|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 4, 2020 10:19:21 GMT -5
... with a possible Cup final in the summer ...
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jul 4, 2020 11:05:41 GMT -5
So they are going to compound the mistake of this summer tournament by starting late & still trying to get in a full season. Have they completely lost their minds?
I don't get the players. They need to stand up and say enough!
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jul 4, 2020 13:52:55 GMT -5
Inventory. Players are just inventory. So what if they burn up a few, there are others waiting to fill the gap. Not as good perhaps, but willing bodies. Who suffers? Only the fans.
Would be interesting if fans just decided, 'shucks I think I'll watch curling instead of hockey' and the rinks were empty and the television ratings were zero. What would the Habs, or Hawks or Rangers be worth then?
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Jul 4, 2020 15:06:37 GMT -5
I get the economic implications of playing without fans in the building, but I think starting in January is simply too late and the schedule becomes too compressed. There is no guarantee a working vaccine will be available in January or March or June for that matter.
If the Stanley Cup is awarded October 1, the regular season should start in early December. Most players will have been idle for the vast majority of the 2020 calendar year. Starting next season in January is going to force teams to play like 17 games per month, travel included.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Jul 4, 2020 16:33:54 GMT -5
PEOPLE, DO NOT WORRY, IT COULD BE DONE.
Just carry a 60 man roster and water down the game.
Wait, hold on, is there still the impression that it's about the quality of hockey? Really?
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 9, 2020 15:01:20 GMT -5
PEOPLE, DO NOT WORRY, IT COULD BE DONE. Just carry a 60 man roster and water down the game. Wait, hold on, is there still the impression that it's about the quality of hockey? Really? It's all about the fans and soon 64 teams. Surprised they aren't holding out for an expanded 90 game season to recover lost revenue. If baseball can have double headers, why not hockey. They do split-squads in preseason, why not in regular season. They won't need a preseason if there is no break between seasons. Why not start the regular season before the previous season ends? Saves eliminated teams having to wait around doing nothing. The worst part of all this is I'm not really more ridiculous than Bettman.
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Jul 9, 2020 22:30:10 GMT -5
I’m praying they can complete this season....no thoughts of a next season unless it’s all played in Canada .....barring a miracle the US will be knee deep certainly into the fall and most likely into next year and that’s with them waking up in the next 10 seconds and doing what has to be done. Canada is still dealing with this 5months in with only 100k plus infections and we are doing everything right for the most part ....the US is 3 million infections and doing everything wrong ....how long is this mess going to last there??.
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jul 10, 2020 8:37:12 GMT -5
So, according to the RTP plan being voted on by the NHL and players, the last possible day for the SC Finals could be October 2nd with 2020-21 camps opening on November 17th. For the Cup winners who possibly will have slogged through five rounds of play-ins/playoffs, that is a very short layoff. A battle of attrition between injuries and keeping players COVID negative will be a big story throughout.
This also means it could take a few seasons to get the NHL season realigned back to its traditional dates. Honestly, I don’t want to watch hockey in the summer every year. Our summers are too short. There are tv contract logistics too. Right now the NHL competes with the NBA for tv time slots and viewers. It feasibly could be up against a bunch of other sports like MLB for parts of the next few seasons.
Never a dull moment ahead.
Oh yeah, play-in games are only possibly three weeks away. Hold my beer!
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 8, 2020 15:13:03 GMT -5
So, according to the RTP plan being voted on by the NHL and players, the last possible day for the SC Finals could be October 2nd with 2020-21 camps opening on November 17th. For the Cup winners who possibly will have slogged through five rounds of play-ins/playoffs, that is a very short layoff. A battle of attrition between injuries and keeping players COVID negative will be a big story throughout. This also means it could take a few seasons to get the NHL season realigned back to its traditional dates. Honestly, I don’t want to watch hockey in the summer every year. Our summers are too short. There are tv contract logistics too. Right now the NHL competes with the NBA for tv time slots and viewers. It feasibly could be up against a bunch of other sports like MLB for parts of the next few seasons. Never a dull moment ahead. Oh yeah, play-in games are only possibly three weeks away. Hold my beer! Most revenue in hockey comes from ticket sales, not TV. We watched the playoffs but who will watch a regular season game between Winnipeg and Nashville or Phoenix vs Florida? Actually not many people attend a game in Phoenix or Fort Lauderdale in the best of times. Good luck to free agents looking to score big.
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on Nov 18, 2020 19:04:44 GMT -5
Rumour has it teams are asking players for another 13% retention in salaries. Making 43%
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Nov 18, 2020 22:00:38 GMT -5
It’s all about the money and preserving the national tv deals as well as the local cable deals, most of which start to hold back money if the season is less than 70 games. The NHL knows it’s going to lose millions in 2021 due to no fans in the arenas, so preserving the tv money is all they have left.
The NBA is in the same boat. They are going to try and jam in a 72 game season from Dec 22 to May 16, no fans, but the NBA has a huge tv deals and they will do everything they can to earn that money.
Not playing is the worst option for everyone, so if you’re going to play you might as well try and get in as close to a full season as possible. 82 games seems unlikely but they will fight hard fo play 70 games
Too much money at stake
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 19, 2020 4:45:54 GMT -5
Millions are dying. Focus on playing 82 games.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 20, 2020 0:05:03 GMT -5
Right now, the odds of an NHL season are about the same as the odds of seeing a unicorn.
Put your hand up if you care about Mol$on losing several million.....
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 20, 2020 2:07:05 GMT -5
Right now, the odds of an NHL season are about the same as the odds of seeing a unicorn. Put your hand up if you care about Mol$on losing several million..... I kinda hope he sells.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Nov 20, 2020 10:08:29 GMT -5
Read Pat Hickey in The Gazette saying that the expectation is around a 50% pay cut for the players this year, whether that be through hold-backs or escrow. That sounds about right. Assuming the players are entitled to 50% of hockey-related revenues, and the revenues drop 50%....
The NBA isn't being as harsh on the players - I think the players successfully negotiated a maximum of 25% escrow for this year, even though revenues will drop by more than that, and they will deal with the gap in subsequent years. Bettman is basically asking the players to share the same amount of pain as the owners. He doesn't have a lot of good options, there just isn't the kind of guaranteed TV money in the NHL to offset the lost revenue from the arenas.
The NHL is going to lose a ton of money in 2021.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 20, 2020 10:44:38 GMT -5
I think the anger that is coming from the players is because they’ve already renegotiated the CBA to deal with the pandemic. And not six years ago, but six months ago, in July. That agreement was supposed to last until 2026. And yes, I get it, things have changed, but if the deal is no longer good for NHL owners that’s their fault, not the players. They negotiated a bad deal.
It’s no different than a player signing a six year deal, scoring 40 goals the next year and then deciding he wants to paid like a 40 goal scorer. Too bad, you signed the deal. Let me ask you this, if in two years the league is wildly successful, flush in TV money and with cities clamoring for expansion teams all over the place, is anybody going to be sympathetic with the players if they say “we want to renegotiate this deal we signed in good faith back in July, 2020?” My guess is no. People will tell the players to get better lawyers for the next round. You signed the deal, deal with it.
That’s essentially what’s happening now. Either the league, in its rush to finish last year, didn’t think it through far enough when they extended the CBA, or more likely, they just figured they can pressure the players into caving because the fans will ALWAYS side with the owners when it comes to money issues. I suspect it’s the latter, and that the league never had any intention of honoring the deal they signed in July. But then I am cynical that way.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Nov 20, 2020 11:59:41 GMT -5
Yeah, but the contracts aren't really guaranteed. The players can only get 50% of hockey revenues, so the only question is how to you take the hit. Say revenues drop 50% this year and return to normal in 2022. You could cut back/escrow player salaries by 25% this year and the adjust the remaining 25% over a few years to smooth out the pain, but either way the players are going to have to take 50% of the hit.
In fairness to the players, I think the NHL should do like the NBA and hold back 25% of salaries this year and then figure out how to deal the rest of it when things get back to normal. Taking a 50% pay cut in one year is pretty harsh, even for millionaires!
But again the TV money just isn't there in the NHL and I also think, as a group, the owners in the NHL aren't as rich as the owners in the NBA. Some certainly are, but for as valuable as the Habs are as a franchise it's not like they have a real sugar daddy like Mark Cuban or a true billionaire to just paper over the losses. Geoff Molson isn't worth anywhere close to that and neither are his partners. That's not to say the owners and the league can't figure it out, they will, but there will be real losses this year that need to be paid for.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 20, 2020 12:13:41 GMT -5
Yeah, but the contracts aren't really guaranteed. The players can only get 50% of hockey revenues, so the only question is how to you take the hit. Say revenues drop 50% this year and return to normal in 2022. You could cut back/escrow player salaries by 25% this year and the adjust the remaining 25% over a few years to smooth out the pain, but either way the players are going to have to take 50% of the hit. In fairness to the players, I think the NHL should do like the NBA and hold back 25% of salaries this year and then figure out how to deal the rest of it when things get back to normal. Taking a 50% pay cut in one year is pretty harsh, even for millionaires! But again the TV money just isn't there in the NHL and I also think, as a group, the owners in the NHL aren't as rich as the owners in the NBA. Some certainly are, but for as valuable as the Habs are as a franchise it's not like they have a real sugar daddy like Mark Cuban or a true billionaire to just paper over the losses. Geoff Molson isn't worth anywhere close to that and neither are his partners. That's not to say the owners and the league can't figure it out, they will, but there will be real losses this year that need to be paid for. But they already negotiated that. stories.featurd.io/2020/07/08/key-details-in-the-nhl-nhlpa-return-to-play-and-cba-extension-agreement/ The salary cap will remain at $81.5 million for 2020-21, along with a 20 percent cap on escrow deductions from the players' salaries. The players will also defer 10 percent of their salaries and signing bonuses for next season, to be repaid in three equal installments over the final three years of the deal.
...
The cap on escrow drops to between 14-to-18 percent in 2021-22, 10 percent in 2022-23, and six percent annually for each of the final three seasons. The CBA can be extended to 2027 if escrow payments still owed to the team owners for 2019-20 exceed $125 million by the end of the deal.Basically the original deal said that the players have until 2027 to pay the owners back. The owners are now trying to change the terms of the deal - by increasing the escrow - so that they get their money back sooner.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Nov 20, 2020 13:20:10 GMT -5
Fair enough. Maybe losses are worse than anticipated. Or the owners aren't as rich as they think they are.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 20, 2020 14:00:00 GMT -5
To be fair to those dastardly owners....
There is no way to forsee Acts of Gods or Force Majeure. These are legitimate grounds to nullify a contract.
On the other hand if the owners signed away those protections, they shouldn't be in the business of signing contracts.
The owners have the ultimate weapon. They can declare bankruptcy and pay no one. The hard assets would be under different ownership and all the players would have is office furniture...if that.
To expect owners to foot a huge chunk of the salaries with no revenue is too much. If i owned the Habs and had to take a loss on the facilities AND 50-60 million loss on salaries, i would file for court protection. If the players screamed that i signed a contract....yes sir, i did, in good faith, but it's beyond my control if the government ordered a shut down. I can NOT control the government. If you don't like it, I hear Siberian Hockey League is looking for NHL talent.
I don't actually care for either side right now. The owners should take a loss to keep essential staff and facilities AND the players can live without a salary for a year. If they can't because unemployment cheque can't support their lifestyle....i don't give a damn.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 20, 2020 14:05:09 GMT -5
Fair enough. Maybe losses are worse than anticipated. Or the owners aren't as rich as they think they are. It doesn't matter how rich the owner is.....every business has to stand on it's own. Business isn't some kind of twisted socialist utopia were owners empty their bank acounts to keep multi millionaires comfortable. Nor are multimillionaire players poor souls living in huts and worthy of empathy.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Nov 20, 2020 15:39:28 GMT -5
There is no way to forsee Acts of Gods or Force Majeure. These are legitimate grounds to nullify a contract. The NBA, which is by far the best run of the major sports leagues, was the only one with a force majeure clause in the CBA. They didn't exercise it but it's a powerful hammer in a negotiation.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 20, 2020 16:48:13 GMT -5
To be fair to those dastardly owners.... There is no way to forsee Acts of Gods or Force Majeure. These are legitimate grounds to nullify a contract. On the other hand if the owners signed away those protections, they shouldn't be in the business of signing contracts. The owners have the ultimate weapon. They can declare bankruptcy and pay no one. The hard assets would be under different ownership and all the players would have is office furniture...if that. To expect owners to foot a huge chunk of the salaries with no revenue is too much. If i owned the Habs and had to take a loss on the facilities AND 50-60 million loss on salaries, i would file for court protection. If the players screamed that i signed a contract....yes sir, i did, in good faith, but it's beyond my control if the government ordered a shut down. I can NOT control the government. If you don't like it, I hear Siberian Hockey League is looking for NHL talent. I don't actually care for either side right now. The owners should take a loss to keep essential staff and facilities AND the players can live without a salary for a year. If they can't because unemployment cheque can't support their lifestyle....i don't give a damn. Well the owners did sign it away, and that's kind of the point. The CBA extension was signed in good faith by both parties - with both parties knowing full well that the pandemic was going to get worse, not better - and now the owners want to change the already-agreed-upon contract. Let me ask this, let's say the players agree to the change, and then six months from now, when the playoffs are about to start and the players are no longer getting paid, the players come back and say "you know what? we want to change this CBA we just agreed to." They would be crucified, no? It would be outrageous. And yet that is EXACTLY what the owners are doing here. They've decided that they don't like the deal that they just signed. Buyer's remorse doesn't really stand up in any court of law, now does it? As for declaring bankruptcy, sure they could do that. Some may very well. But the question is will there be other billionaire owners seeking an opportunity to buy low? No matter how badly NHL teams are run there always seems to be somebody willing to step up and buy them, right? Especially if it's at a discount price? Is this the hill Geoff Molson wants to lose the franchise on? Economics may indeed force him to lose the team, but "I lost the team because I wanted an extra 6% in escrow" is not going to be a good entry on his Wikipedia page. It's a tricky game of chicken, for all sides concerned.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Nov 20, 2020 22:16:50 GMT -5
I am not quite sure what Bettman and the league's lawyers were thinking. Okay, in the midst of a raging global pandemic and all credible epidemiologists saying the second wave in autumn/winter will be bad news, so the NHL nevertheless did not bother to build these obvious risks into the CBA negotiated and signed in July?
That makes no sense. Unless, of course, they were negotiating in bad faith.
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on Nov 20, 2020 23:23:57 GMT -5
Right now, the odds of an NHL season are about the same as the odds of seeing a unicorn. Put your hand up if you care about Mol$on losing several million..... I think we will see a season but doubt Jan. 1st start date now. No season be devastating to both sides
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on Nov 20, 2020 23:28:06 GMT -5
Yeah, but the contracts aren't really guaranteed. The players can only get 50% of hockey revenues, so the only question is how to you take the hit. Say revenues drop 50% this year and return to normal in 2022. You could cut back/escrow player salaries by 25% this year and the adjust the remaining 25% over a few years to smooth out the pain, but either way the players are going to have to take 50% of the hit. In fairness to the players, I think the NHL should do like the NBA and hold back 25% of salaries this year and then figure out how to deal the rest of it when things get back to normal. Taking a 50% pay cut in one year is pretty harsh, even for millionaires! But again the TV money just isn't there in the NHL and I also think, as a group, the owners in the NHL aren't as rich as the owners in the NBA. Some certainly are, but for as valuable as the Habs are as a franchise it's not like they have a real sugar daddy like Mark Cuban or a true billionaire to just paper over the losses. Geoff Molson isn't worth anywhere close to that and neither are his partners. That's not to say the owners and the league can't figure it out, they will, but there will be real losses this year that need to be paid for. Numbers didn't add up back when they did new CBA. Don't know why they settled on 30%? I remember figuringit up and had 40%, if not 50%.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 21, 2020 6:16:43 GMT -5
To be fair to those dastardly owners.... There is no way to forsee Acts of Gods or Force Majeure. These are legitimate grounds to nullify a contract. On the other hand if the owners signed away those protections, they shouldn't be in the business of signing contracts. The owners have the ultimate weapon. They can declare bankruptcy and pay no one. The hard assets would be under different ownership and all the players would have is office furniture...if that. To expect owners to foot a huge chunk of the salaries with no revenue is too much. If i owned the Habs and had to take a loss on the facilities AND 50-60 million loss on salaries, i would file for court protection. If the players screamed that i signed a contract....yes sir, i did, in good faith, but it's beyond my control if the government ordered a shut down. I can NOT control the government. If you don't like it, I hear Siberian Hockey League is looking for NHL talent. I don't actually care for either side right now. The owners should take a loss to keep essential staff and facilities AND the players can live without a salary for a year. If they can't because unemployment cheque can't support their lifestyle....i don't give a damn. Well the owners did sign it away, and that's kind of the point. The CBA extension was signed in good faith by both parties - with both parties knowing full well that the pandemic was going to get worse, not better - and now the owners want to change the already-agreed-upon contract. Let me ask this, let's say the players agree to the change, and then six months from now, when the playoffs are about to start and the players are no longer getting paid, the players come back and say "you know what? we want to change this CBA we just agreed to." They would be crucified, no? It would be outrageous. And yet that is EXACTLY what the owners are doing here. They've decided that they don't like the deal that they just signed. Buyer's remorse doesn't really stand up in any court of law, now does it? As for declaring bankruptcy, sure they could do that. Some may very well. But the question is will there be other billionaire owners seeking an opportunity to buy low? No matter how badly NHL teams are run there always seems to be somebody willing to step up and buy them, right? Especially if it's at a discount price? Is this the hill Geoff Molson wants to lose the franchise on? Economics may indeed force him to lose the team, but "I lost the team because I wanted an extra 6% in escrow" is not going to be a good entry on his Wikipedia page. It's a tricky game of chicken, for all sides concerned. I think we're talking past one another. IF there is an NHL income, then by all means, share as the contract is written IF there is no income at any level, then the players can have a 100% share of that. 100% of nothing is....nothing. My take of no season is too bad...so sad. The owners can lose millions and too bad if they can't survive. Part of being a good businessman is planning for the bad years. Same for the players. If they live cheque to cheque when they are making millions, they fully and utterly deserve to suffer. Right now....the odds of an NHL season is about the same as me finding and shooting a unicorn. Mmmmmmm....tasty.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 21, 2020 6:25:27 GMT -5
There is no way to forsee Acts of Gods or Force Majeure. These are legitimate grounds to nullify a contract. The NBA, which is by far the best run of the major sports leagues, was the only one with a force majeure clause in the CBA. They didn't exercise it but it's a powerful hammer in a negotiation. What does that tell you about Buttman and the NHL? Those are standard clauses that don't even get "word by word" scrutiny by either party in ALL the negotiations that I've written or seen. From my level of signing a one year supply contract with a local company to reading through a binder size contract of a multi billion dollar multinational supplying a hundred billion dollar multinational. But not in the NHL signing a multi billion, multi year contract?
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 21, 2020 7:07:06 GMT -5
I am not quite sure what Bettman and the league's lawyers were thinking. Okay, in the midst of a raging global pandemic and all credible epidemiologists saying the second wave in autumn/winter will be bad news, so the NHL nevertheless did not bother to build these obvious risks into the CBA negotiated and signed in July? That makes no sense. Unless, of course, they were negotiating in bad faith. If Buttman is not the utter fool he expertly plays then the logic would be....the agreement would be specific to the income. "Share X amount of the income from Y and Z". If there is no income from Y and Z and the NHL did nothing in bad faith, then in effect, the NHL has a Force Majeure baked in. The Force Majeure clause is sometimes redundant and an extra safety blanket for both parties.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 21, 2020 7:10:17 GMT -5
BTW...Force Majeure covers Act of God AND human acts. Like three nut cases holding up a plywood sign and shutting down an entire railroad.
General definition is....extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties. Which of course includes epidemics.
But.....there is also limits. It's only limited to the duration of the event. So a CBA would still be in effect after the event is over. It also may not affect other clauses of the contract.
(PS...other then playing a handsome mysterious lawyer on tv and porn flicks, i am not a lawyer. My knowledge is based on legal advice pertaining to my business world.)
|
|