*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread

[elvis15]

Teams will have to spend to the players' share regardless of cap. I located another copy of the CBA and finally found the procedure for the event of a shortage. In that case, everything in escrow is released to players plus additional payments are made by each club to players pro rated to actual salary. So, even if you did under account for growth teams would still have to cough up the money later, so it wouldn't really help in the long run. The only exception would be that it would allow owners to put off paying a portion of salaries until after the season has ended and allow them to make interest off that money.

So, I think the 5%, which was still below the yearly average over the life of the last CBA, was intended to keep the amount players actually got paid in a timely fashion more in line with what was owed.

Honestly, if nothing else, all of this should remind us that this is seriously complicated crap! Coming up with a new CBA isn't as easy as we sometimes like to make it sound. There are way more factors than most fans realize and far more than fans want to have to care about.

[poetica]

Absolutely to pretty much all of that. My only thought was a minimum fixed percentage is at least they're working to 50/50 rather than relying totally on revenue in case revenue doesn't grow. Maybe it takes longer or doesn't hit the projected 50/50 in that time as a result, but you're also not forcing growth in the event the revenues don't keep up.

[Primus099]

[The Bookie]

So many little things to get done, but it's also so many little things they could be talking about. Makes me wonder why they've spent so much time not talking this fall, even over the summer after last season ended.

[-Vintage Canuck-]

@globehockey: Daniel Alfredsson says no reason to get excited about labour talks, yet http://t.co/t7PXg7DE

[gizmo2337]

So, I think the 5%, which was still below the yearly average over the life of the last CBA, was intended to keep the amount players actually got paid in a timely fashion more in line with what was owed.

[poetica]

Yes, in any particular year, the players are going to get the same 50/50 because its based on revenue. Through escrow or team payments, they still get pro-rated pay to 50/50. Removing the 5% cap adjustment would lower the cap ceiling, and the amount a GM could spend on a high end player. That player might get 6M instead of 7M per year. Its all hogwash in the end with 50/50 split, but it will slow the rate of contracts being escalated. The richer teams spend what the market can afford. If the cap was 100M, they would probably offer some ridiculous 20M/year deal for ten years to somebody.

[Drybone]

I still say what I have been writing all along.

The common sense thing to do is 50/50 split. But instead of lowering the cap to reach the 50 mark, just keep it at 70mil until that is 50% and then raise it accordingly.

In exchange for keeping the cap this high and honoring the contracts, the NHLPA has to agree to other concessions . This is why the owners are still trying to hang the contracts over their heads.

But in the end, the players have no leverage. They are replaced on average every 6 years.

[gizmo2337]

I still say what I have been writing all along.

The common sense thing to do is 50/50 split. But instead of lowering the cap to reach the 50 mark, just keep it at 70mil until that is 50% and then raise it accordingly.

In exchange for keeping the cap this high and honoring the contracts, the NHLPA has to agree to other concessions . This is why the owners are still trying to hang the contracts over their heads.

But in the end, the players have no leverage. They are replaced on average every 6 years.

[The Bookie]

I concede defeat. The NHL is supreme. They have all the power. They cannot be beaten. They will replace the puny players. They can do no wrong.

Oh crap, except they haven't even managed to align their forums with correct daylight savings times.

I take it all back.

[RunningWild]

Lockout parody vid, it's gold:

via PuckDaddy

[Boudrias]

If they dont recognize the NHLPA there is no deal, meaning they would have to walk away from the players. There's no CBA for them to do anything, they would have to completley forget the PA and everyone in it (currently contracted players) and move on with placments, so that doesn't really make sense.

Current stars and winning at the highest level of competition is what attracts fans, if it was history that attracted fans like you say then Colorado would still sell out every game.

And if they weren't the highest level of competition then no one would care, that's why the AHL playoffs/finals don't anywhere near the following of the NHL playoffs/finals.

[-Vintage Canuck-]

Why playing for the Stanley Cup in July makes sense:

The NHL governor we wrote about elsewhere on these pages, the one who advocates playing the Stanley Cup final in July if that's what it takes to get in a full 82-game season, has an interesting theory about why that would not be a bad thing as a one-off.

His theory may not thrill some of his fellow governors, and certainly not NHL commissioner Gary Bettman, but it makes sense. And it's worth mulling over while waiting for the 3 p.m. start of the most crucial round of talks thus far in the lockout at an allegedly secret location in New York.

The governor, who cannot be named because of Bettman's gag order on management types during the lockout, said the only way the players will get what they want most in this labour dispute - 100 per cent of the value of their existing contracts - is if all 82 games in the regular season are played along with a full playoff schedule. While everyone else discusses this on the assumption no games would be played beyond June 30, this governor sees no problem with extending the league final into July if necessary for this season only.

His theory is that unless a team with national appeal is involved in the Cup final, like the New York Rangers, Los Angeles Kings or perhaps the Detroit Red Wings, the series does not draw a strong national audience in the United States. That is true to a lesser extent in Canada, as a Vancouver Canucks - Toronto Maple Leafs or Canucks - Montreal Canadiens final would draw huge numbers but not necessarily so if other teams were involved.

"Aside from those teams, the Stanley Cup final is mostly regional," the governor said. "It's a big deal in those cities but not everywhere else."

So the fans of the two teams would watch their favourite in the final no matter when it's held, which means the all-important gate receipts would be the same as if it were played in the far more palatable (to the NHL anyway) month of June. And, hey, the league gets its $355-million (all currency U.S.) per year from the U.S. and Canadian television networks no matter how many people are watching.

This may not be music to Bettman's ears, as it is his job to sell NHL hockey as a mainstream sport in the U.S., but the TV ratings for past Cup finals bears this out. See Carolina Hurricanes versus Edmonton Oilers, circa 2006.

As for the chances of a new collective agreement resulting from this session of bargaining, both sides remain cautiously optimistic. The owners and general managers say the players have to accept the fact it will take a few years to pay their existing contracts in full, if not give them a slight haircut, because you can't do it right away when you have to shoehorn something based on a 57-per-cent share of revenue into a 50-50 split. The players' caution stems from the fact the owners' pattern in these negotiations is to make a splashy leak to management-friendly media about what an enormous concession they're prepared to make, which turns out to be not so enormous on closer inspection.

If the optimism is to grow, we won't hear until this evening - at this point only the NHL Players' Association plans to address the media - if the players think there is hope for a deal. Any earlier news will not be good since it would probably mean talks broke off again.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/why-playing-for-the-stanley-cup-in-july-makes-sense/article4960563/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[elvis15]

Not sure what you are suggesting. One of the main reasons why the 2004 CBA was signed was the PA was faced with mass defections from existing members. To my knowledge there is nothing preventing existing PA members from leaving the PA and signing as replacement players if that event ever happened.

[poetica]

Ditto to pretty much everything Elvis said above.

Again, I ask for anyone to provide proof of a single league using replacement players to successfully disband a union. Extra bonus points for proving the league didn't suffer long-term talent or financial loses as a result. I'd even be interested in knowing about a single professional sports league that doesn't have a players' union.

More questions for those spouting the replacement players theory:

In the short term, where are these players coming from and how can you prove that their amount of revenue generation will be sufficient to make teams profitable given the expenses involved in running the team? (After all, salaries might be cheaper, but airplanes aren't. And who's going to buy a "guy who was never going to make it in the NHL before" jersey?) Why would a player choose the NHL as opposed to the KHL or a European league when those leagues still have unions to protect players? How do you so easily dismiss the possible long term consequences of watering down a brand already struggling to gain popularity? How do you propose owners would offset the negative press associated with such an anti-union move?

In the long term, how do you address the major problems that would surely arise from not having a CBA, which includes many rules far beyond players' share? What will restrict how teams can behave in regard to another team's players? Won't negotiations for individual players' contracts become increasingly long due to the fact that they would be forced to individually negotiate for benefits and protections the CBA covers, such as a pension, moving expenses, standard of medical care, payment during injury/illness, etc.? Won't fewer health and safety protections result in more career ending injuries, further diluting the talent pool?

[elvis15]

Even the AHL has their players unionized, so they'd likely support the NHLPA in their goal to have a fair deal. Again, you might get a few players to go against their union but you aren't going to get the talent level that will make people pay like they're seeing the top players when they're only seeing B-C level replacements.

[canucksnihilist]

No player is going to leave the union and join as a replacement player. Especially not established players (ok, some players just starting might do it, or those on the bubble, or those at retirement age maybe..).

aka: they don't need the money. they are just fine waiting it out. If the union is not representing their interests, you have a point, but there is no evidence of the union having it's own self-inflicted self-sustaining entitlement-like interest like you do with public sector unions.

The NHLPA is like a rich country club fighting with the owners of the land where their golf course is located.

[elvis15]

Even if a player were to decide to try and do so because they needed the money (just starting out, didn't manage their money well, lost it in the stock market, whatever) they'd be ostracised when the NHLPA and the NHL finally did reach an agreement. They might get a half season of earnings before being dropped and lose out on any future earnings they would have had.

There's no way the NHL can survive at the same level without the players in the NHLPA. If the owners think they don't make enough money now, wait until they have the same revenue stream as ECHL teams since that's the level of players they'd have without the likes of Crosby, Stamkos, etc.

[UFCanuck]

I think it's time we implemented our secret weapon.

Bring Brad Marchand into the meetings, lock the door, and tell him to rap.

Bettman will crack in seconds.

[poetica]

An interesting comparison:

The KHL just went to a hard cap this season with a limit of $36.5 M (US). (Source: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Salary_cap) However, their cap rules allow teams to exclude any 2 players of their choice from the cap. (That's actually an interesting idea...) As with the NHL, we can assume bigger revenue teams would exclude their big name stars so they can pay more for big name talent, meaning their actual salary paid out could be significantly higher than the cap.

For example, let's say a team's 2 biggest stars were excluded and made an average of $5M a year (or, less than the $5.7M Ovechkin is believed to have signed for, which was likely significantly lower than what he could have otherwise gotten by the NHL/KHL agreement that players with current NHL contracts are limited to 65% of their NHL salaries. That rule would not apply if the player simply left the NHL and some players are rumored to be making huge paychecks in the KHL. As long ago as 2010, it's been reported that Fedorov gets $14M a year. Some have suggested some superstars are getting in the $20M range.) So, even with my incredibly conservative imaginary numbers, that would put that team's actual salary spending at $46.5 M. Last season, the NHL's salary cap floor was $48.3M. Under the NHL's 50/50 proposal, the cap floor for next season would be $43.9M, meaning some NHL teams would be spending less on salary than some KHL teams. In reality, that may already be true (especially this year since the KHL gave each team an additional salary cap exemption for a locked out NHL player.)

The last CBA included (as likely will the next) a 20% of cap limit for individual contracts. The KHL offers no such restriction on how much big name stars can make. (Though, to be fair, the lower salaried players likely make much less in the KHL than the NHL.)

The last CBA included escrow and all indications suggest the next will as well, possibly at a much higher percentage. Last year, 8.5% of players' salaries was held back in escrow. The KHL doesn't have escrow.

The NHL plays 82 games in the regular season. The KHL plays 52.

Anyone who thinks the NHL isn't at serious risk for losing big name stars, especially ones that are Russian, to the KHL is wrong. And anyone who thinks the NHL can just break the union and get all of those players to come play for them at whatever salary they decide to pay them is doubly wrong.