What is this about a lockout?

[BBB24]

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

Not sure why you add Bettman and Jacobs in this, the league is not the ones wanting to reopen the deal, it is all on the NHLPA

 

[Therick67]

Not sure why you add Bettman and Jacobs in this, the league is not the ones wanting to reopen the deal, it is all on the NHLPA

It shouldn't be hard to figure out..

 

[sarge88]

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.

If he hates owners as much as I hate him, then there's going to be a strike!

 

[JAD]

Question - if contracts are worded to protect players should the owners lock them out; would that protection still apply if the players strike? I mean it is a different entity causing the work stopage.

 

[Gee Wally]

Question - if contracts are worded to protect players should the owners lock them out; would that protection still apply if the players strike? I mean it is a different entity causing the work stopage.

Yes. Because its a signing bonus. Which means the very second the player signs that contract he has met his obligation. Whereas his annual salary is for services rendered. Playing.

 

[DominicT]

Yes. Because its a signing bonus. Which means the very second the player signs that contract he has met his obligation. Whereas his annual salary is for services rendered. Playing.

This exactly. And also, the bonus money is paid on July 1st while the two sides wouldn't be in a lockout/strike position until September.

If there are any questions on where the two sides stand on the current CBA, just go back a few months to the Olympic negotiations. The NHL was prepared to go to the Olympics IF the NHLPA would agree to extending the current CBA by a couple of years (forget the number).

The NHLPA overwhelmingly said no.

If there is one thing I think the owners will go to battle over it's a limit on second contracts. But I don't think the players will put up much of a fight on that one.

A limit on second contracts will affect players who are not in the league or members of the NHLPA when a deal is negotiated. Just like entry level limits, it affects those players only and putting more money in the pockets of the players already in the league.

And even if players already in the league aren't grandfathered in, there are more Ryan Spooner's than there are David Pastrnak's that the max on second contracts wouldn't effect nearly as much.

Of course the players will try and get something done about escrow. But in a hard cap system, you need some sort of escrow to guarantee the players aren't getting more than their 50% share. Just no other way around it.

That's the problem with trying to predict revenue and then having the NHLPA artificially raising the cap with the escalator.

The only way I see around it and eliminating escrow altogether is basing the cap on the previous years revenue. That money is already counted and pocketed so there is no way of exceeding the 50% share.

Can't see the PA going for that as it puts less money in their pockets.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

Couple things i wouldnt be shocked to see pop up in next cba

Agree with what dom just explained

I see some owners pushing for a franchise exemption to the cap... where you can take a mcdavid or a crosby or kane and declare them special... vital enough to the league that they shouldnt count against cap. Im not sure if all teams would want 1 player or if the leagues govenors would simply designate who these players are but

This system could keep other players salarys down... by creating a special class of superstars you are telling everyond else sorry... but you guys arent the same. Movies and bands and books already do this. Star power gets paid in entertainment.

I can see big market teams wanting more flexibility to retain salary... bury guys in the minors... walk away from over 35 contracts. If chicago gets dinged on hossa there will be bloody war. Toronto is about to be squeezed on ther 21 year olds but still have deadweight on the books with horton and lupul. Boston may be facing unpleasent choicex with belesky and mcquaid after already forced to buyout hayes

These are the power teams that float the boat.

If these power teams get their changes they want... i definitely see the smaller teams asking for some form of luxery tax/better revenue share. There are still around 1/3 nhl teams always struggling to survive... always a year away from needing new ownership or a bailout

Theres 10 teams that are rolling in cash and want to buy a winner but 10 that need the cap to exist

If cba gets opened up i see owners fighting owners

Players main gripe is freedom over their career and choices they make

They continue to want better free agency... they want the money they sign for... they want more protection against trades that disrupt their familes... theyd like some rfa offer sheets to be available... theyd like a nicer arbitration enviroment... they want more repersentation with discipline hearings

The main problem players have is not getting paid what they signec for. This isnt an owners prob, players only get 50% of hrr. If players union members individually sign for too much... then it comes out of their own pockets.

this might get very very ugly

I can see the players themselves asking for limit on second term deals. If not escrow will continue to grow and grow

Theres going to be conflicts on both sides this next go around and lots of room for compromise between the 2 sides... but what will each side want?

Trying to keep everyone happy wont be possible. There is no one huge overriding battle to focus on. Just small stuff that adds up

 

[Hamilton Brian]

The richest most powerful market of all is about to suffer the same fate.

Alright...not that I want to declare dumb, but here I am. What market is this, and why the same fate? My first gut is Toronot, but then the why is the remaining question.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

Alright...not that I want to declare dumb, but here I am. What market is this, and why the same fate? My first gut is Toronot, but then the why is the remaining question.

The fate in question is cap crunch... and its been happening for awhile but its becoming worst

Early in the cap era... the cap kept leaping by significant numbers. Canadian dollar was stronger... new tv deals got signed... and the escrow hadnt soured players yet so escalator was in full effect

The cap is roughly set up to support half the teams being spenders and half not... that would make it work

But in nhl parity at least 2/3 teams are spending... and the effects are cumalitive growing over time

So now players reach the breaking point on escrow... suddenly they are unwilling to use escalator... at same time canadian dollar is in prolonged slump... now we see a cap that used to grow 7-10% annual only growing 3-5%

Teams that have been successful are powerhouse teams... flagship teams like chicago and la... pittsburgh to a lesser extent... boston... rangers might be included... teams just entering this window are canadian teams like toronto and edmonton... maybe tampa might feel the same...

Its about having to rip your team apart when it took so long to build it in the first place

Look at out bruins... like 40 years without a cup... and then 5 years later we are letting lucic, hornton, iginla, ericksson, boychuk go for cash reasons... not allowed to replace them for cash reasons...

We had a strong enough nucleus we might have won 3 cups if we could add another impact player...

The gears grind forward... us/chicago/la got 6-7 year windows before complete rebuilds but next generation teams like tampa/edminton/toronto are going to struggle to get even 5 year windows.

The nhl sells the dream... suck and get rewarded in the draft with young affordable talent... but now check how affordable mcdavid, eichel, matthews are...

So now you suck... get a kid... have him for 7 years... pay top premium caphit while you have him... and are rebuilding 7 years down the road anyhow.

Big markets were only luke warm in their support of a hard upper cap to begin with... and have willingly poked holes in the cap ever since. Now that many of these teams have suffered by the cap, their support unquestionably has to be even more dilluted.

Other sports leagues have mostly gone towards a franchise exempt star player system so i expect hockey will adapt this model too. But this effects hrr 50/50 split with players... effects competitive even field for league... there will need to be compromise

I wont say this is the biggest stumbling block for new cba... but once cba is open i predict this issue will become part of the story

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

Alright...not that I want to declare dumb, but here I am. What market is this, and why the same fate? My first gut is Toronot, but then the why is the remaining question.

Oops didnt read fully... yes toronto will be in full damage control mode by the time next cba roles around.

Once matthews/marner/nylander/gardner sign for 30 mill minimum between them they will have 11 guys under contract for 60 mill in 2019-2020. This wont be enough depth to be a cup winner

Guys like van rymsdyke and bozek and komarov and hainsey who currently make 14 mill between them and provide cup worthy depth will all have to be sacraficed. A kid like kapanan if he has a 60 point season might have to be sacraficed.

If toronto fails to win a cup... they will most definitely point fingers. This is a market thats gone 50 years without a cup. Its a team owned by sportsnet. Sportsnet happens to be the nhls most important revenue source.

They are the most powerful franchise and the cap is about to screw them (cap and 21 year old contracts)

 

[riverhawkey91]

I can see the players themselves asking for limit on second term deals. If not escrow will continue to grow and grow

Theres going to be conflicts on both sides this next go around and lots of room for compromise between the 2 sides... but what will each side want?

Trying to keep everyone happy wont be possible. There is no one huge overriding battle to focus on. Just small stuff that adds up

I'd still love to know what second contracts did to deserve limitation. I know it's really just a way for the union to rob future players to pay current members, but still....it's the 3rd/UFA/35+ contracts that really need limitation, not 2nd contracts.

I think there are a few ways they could get the cap issues in check without ever touching the money on contracts though:

1) Contract re-negotiations -- always felt dumb to me that a guy like Wade Redden had to spend years in the AHL because of his contract...not that he necessarily would have re-negotiated for less, but I still think the option should be there, especially for guys that may want to stay some place versus having to be traded or bought out for cap purposes

2) Yearly compliance buyout -- give each team one compliance buyout per year, like the ones in 2013/2014, to bail them out from a bad contract

3) Non-guaranteed contracts -- allow teams to cut whoever they want virtually whenever they want for whatever reason and have them not count against the cap (players are still paid their salary though)

Personally I like 1 and 3 as they'd likely lead to lower contracts overall since players might be getting salaries from multiple teams. I also like Dom's idea of basing the cap on the previous year instead.

No idea if any of that works at all within the current HRR/escrow/etc setup they have going, but I'd rather see them explore things like that than blame the issue on second contracts when there's nothing wrong with them right now at all, other than it forces teams to actually have to pay players what they deserve rather than saving it to overpay worse older players.

 

[DominicT]

I'd still love to know what second contracts did to deserve limitation. I know it's really just a way for the union to rob future players to pay current members, but still....it's the 3rd/UFA/35+ contracts that really need limitation, not 2nd contracts.

I think there are a few ways they could get the cap issues in check without ever touching the money on contracts though:

1) Contract re-negotiations -- always felt dumb to me that a guy like Wade Redden had to spend years in the AHL because of his contract...not that he necessarily would have re-negotiated for less, but I still think the option should be there, especially for guys that may want to stay some place versus having to be traded or bought out for cap purposes

2) Yearly compliance buyout -- give each team one compliance buyout per year, like the ones in 2013/2014, to bail them out from a bad contract

3) Non-guaranteed contracts -- allow teams to cut whoever they want virtually whenever they want for whatever reason and have them not count against the cap (players are still paid their salary though)

Personally I like 1 and 3 as they'd likely lead to lower contracts overall since players might be getting salaries from multiple teams. I also like Dom's idea of basing the cap on the previous year instead.

No idea if any of that works at all within the current HRR/escrow/etc setup they have going, but I'd rather see them explore things like that than blame the issue on second contracts when there's nothing wrong with them right now at all, other than it forces teams to actually have to pay players what they deserve rather than saving it to overpay worse older players.

I'll only touch on the last part:

HRR has to be done and audited by June 30. Any escrow due back to the players is paid back usually by September 1.

If they based the 2017-2018 cap for example on revenue earned and confirmed by both the NHL and the NHLPA as of June 30th, then there would be no need for escrow. The numbers are set in stone. No one (players) would receive more than their 50% share - unless the owners didn't spend it.

They could set the cap on the same day, a hard number, and teams will still know what they have to spend on free agent frenzy.

I'm a cap/CBA nerd, and honestly, I've tried to come up with a better solution since they instituted the cap. I haven't been able to come up with one.

As for the cap on second contracts, it's hard to say what effect it would have without knowing the details. Is it a 3 year max (like ELC) at $3 million max? 2 years at $4 million?

Hard to make an educated guess at the effect it will have on the cap, or really, a legitimate opinion until those details are known - if at all.

 

[DKH]

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.

that is amazing....if you around this weekend let me know. So this is the Pastrnak snag?

great thread- glad you started it Scott, and Dom, Wally and others are providing super information most of which I can grasp.

 

[RedeyeRocketeer]

Make no mistake the threat of a lockout is coming. An actual full on lockout though depends on their inability to reach a new CBA. Both sides do remember how damaging the last one was. It's possible nobody wants to see that happen again and they do a better job negotiating.

The sad part is in the end, the owners and GM's are the ones giving out the very contracts that screw them. It always starts with one player and snowballs.

 

[DominicT]

that is amazing....if you around this weekend let me know. So this is the Pastrnak snag?

great thread- glad you started it Scott, and Dom, Wally and others are providing super information most of which I can grasp.

Leaving for Toronto in about half hour for the Doc apt, so won't be around today. Maybe Sunday I will give you a call bud

 

[ThomasJ13]

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.

This is a good question, and something in the Pastrnak thread got me to thinking about this, but it's better suited to this thread. Maybe somebody who knows more than I do about this CBA stuff (which is everybody) can weigh in on the following:

1. If the owners are OK with extending the current CBA and the players are not, then in the event of a work stoppage isn't it more appropriate to call it a players strike instead of the oft-used term lockout?

2. Do the players that have so-called 'lockout protection' in their contracts have protection in the event of either a lockout or a strike? Might some owners have created a distinction between the terms in the contracts, or it just semantics?

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

...

There's been a lot of good discussion in this thread.

However... No one has come out with a reason there will be a work stoppage. Other than cynicism.

Fighting over Franchise Player exemptions? That's between owners and owners.

Limits on second contracts? Maybe? But is that something worth losing an incredible amount of revenue over? In the end, the NHL makes the same amount of money regardless.

The players going to the Olympics... An issue for 10% of the PA? 15%? Again, is it a hill one dies upon? I'm not convinced.

Players don't like escrow. For sure! Who would? But when your pay is tied directly to the profits of the business, it's either escrow, or you take a pay cut and lower the cap. Escrow sucks, but it's the lesser of these two evils.

The ONE thing that nobody mentioned here is the ONE thing that I think could get us to a work stoppage. And that's another argument about revenue share percentage.

 

[Fenway]

...

There's been a lot of good discussion in this thread.

However... No one has come out with a reason there will be a work stoppage. Other than cynicism.

Fighting over Franchise Player exemptions? That's between owners and owners.

Limits on second contracts? Maybe? But is that something worth losing an incredible amount of revenue over? In the end, the NHL makes the same amount of money regardless.

The players going to the Olympics... An issue for 10% of the PA? 15%? Again, is it a hill one dies upon? I'm not convinced.

Players don't like escrow. For sure! Who would? But when your pay is tied directly to the profits of the business, it's either escrow, or you take a pay cut and lower the cap. Escrow sucks, but it's the lesser of these two evils.

The ONE thing that nobody mentioned here is the ONE thing that I think could get us to a work stoppage. And that's another argument about revenue share percentage.

The Olympics concerns 100% of the players because the players that don't go enjoy their vacations.

There has to be some division among the owners. Jacobs has to be having second thoughts about cost certainty as the cap is primarily the reason the Bruins have fallen from the elite. You can bet your last loonie that the Maple Leafs will fight hard to be allowed to spend more.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

The Olympics concerns 100% of the players because the players that don't go enjoy their vacations.

There has to be some division among the owners. Jacobs has to be having second thoughts about cost certainty as the cap is primarily the reason the Bruins have fallen from the elite. You can bet your last loonie that the Maple Leafs will fight hard to be allowed to spend more.

Re: Olympics
Still speaks to my point though, no? Yeah, it's NICE. But are you really gonna put a season on hold for a week off every four years? Plus, there's a trade-off for those vacations in a condensed NHL schedule.

Re: Division among owners
Sure. I'm sure there is. But two things here. First, it's the PA that's opting out - not the NHL (at least at first) so whatever the NHL doesn't 100% agree consent on internally isn't really the issue. And second, the CBA is between the NHL and its players union. Whatever the NHL comes to the table with is irrelevant because they DO have to come to the table. You don't lock the players out and you don't go on strike because a few rich teams want to spend more. It's two different battles.

 

[Pia8988]

The players will opt out and want a better deal. The owners will dig in and play for the long game. This is true of all the leagues that the owners are more than willing to eat the short term to win the long term.

Isn't this exactly the recipe that has led to other work stoppages? Based on their history, what makes you think they will be able to come together and get a deal done in a timely fashion?

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

The players will opt out and want a better deal. The owners will dig in and play for the long game. This is true of all the leagues that the owners are more than willing to eat the short term to win the long term.

Isn't this exactly the recipe that has led to other work stoppages? Based on their history, what makes you think they will be able to come together and get a deal done in a timely fashion?

These are such general statements though.

Players want "more". Owners want "better."

If this is was a recipe, it would be 2 cups of substance, 3 tablespoons of liquid and a half a block of what-have-ya. Serves some.

More what? Better what? What's the endgame? What's the expectation?

Again, there's a lot of REALLY good discussion in this thread. But the only thing I see mentioned that makes any sense to have a work stoppage over is what I mentioned... and no one else is. The last two lockouts were precisely this. The first was cost certainty (which the NHL got). The second was the amount of that certainty. Those were issues large enough to warrant shutting the league down to solve.

I don't see the storm clouds this time.

 

[Pia8988]

So you think entities notorious for issues with negotiations are somehow going to get it right? You keep asking for proof about the lockout. What can you point to that these negotiations will be different from the past ones? The owners mindset won't have changed.

Players want Olympics, players hate escrow.

I gave you exactly what the owners want. The best deal for themselves for the long term which means money mostly.

As well for your question. Isn't that a question only someone actually involved in the negotiated. A lot of different points will be taken and you can't say for certain which side will dig in a certain issues.

 

[Fenway]

The players will opt out and want a better deal. The owners will dig in and play for the long game. This is true of all the leagues that the owners are more than willing to eat the short term to win the long term.

Isn't this exactly the recipe that has led to other work stoppages? Based on their history, what makes you think they will be able to come together and get a deal done in a timely fashion?

The owners hold the Ace of Spades knowing that no matter what - the fans will come back.

MLB was far more damaged by the 1994 shutdown than hockey ever was and there has been labor peace since. The NFL union was crippled by players crossing the picket line. The NBA has a salary cap that nobody really understands with all the exemptions.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

So you think entities notorious for issues with negotiations are somehow going to get it right? You keep asking for proof about the lockout. What can you point to that these negotiations will be different from the past ones? The owners mindset won't have changed.

Players want Olympics, players hate escrow.

I gave you exactly what the owners want. The best deal for themselves for the long term which means money mostly.

As well for your question. Isn't that a question only someone actually involved in the negotiated. A lot of different points will be taken and you can't say for certain which side will dig in a certain issues.

So your position is that there is going to be a lockout, because there has been lockouts in the past.

Noted.

 

[Pia8988]

So your position is that there is going to be a lockout, because there has been lockouts in the past.

Noted.

Yes, two sides notorious for having contested negotiations is far more viable to base it off of instead of just. I don't think it'll happen.

I already mentioned money will be an issue. Players will try to fight for more. Owners will dig in. The biggest factor in the lockout will be how soon the players are willing to cave. This ownership group and pretty much all of the other leagues in recent memory have shown they are more than willing to lose short term money to be able to get a long term deal they feel will get them the most money. So unless you have information on how the players won't fight to alter the split, you are in the same boat as us. Just on the opposite side of the fence.