Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Taro T

The Looming Lockout: 2020

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, darksabre said:

I'm still trying to understand the language around this.

What does it mean to "re-open" the CBA?

If both parties choose not to re-open the CBA, what happens?

If the NHLPA elects to re-open the CBA now that the NHL has declined, what happens?

I don't really know, but reading the thread it seems that both sides had an opt-out option in the current CBA.  This basically means that either side could have terminated the current CBA early by opting-out.  Then the CBA is terminated early and negotiations begin, which would proably mean a lock-out in 2020.  The players could still opt-out now, which would terminate the current CBA in 2020.

I would be very surprised if the players opt-out now, which means the current CBA is still in place until it expires in 2022.  

Hopefully, a new CBA, or an extension, can be negotiated well in advance of the 2022 expiration date.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, darksabre said:

I'm still trying to understand the language around this.

What does it mean to "re-open" the CBA?

If both parties choose not to re-open the CBA, what happens?

If the NHLPA elects to re-open the CBA now that the NHL has declined, what happens?

It’s worded differently, but kinda works like the CBA was a seven-year (?) deal with an option to expand two years by mutual agreement. The NHL has agreed to pick up the option and we are waiting to see if the PA will do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dudacek said:

It’s worded differently, but kinda works like the CBA was a seven-year (?) deal with an option to expand two years by mutual agreement. The NHL has agreed to pick up the option and we are waiting to see if the PA will do the same.

Ah, I see. So basically they are voting on whether to kick the can down the road a few more years?

I was under the impression there was a bunch of stuff both sides wanted to work out in a new CBA. Why would they take the option?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Ah, I see. So basically they are voting on whether to kick the can down the road a few more years?

I was under the impression there was a bunch of stuff both sides wanted to work out in a new CBA. Why would they take the option?

To your 1st Q:  Pretty much.  The CBA technically runs through the '21-'22 season.  Both sides can choose to end it early (reopen the agreement) at the end of this season.  The league has said they won't reopen it early.  The players now have just over 2 weeks to choose to renegotiate it this off-season or live with it for 2 more years.

To your 2nd Q: pretty sure the owners feel the league is gaining some traction and don't want to lose 1/2 a year right before it expands killing momentum.  They don't want a stoppage right before they negotiate a new deal for US broadcasting rights.  And, now should the players opt to re-open, they're the bad guys when the owners lock them out.

Now, we get to see how loose a cannon Fehr is.  Hoping he doesn't reopen now.  Really doubt the majority of players have built up war chests to last a potential full season work stoppage, and if they aren't there the owners will win the next lockout like the last 2.  (Though, considering how much the cap has gone up the past 12 years and the league will have expanded by 46 full time player jobs next year, a case can be made both sides won in '05.)

And should the players not opt out, I'd expect there'd actually be a chance they don't get locked out in '22.  ( wouldn't put any money on it, though). Which would really be astounding considering the heads of both groups really don't like each other.

 

  • Thanks (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Taro T said:

the heads of both groups really don't like each other

Both of them are just so obsolete.  Get rid of them.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is also a show of faith by the owners. They can’t risk a lockout the second year of expansion. I would imagine the Seattle owner would be pretty pissed. I’m sure they’ve discussed this in depths. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Taro T said:

To your 1st Q:  Pretty much.  The CBA technically runs through the '21-'22 season.  Both sides can choose to end it early (reopen the agreement) at the end of this season.  The league has said they won't reopen it early.  The players now have just over 2 weeks to choose to renegotiate it this off-season or live with it for 2 more years.

To your 2nd Q: pretty sure the owners feel the league is gaining some traction and don't want to lose 1/2 a year right before it expands killing momentum.  They don't want a stoppage right before they negotiate a new deal for US broadcasting rights.  And, now should the players opt to re-open, they're the bad guys when the owners lock them out.

Now, we get to see how loose a cannon Fehr is.  Hoping he doesn't reopen now.  Really doubt the majority of players have built up war chests to last a potential full season work stoppage, and if they aren't there the owners will win the next lockout like the last 2.  (Though, considering how much the cap has gone up the past 12 years and the league will have expanded by 46 full time player jobs next year, a case can be made both sides won in '05.)

And should the players not opt out, I'd expect there'd actually be a chance they don't get locked out in '22.  ( wouldn't put any money on it, though). Which would really be astounding considering the heads of both groups really don't like each other.

 

Why is it necessarily a lockout and not a strike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thorny said:

Why is it necessarily a lockout and not a strike?

Very simply because the players make their money in the regular season and the owners make their real money in the playoffs and they've already gotten most of the ticket revenue they'll get for whenever games resume.

The owners are flush early and the networks don't value the regular season nearly as much as the playoffs and the players (except those with signing bonuses) haven't been paid in months.  Lockouts at the beginning of the year work to owners advantage.

The very 1st NHL work stoppage was a strike about 1 month before the end of the regular season.  The owners got killed in that negotiation (though THN reported at the time that the owners won <_<) and Gil Stein lost his job as League President and Gary Bettman was brought in as the 1st Commisioner.

The owners will ALWAYS lock the players out again if a deal isn't in place by opening night rather than go through a strike again.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

That would be such a terrible look if they do.

I really think that they will die on the escrow hill in 2022.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

It blows my mind that players still don't understand escrow. 

It's incredibly sad. Like, if I were a player and someone let me comment in that article, I'd be embarrassed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, darksabre said:

It's incredibly sad. Like, if I were a player and someone let me comment in that article, I'd be embarrassed.

The only way it makes any sense is if it's a political plot to paint the hard cap as unfair/immoral as a prelude to targeting the cap. But I don't think even a Don Fehr-led association is crazy enough to go that route. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

The only way it makes any sense is if it's a political plot to paint the hard cap as unfair/immoral as a prelude to targeting the cap. But I don't think even a Don Fehr-led association is crazy enough to go that route. 

IF the players opt out at this time, they almost HAVE to make the non-starter of getting rid of the hard cap as their reason.

"Fixing" escrow isn't worth going to the brink and losing (ultimately ~) 1/2 a season.  You don't go nuclear with the intention of tinkering.  (And adjusting the escalator &  an associated adjustment to escrow is tinkering IMHO.)

And fairly certain that was their goal heading into the last lockout.  It didn't work out then; it won't work this time.  Pretty sure since Fehr took over the NHLPA, only 1 of the 'big 4" hasn't been able to negotiate a new labor contract without a work stoppage.

And would be surprised if the owners agreed to let the players delay the decision to opt out of not.  Can't see what they gain by doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Question: if there is a lockout and teams get compliance buyouts again, will Jbot buyout Okposo? 

I don’t think it will take a lockout for there to be a compliance buyout in the new CBA. I think it would likely be smart for them to, but the new CBA won’t take effect until 2022 so who knows. He could be on the LTIR by then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Question: if there is a lockout and teams get compliance buyouts again, will Jbot buyout Okposo? 

That's been my expectation.  Between health issues and declining production, it seems that would be in both parties best interest.

2 hours ago, #freejame said:

I don’t think it will take a lockout for there to be a compliance buyout in the new CBA. I think it would likely be smart for them to, but the new CBA won’t take effect until 2022 so who knows. He could be on the LTIR by then. 

The new CBA could take effect as soon as October 2020.  It only delays until 2022 if the players don't reopen by the 15th.

And you are right, it won't necessarily take a lockout to add a new round of compliance buyouts.  It will simply take a new CBA (which most expect will be preceded by a lockout).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Taro T said:

That's been my expectation.  Between health issues and declining production, it seems that would be in both parties best interest.

The new CBA could take effect as soon as October 2020.  It only delays until 2022 if the players don't reopen by the 15th.

And you are right, it won't necessarily take a lockout to add a new round of compliance buyouts.  It will simply take a new CBA (which most expect will be preceded by a lockout).

lebrun reporting today that the PA has broached a three-year extension on top of 2022 if they can address escrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Question: if there is a lockout and teams get compliance buyouts again, will Jbot buyout Okposo? 

Of course. It would the easiest decision Botterill has ever had to make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Taro T said:

That's been my expectation.  Between health issues and declining production, it seems that would be in both parties best interest.

The new CBA could take effect as soon as October 2020.  It only delays until 2022 if the players don't reopen by the 15th.

And you are right, it won't necessarily take a lockout to add a new round of compliance buyouts.  It will simply take a new CBA (which most expect will be preceded by a lockout).

I’m aware of the players option, I’m just hopeful they won’t opt-out so am using language that pretends a lock-out won’t be happening anytime soon. 

38 minutes ago, dudacek said:

lebrun reporting today that the PA has broached a three-year extension on top of 2022 if they can address escrow.

Like providing classes that explain what it is so they stop complaining?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, dudacek said:

lebrun reporting today that the PA has broached a three-year extension on top of 2022 if they can address escrow.

There are 2 ready "fixes" to the escrow issue.  Trouble is, doubt that both sides will agree to either.

1.  Reduce / eliminate the escalator.  Players won't like that as there won't be as much room (on paper) for teams to add FA's and / or extend their own players.  Which will (on paper) limit salaried.  (It doesn't actually limit them because the players receive 50% of defined HRR regardless of whether the total (on paper) contractual obligations to players is 45% or 55% or whatever other %age happens to show up on paper.)

2. Make the cap a soft cap.  Owners will never go for it.

There is a third option, which probably neither side will like: reducing the spread of allowable team salaries (currently ~$16MM).  That would force lower income teams to have cap payrolls closer to the big spenders and would also (in a season or 2) reduce the payroll room available for new contracts.

One other item, which doesn't really "address" escrow is players are claiming it takes up to 3 years to get their portion of the withheld escrow payments after the books have been audited.  If that's true, the owners should be able to clear that process sooner.  But that doesn't seem to be the crux of the players issue with escrow.

And, until I read that the players decided to keep the current CBA in place into 2022, I will consider that offer to be posturing for the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...