see any reasonable way the owners would give up the hard share fixing, the Escrow could be repaired in couple of ways:

- using smaller escalator (the Union appears to catch up on this even though Fehr has always supported idea “get us much money into the system as possible)

- change the cap structure in order to bring spending closer to the mid-point. In practice that would mean decreasing or stagnant cap, something the Union has never accepted.
 

Bookie21

Registered User
Dec 26, 2017
556
293
You don't, eh?

well I would say in return that you are a poor student of history.
Do you think Bettman tells his 31 bosses what to do? Does he say to Jeremy Jacobs et all, "We're losing an entire season, because I make the rules here"? Not a chance in hell. He can give the BOG "his opinion"....if the BOG doesn't like it, they fire him
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
29,065
10,758
Charlotte, NC
Do you think Bettman tells his 31 bosses what to do? Does he say to Jeremy Jacobs et all, "We're losing an entire season, because I make the rules here"? Not a chance in hell. He can give the BOG "his opinion"....if the BOG doesn't like it, they fire him

That’s not really how it goes either. Still oversimplified.

For example, most likely the idea of expanding to 32 teams was Bettman’s. He advised the owners and sold them on the idea. Realignment probably was the result of Bettman advising the western owners on how to solve the time zone and travel problems and then selling it to the eastern owners. And the 04 lost season was probably the result of Bettman advising the small market owners on the solution to their financial problems and selling the necessity of a potential lost season to the big market owners.

He can only do these things on the say-so of the ownership, but he’s the one steering the ship, if you will.
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
Do you think Bettman tells his 31 bosses what to do? Does he say to Jeremy Jacobs et all, "We're losing an entire season, because I make the rules here"? Not a chance in hell. He can give the BOG "his opinion"....if the BOG doesn't like it, they fire him

I'm sorry but it sounds like you have no idea what that relationship is like. Fire him lol. why the hell would they do that??
 

Tom ServoMST3K

In search of a Steinbach Hero
Nov 2, 2010
27,814
18,619
What's your excuse?
I still don't see a reasonable target for either side.

We won't see a stoppage over Olympics. 50/50 will stay the same. Escrow is a function of that style of revenue splitting, even if they got rid of Escrow, something similar would be put in place.

Both sides should feel reasonably comfortable with where they are. If I were the union, I'd lobby to change how ELCs are structured, but you'd have to give up something to get that.

Seems like the Union is looking for a fight without a reasonable target.
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
26,283
9,801
I still don't see a reasonable target for either side.

We won't see a stoppage over Olympics. 50/50 will stay the same. Escrow is a function of that style of revenue splitting, even if they got rid of Escrow, something similar would be put in place.

Both sides should feel reasonably comfortable with where they are. If I were the union, I'd lobby to change how ELCs are structured, but you'd have to give up something to get that.

Seems like the Union is looking for a fight without a reasonable target.
HRR and what is included in it would likely be the main issues. That sets the players amount that they get. Make sure that includes all of the new potential sources of nhl revenue.

Aside from that, it’s just the ins and outs of the system. Maybe arbitration rights for every player even those 21-23 year olds who come off elc so we don’t have a 2016 trouba situation.
 

Maladroit

Registered User
May 9, 2018
980
437
Berkeley, CA
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.

Because a lockout, by definition, is an action taken by the league and its owners. In both 2004 and 2012 the players were more than willing to play the season under the preexisting CBA and the owners refused.
 

kgboomer

Registered User
Nov 12, 2014
1,253
998
Because a lockout, by definition, is an action taken by the league and its owners. In both 2004 and 2012 the players were more than willing to play the season under the preexisting CBA and the owners refused.

You mean they were more than willing to START to play the season under the preexisting CBA... like they did in 92, and the players of MLB under Fehr in 94. They're more than willing to play until they don't want to play anymore, and want to go on strike before the season ends..
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
26,283
9,801
You mean they were more than willing to START to play the season under the preexisting CBA... like they did in 92, and the players of MLB under Fehr in 94. They're more than willing to play until they don't want to play anymore, and want to go on strike before the season ends..
 

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,957
6,259
Fehr is already 69, when does his contract expire? Does he even want to be the man for next round of CBA negotiations?
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
26,283
9,801
Fehr is already 69, when does his contract expire? Does he even want to be the man for next round of CBA negotiations?
If he doesn’t he should step down very soon. We are about 14 months away from ththe deadline to opt out of the current cba.

If they opt out, then the hard negotiations begin in the summer of 2020.
 

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,957
6,259
If he doesn’t he should step down very soon. We are about 14 months away from ththe deadline to opt out of the current cba.

If they opt out, then the hard negotiations begin in the summer of 2020.

Found this Interview with Fehr from 2016:

Will you be doing this job for a while?
I have no imminent plans (to retire). I turn 68 this summer. But I'll be here for the next few years. What really has me charged up are a few things: One is I took this job because I really like the players. They're good guys, they mean well, they try hard and they look out for their fellow players. In every group this big there are a few guys who don't fit that mold, but on balance they're really good. I want to keep doing that. And the possibility to expand the reach of the game is real enough and close enough that if I can be a part of that, I would like to
Will there be another work stoppage when the collective bargaining agreement ends in 2022 (with an opt out in '19)?
In all the cap sports in all of recent history, there has always been a lockout. Always, always, always, always, always. The reason why is that the clubs look at it and say, 'We have nothing to lose. Fans aren't going anywhere so we lock them out. The worst that happens is we end up with the same deal that changes a little bit, but maybe we get a big deal.' The structure of the cap encourages labor strife. That's my experience. It is accurate that from 1972 through 1994 there was a strike or a lockout in baseball every year and I was there for most of that. But most of it was related to attempts by owners either to impose a cap or impose heavy restrictions on free agency, which would have worked the same way. After '96, baseball, which doesn't have a cap, has been the only sport which has had labor peace. That is because what we were able to negotiate was a provision which preserved real free agency and at the same time provided real revenue sharing so the worst complaints of the lower-income teams could be eased or alleviated in some way and that produced what we have now and baseball has been in great shape ever since.
So this is a long way around saying recent history suggests that the no-cap model is more stable in terms of labor relations. That said, and I do want to make this point — this is important — there is this tendency for people unfamiliar with the economics and financials to say, 'Well, they're all sports, they all have free agents, they all have caps or attempt at caps, they all have trades so they're all pretty much the same.' It's not true. The economics and even the terms that are used don't mean the same thing sport to sport or negotiation to negotiation. Each one has to stand or fall on its own.
What is the players' biggest concern?
What's talked about now mostly is escrow. No doubt about it. And that's really exacerbated by the Canadian dollar issues. But there's no doubt that's the highest thing on their radar scope — they see it every time they get a check.

Q&A with Donald Fehr, executive director of NHL players' union
 

powerstuck

Nordiques Hopes Lies
Jan 13, 2012
7,596
1,545
Town NHL hates !
It's crazy to think that players will be happy with just the Olympics.

Owners last actions (offer extension in exchange of Olympics) pretty much shows owners don't mind giving them that.

But lets be real, out of 700+ players in the league, only a handful go to Olympics and only Canadian an US squad (so around 50ish players) are 100% from NHL.
 

Maladroit

Registered User
May 9, 2018
980
437
Berkeley, CA
You mean they were more than willing to START to play the season under the preexisting CBA... like they did in 92, and the players of MLB under Fehr in 94. They're more than willing to play until they don't want to play anymore, and want to go on strike before the season ends..

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.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad