What is this about a lockout?

[Mr. Make-Believe]

...

Some people won't shut up about how the lockout is inevitable.

Player salaries have increased... So has the cap. So has escrow. But the player share and owner share hasn't changed.

I'm curious... What do these salaries have to do with a lockout? How do you lower escrow while maintaining revenue share ratio? What actually is a negotiable sticking point?

So many are so certain we're headed to lockout country... I don't see how and I don't see why.

Click to read more...

 

[smithformeragent]

I don't know, but it's the NHL so we assume the worst.

If it happens, I'm done with the league.

 

[KrejciMVP]

Going with past lockout anxiety, the Pasta contract negotiations not going so smoothly and Pasta demanding a higher price tag, and the guy who owns the Bruins usually leads the charge.

 

[DominicT]

...

Some people won't shut up about how the lockout is inevitable.

Player salaries have increased... So has the cap. So has escrow. But the player share and owner share hasn't changed.

I'm curious... What do these salaries have to do with a lockout? How do you lower escrow while maintaining revenue share ratio? What actually is a negotiable sticking point?

So many are so certain we're headed to lockout country... I don't see how and I don't see why.

I talk about lockout protection. Look at every contract signed this summer that goes beyond 2020.

They are lockout protected. Every single agent is looking for it for their clients so it's something I wont shut up about. It's reality.

As for a lockout, it's out there if you want to research it. Owners are fine with the current deal. Players not so much. I'm not so sure the NHL PA is in total agreement

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

I talk about lockout protection. Look at every contract signed this summer that goes beyond 2020.

They are lockout protected. Every single agent is looking for it for their clients so it's something I wont shut up about. It's reality.

As for a lockout, it's out there if you want to research it. Owners are fine with the current deal. Players not so much. I'm not so sure the NHL PA is in total agreement

When are the owners and the PA ever in agreement when it comes to money in any sport. Doesn't mean a lockout is inevitable.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

...

Some people won't shut up about how the lockout is inevitable.

Player salaries have increased... So has the cap. So has escrow. But the player share and owner share hasn't changed.

I'm curious... What do these salaries have to do with a lockout? How do you lower escrow while maintaining revenue share ratio? What actually is a negotiable sticking point?

So many are so certain we're headed to lockout country... I don't see how and I don't see why.

The cracks that have been forming so far

On the players side...

Olympic participation and escrow clawback climbing up to 18% ive seen reported. Now you might argue players are only entiled to 50% oh hrr... but thats a collective number. This 18% is an individual number. Players have been told keep it internal but more have been speaking out. Our old friend joe thornton complained a couple years ago hes losing a million per season.

Escrow doesnt effect owners vrs players... it effects players who already signed vrs players who are signing now. Old guard vrs new guard

On the owners side is a similar problem. The cap was a consensus made to small market teams. Large egotistcal owners have never cared about over spending. Its almost a pride thing for them.

Now weve gone several years where the big market teams have been forced to trade away multiple assets they wanted to keep. The richest most powerful market of all is about to suffer the same fate. A crack in ownership solidarity hangs in this balance

Owners dont mind spending on WHAT THEY WANT TO SPEND ON... but hate being told by others how to spend... so as the 21 year old market goes crazy... arbitration is going to be a bigger problem. Its already a huge problem and most try to avoid it at all costs. Would boston have even gone above 2 for spooner without arbitration?

We are still far enough out that you wont hear alot about this yet for fear of fatigue. But the ducks are lining up and its complicated. This one might see both sides fighting among themselves more than with each other

 

[RI.B FAN]

I have heard that the Pasternak hold up is the lockout insurance

 

[Gee Wally]

When are the owners and the PA ever in agreement when it comes to money in any sport. Doesn't mean a lockout is inevitable.

Many players seem to think so and are actively pushing for guaranteed salary protection. The bonuses.

I think its coming. Second contracts are an issue. Escrow is an issue. Bonus is an issue. Long term contracts are an issue. Olympics is an issue.

Only way to resolve those issues is through collective bargaining. Which means to opt out as per the current CBA and open new collective bargaining.

 

[bruins309]

many are so certain we're headed to lockout country... I don't see how and I don't see why.

1994, 2004, 2012 are why. Just because owners might be happy doesn't mean they aren't going to claw for more. I bet they offer 43% of HRR, 5 years max on contracts, caps on 2nd contracts, stuff like that.

As for the players, if they feel so strongly about it then they should burn the thing to the ground. Kind of annoying sometimes to hear the whining about escrow, though I must admit that's a terribly unfair system where no onus is put on ownership.

 

[Fenway]

This will be Donald Fehr's last rodeo ( assuming the NHLPA doesn't fire him ) and the same most likely applies to Bettman. As others have mentioned some of the wealthier teams are tired of losing assets because of the cap and ironically one of those teams is Boston owned by Jacobs.

The Olympics should not be an issue in the next CBA as the NHL wants to go to China and the 2026 games could wind up in North America assuming any city wants the headache.

Given the history a work stoppage is to be expected.

 

[missingchicklet]

3 lockouts in a 20-year period under Bettman are reason enough to assume there will be a lockout. He was hired in part to quell labor unrest yet the NHL has not been able to avoid lockouts under his rule. It would be great if there were no lockout coming up, but history shows that a future lockout is almost inevitable.

 

[ODAAT]

I talk about lockout protection. Look at every contract signed this summer that goes beyond 2020.

They are lockout protected. Every single agent is looking for it for their clients so it's something I wont shut up about. It's reality.

As for a lockout, it's out there if you want to research it. Owners are fine with the current deal. Players not so much. I'm not so sure the NHL PA is in total agreement

Dom, when you have a moment, any way you would educate this fool of a fan and explain the "lockout protected" part, I notice all deals I have read about they did this but I honestly don`t understand it.

Thanks in advance

 

[sarge88]

Dom, when you have a moment, any way you would educate this fool of a fan and explain the "lockout protected" part, I notice all deals I have read about they did this but I honestly don`t understand it.

Thanks in advance

I was wondering the same thing.

If it means that a player gets paid even if they are locked out, then one would think that the more contracts like this are given out, the less likely the owners would be to lock them out.

If it is more generic and people use the term "lockout" to cover any type of work stoppage (strike for instance) then I can't see an owner being too willing to agree to it.

 

[Therick67]

With Fehr, Bettman and Jacobs involved, we will see some type of work stoppage - it's what they do...

 

[ODAAT]

I was wondering the same thing.

If it means that a player gets paid even if they are locked out, then one would think that the more contracts like this are given out, the less likely the owners would be to lock them out.

If it is more generic and people use the term "lockout" to cover any type of work stoppage (strike for instance) then I can't see an owner being too willing to agree to it.

Sort of where I am with it too, not sure what it means, wonder if it means that if a stoppage occurs, when they return to hockey if that player(s) contract is deemed still valid? I dunno, I shall wait for Dom to clear things up or someone who is well schooled in this, way above my pay scale

 

[DominicT]

Dom, when you have a moment, any way you would educate this fool of a fan and explain the "lockout protected" part, I notice all deals I have read about they did this but I honestly don`t understand it.

Thanks in advance

I was wondering the same thing.

If it means that a player gets paid even if they are locked out, then one would think that the more contracts like this are given out, the less likely the owners would be to lock them out.

If it is more generic and people use the term "lockout" to cover any type of work stoppage (strike for instance) then I can't see an owner being too willing to agree to it.

It is quite simple. Bonus money (signing bonuses) are guaranteed and paid July 1 of every year. Regardless of a lockout, that money is paid so it is "lockout protected".

Example: Say there is a lockout in 2020 - that'll happen in September. A player that has $8 million in signing bonuses for 2020 will have had that paid to him on July 1st. And there is no escrow on that, since there will be no HRR for players and their 50%.

One thing that no one is talking about (everyone seems stuck on lockout but the owners are pretty happy with the current deal) is the possibility of a STRIKE.

Chris Chelios is worming his way to the top of the NHLPA. And we know how much he hates owners.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

It is quite simple. Bonus money (signing bonuses) are guaranteed and paid July 1 of every year. Regardless of a lockout, that money is paid so it is "lockout protected".

Example: Say there is a lockout in 2020 - that'll happen in September. A player that has $8 million in signing bonuses for 2020 will have had that paid to him on July 1st. And there is no escrow on that, since there will be no HRR for players and their 50%.

One thing that no one is talking about (everyone seems stuck on lockout but the owners are pretty happy with the current deal) is the possibility of a STRIKE.

Chris Chelios is worming his way to the top of the NHLPA. And we know how much he hates owners.

As opposed to Donald Fehr?

Thanks for the answer though. Doesn't Steven Stamkos already have this?

 

[ODAAT]

It is quite simple. Bonus money (signing bonuses) are guaranteed and paid July 1 of every year. Regardless of a lockout, that money is paid so it is "lockout protected".

Example: Say there is a lockout in 2020 - that'll happen in September. A player that has $8 million in signing bonuses for 2020 will have had that paid to him on July 1st. And there is no escrow on that, since there will be no HRR for players and their 50%.

One thing that no one is talking about (everyone seems stuck on lockout but the owners are pretty happy with the current deal) is the possibility of a STRIKE.

Chris Chelios is worming his way to the top of the NHLPA. And we know how much he hates owners.

Much appreciated, far simpler than I was expecting your reply to be and Chris Chelios? Ugg

 

[DominicT]

As opposed to Donald Fehr?

Thanks for the answer though. Doesn't Steven Stamkos already have this?

Probably the best example of lockout protected, along with Radulov.

Stamkos salary is a measly $1 million per season. $8.5 million in bonuses for the first 5 or 6 years. So he stands to lose just $1 million in salary if there is a lockout, but make $8.5 million for not playing. As opposed to someone like David Krejci who would lose $7.5 million and not make a penny.

 

[ODAAT]

Probably the best example of lockout protected, along with Radulov.

Stamkos salary is a measly $1 million per season. $8.5 million in bonuses for the first 5 or 6 years. So he stands to lose just $1 million in salary if there is a lockout, but make $8.5 million for not playing. As opposed to someone like David Krejci who would lose $7.5 million and not make a penny.

wow, betcha DK is hoping there is no lockout, although I suppose he`s probably not gonna be stuck feeding himself and his family Kraft dinner if they do. So last question, the Stamkos deal Dom, would that be a case of Yzerman and Co being cognizant of a potential for a looming strike and the agent and team decided this was the best way to protect the player financially in that case?

 

[DominicT]

wow, betcha DK is hoping there is no lockout, although I suppose he`s probably not gonna be stuck feeding himself and his family Kraft dinner if they do. So last question, the Stamkos deal Dom, would that be a case of Yzerman and Co being cognizant of a potential for a looming strike and the agent and team decided this was the best way to protect the player financially in that case?

Agents do it to protect their clients...the guarantee that they'll pocket millions in the event of a lockout.

Owners for the most part are okay with it because, despite the fact they could be paying a player for not playing, it does keep the overall costs and cap hit down.

I'll use Stamkos as an example again. His AAV is $8.5 million, but he's guaranteed that $8.5 million if they lose a year because of his signing bonus.

Stamkos probably could have gotten a deal for $10 million per, but would not have had lockout protection. The deal would have been worth $80 million, but he would have lost $10 million in a lost season.

His deal is just $2 million less than that and he only stands to lose a million dollars.

The team was okay with the structure of his deal because they basically pay out the same dollars over that time, but reduce the AAV by $1.5 million a year.

I still believe this is the one and only sticking point to the Pastrnak contract. How do divide up the money so that it beneficial to both the player and the team

 

[ODAAT]

Agents do it to protect their clients...the guarantee that they'll pocket millions in the event of a lockout.

Owners for the most part are okay with it because, despite the fact they could be paying a player for not playing, it does keep the overall costs and cap hit down.

I'll use Stamkos as an example again. His AAV is $8.5 million, but he's guaranteed that $8.5 million if they lose a year because of his signing bonus.

Stamkos probably could have gotten a deal for $10 million per, but would not have had lockout protection. The deal would have been worth $80 million, but he would have lost $10 million in a lost season.

His deal is just $2 million less than that and he only stands to lose a million dollars.

The team was okay with the structure of his deal because they basically pay out the same dollars over that time, but reduce the AAV by $1.5 million a year.

I still believe this is the one and only sticking point to the Pastrnak contract. How do divide up the money so that it beneficial to both the player and the team

Thanks Dom, I`m not one bit worried about a Pasta deal, obviously all of us would have liked to see this done sooner but I never got the impression (other than from some here) it was going to be an issue.

Appreciate you clearing some cloudiness up for me, just arrived inside the rink to watch the Mooseheads rookies take the ice, cooling down before hitting the links later. Man I love Junior hockey, perhaps not as much as you but....

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

I talk about lockout protection. Look at every contract signed this summer that goes beyond 2020.

They are lockout protected. Every single agent is looking for it for their clients so it's something I wont shut up about. It's reality.

As for a lockout, it's out there if you want to research it. Owners are fine with the current deal. Players not so much. I'm not so sure the NHL PA is in total agreement

I hope you don't believe my confusion is directed at you, Dom. Players protecting themselves against a work stoppage makes sense to me. Why wouldn't you want that... Even if the chances of a lockout were small, it's still something one would want coverage for.

 

[KrejciMVP]

I hope you don't believe my confusion is directed at you, Dom. Players protecting themselves against a work stoppage makes sense to me. Why wouldn't you want that... Even if the chances of a lockout were small, it's still something one would want coverage for.

exactly, every single person in the world who works would want coverage during a work stoppage, especially one caused when the owners who lock you out.

 

[talkinaway]

Here's a thought: If JJ were really so confident that he could get to the bargaining table and avoid a 2020 lockout, why wouldn't he hand out lockout-friendly contracts?

To a player, a lockout-protected contract is like an insurance policy, and the owner is like the insurer. If the disaster doesn't happen, the insurer doesn't have to pay.

JJ could stand to save some money by "selling" insurance (ie offering cheaper/shorter/"team friendly" contracts in return for lockout protection) to players, and then working his damn ass off to make sure there's no lockout. Yes, it takes two to tango, and he can't guarantee that the NHLPA won't come up with some crazy stuff...but the more the Bruins have wrapped up in lockout-protected bonuses, the less happy the B's ownership will be to have a lockout.

The fact that they're stalling on the lockout protection for Pasta tells me two things:

A) They want Pasta to take the "faith plunge" and not protect himself, and
B) They're willing to have a 2020 lockout.

My advice for Pasta: no glove, no love.