The Looming Lockout: 2020

[Taro T]

32 minutes ago, eman said:

Plus, we'll see how the "re-treads" do with their new clubs. Maybe the coaching candidates were out there but for whatever reason weren't in the picture for this franchise. Let's see how Quenneville does in Florida, Vigneault in Philly and McLellan in L.A. I'm also liking that Patrick Roy is interviewing for the Ottawa head coaching job. I hope he gets it. He'll be another fiery "Michel Bergeron- type". I think he may be a really good choice for them. Wouldn't have minded him here also. It would be seriously sad if Philly, L.A & Florida eclipse the Sabres next season.  

You're right.  Roy fits exactly what the Otters want to do this year and next.  They're in lose now mode & collect assets to come back after the lockout.  He's not the perfect Teddy Nolan fit, but darn close.  ;)

[tom webster]

You’ve posted at least twice about a looming lockout. I see get little possibility of that. Strike maybe? The owners love this deal. Players want to get rid of, or change formula of escrow and want to go to Olympics. There’s a deal to be made.

[Taro T]

54 minutes ago, tom webster said:

You’ve posted at least twice about a looming lockout. I see get little possibility of that. Strike maybe? The owners love this deal. Players want to get rid of, or change formula of escrow and want to go to Olympics. There’s a deal to be made.

Unless a deal is made before the '20-'21 season begins, there WILL be a lockout.

Hope that's wrong, & will be very happy if it is, but don't see any way these 2 groups can agree before getting there.  

The reason there will be a lockout, rather than a strike is the timing of when the players stand to lose their money (throughout the season) & when the owners/ their main partner (the players should be the main partner, but the networks are in reality) make their big money - playoffs.  The players make jack in the playoffs; the owners have already collected ST revenue by October & the networks don't make anything in October - they make their money in May & June.

So, the owners have leverage early in the season, & that actually builds the longer the players go without paychecks.  Which is why these things normally get resolved just after Christmas.

If the owners let the players play w/out a CBA, then they give the players more leverage with time.  They did that once & will NEVER do it again.  I don't doubt the owners would be fine keeping this CBA in place, but believe the big market owners believe it's worth a month or 2 of season to get what they consider a better deal & also expect the players won't want to stay at status quo either.  Unfortunately, neither side feels desperation in September, though they should, because the money that evaporates with each unplayed game NEVER comes back.

Really thought the 2 sides could truly work together after the completely lost season, but they couldn't & really doubt they ever truly will.  Eagleson & the old guard owners napalmed that bridge long ago.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Taro T

[spndnchz]

I have

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Unless a deal is made before the '20-'21 season begins, there WILL be a lockout.

Hope that's wrong, & will be very happy if it is, but don't see any way these 2 groups can agree before getting there.  

The reason there will be a lockout, rather than a strike is the timing of when the players stand to lose their money (throughout the season) & when the owners/ their main partner (the players should be the main partner, but the networks are in reality) make their big money - playoffs.  The players make jack in the playoffs; the owners have already collected ST revenue by October & the networks don't make anything in October - they make their money in May & June.

So, the owners have leverage early in the season, & that actually builds the longer the players go without paychecks.  Which is why these things normally get resolved just after Christmas.

If the owners let the players play w/out a CBA, then they give the players more leverage with time.  They did that once & will NEVER do it again.  I don't doubt the owners would be fine keeping this CBA in place, but believe the big market owners believe it's worth a month or 2 of season to get what they consider a better deal & also expect the players won't want to stay at status quo either.  Unfortunately, neither side feels desperation in September, though they should, because the money that evaporates with each unplayed game NEVER comes back.

Really thought the 2 sides could truly work together after the completely lost season, but they couldn't & really doubt they ever truly will.  Eagleson & the old guard owners napalmed that bridge long ago.

I’ve not looked into it but if you could... what was wrong with the last deal? From an and/or player perspective. I’ve been out of the negotiation thing for a year or 2. I thought it was quite fair.  Except the withholding rule. 

[Taro T]

5 hours ago, spndnchz said:

I have

I’ve not looked into it but if you could... what was wrong with the last deal? From an and/or player perspective. I’ve been out of the negotiation thing for a year or 2. I thought it was quite fair.  Except the withholding rule. 

From MY perspective, not a damn thing. But I thought the prior deal was pretty good too, but that didn't keep them from losing ~32 games the last time.

Until these guys have a non-acrimonious negotiation, I won't expect one.  And I'll expect a lockout until they finally avoid one.

[tom webster]

15 hours ago, Taro T said:

Unless a deal is made before the '20-'21 season begins, there WILL be a lockout.

Hope that's wrong, & will be very happy if it is, but don't see any way these 2 groups can agree before getting there.  

The reason there will be a lockout, rather than a strike is the timing of when the players stand to lose their money (throughout the season) & when the owners/ their main partner (the players should be the main partner, but the networks are in reality) make their big money - playoffs.  The players make jack in the playoffs; the owners have already collected ST revenue by October & the networks don't make anything in October - they make their money in May & June.

So, the owners have leverage early in the season, & that actually builds the longer the players go without paychecks.  Which is why these things normally get resolved just after Christmas.

If the owners let the players play w/out a CBA, then they give the players more leverage with time.  They did that once & will NEVER do it again.  I don't doubt the owners would be fine keeping this CBA in place, but believe the big market owners believe it's worth a month or 2 of season to get what they consider a better deal & also expect the players won't want to stay at status quo either.  Unfortunately, neither side feels desperation in September, though they should, because the money that evaporates with each unplayed game NEVER comes back.

Really thought the 2 sides could truly work together after the completely lost season, but they couldn't & really doubt they ever truly will.  Eagleson & the old guard owners napalmed that bridge long ago.

Of course, I defer to you with matters to do with CBA but I really think they get this done this time. It really comes down to a better, more inclusive definition of hockey related revenue and the owners won’t give up easy but they’ll move the mark just enough.

[Marvin]

Donald Fehr is still the head of the NHLPA.  I estimate there is negative ten per cent chance that a lockout is avoided.

[Taro T]

14 hours ago, tom webster said:

Of course, I defer to you with matters to do with CBA but I really think they get this done this time. It really comes down to a better, more inclusive definition of hockey related revenue and the owners won’t give up easy but they’ll move the mark just enough.

And your expectation that the owners will move to get a deal done suggests that the players won't agree before the season starts unless the owners do move.  They won't.  And for that reason, the players won't move either.  Welcome to the new lockout; same as the old lockout and just as justified.

Again, the owners have the leverage in October & it grows through January.  Then all bets are off.

 

[Radar]

Lockout if they want. Seasons too long anyway. Fortunately I'm into football more until December but for those not football fans it's, I'm sure, more frustrating. Frankly these billionaire owners and multimillionaire players irk me mire than missing games to watch . Money and greed has taken a lot of passion for sports out of me. If they play I'll watch and if they don't so be it. I quit spending money on it long ago. Won't even advertise free for them by wearing their garb.

[kas23]

26 minutes ago, Radar said:

Lockout if they want. Seasons too long anyway. Fortunately I'm into football more until December but for those not football fans it's, I'm sure, more frustrating. Frankly these billionaire owners and multimillionaire players irk me mire than missing games to watch . Money and greed has taken a lot of passion for sports out of me. If they play I'll watch and if they don't so be it. I quit spending money on it long ago. Won't even advertise free for them by wearing their garb.

This brings up an interesting point. Is the NHL season too long? To me, it seems like there are 2 parts to the current season. The 1st half and 2nd half, where the 2nd half is the only one that means anything. Then the playoffs get stretched-out for another 2 months. But, the reasoning behind this has to do with money. More games played, more money made. And it goes both ways too. I’m not sure the players would want to take a substantial pay cut if the season was shortened. 

[shrader]

Post discussing hockey related revenue followed up immediately by posts saying the season should/could be shortened.  Complete 180s are fun.

[Curt]

Could you guys start are 2020 NHL Lockout thread, instead of discussing a possible lockout in the Ralph Krueger thread?

Edited May 21, 2019 by Curtisp5286

[Eleven]

8 minutes ago, Curtisp5286 said:

Could you guys start are 2020 NHL Lockout thread, instead of discussing a possible lockout in the Ralph Krueger thread?

Good idea.

[Eleven]

Personally, with Fehr at the helm, I don't see the season starting on time in 2020.  I also don't understand why they aren't at the bargaining table right now.

[Sabel79]

Fehr or not, ownership is utterly devoid of good faith and will, again, cut their collective noses off to spite their collective faces, forfeiting legitimate avenues to increase revenues because they have a hard-on for smiting the PA.  They'll let the PA opt out and pretend they're the good guys, and crash the business into the ground yet again so they can feel like they got a win after we lose at least half a season.  Wash, rinse, repeat. 

It hasn't happened yet and I'm already angry about it.  Ugh. 

[Doohicksie]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

Personally, with Fehr at the helm, I don't see the season starting on time in 2020.

This is the nature of negotiations, labor or otherwise:  the people sent to do negotiations are the ones perceived to get the best deal for their side, which turns out to be the most radical, rabid version of their side.

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, Eleven said:

Personally, with Fehr at the helm, I don't see the season starting on time in 2020.  I also don't understand why they aren't at the bargaining table right now.

You know why they aren't at the table now: because thereis no urgency at present & neither side trusts the other.  Once pain starts to get felt, urgency comes in.  The players feel pain with each missed paycheck & they feel the urgency to make a deal around Christmas.  The owners feel urgency only when the go/no go decision for whether they can get enough games in to hold the playoffs is near; which is usually around late January.

I really believe that had Saskin not gone paranoid at Chelios' movement to oust him; he could've survived the challenge & that Saskin and Daly could have worked together further to build on the true partnership they'd started back in '05.

Oh what might have been.

[Taro T]

5 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

Fehr or not, ownership is utterly devoid of good faith and will, again, cut their collective noses off to spite their collective faces, forfeiting legitimate avenues to increase revenues because they have a hard-on for smiting the PA.  They'll let the PA opt out and pretend they're the good guys, and crash the business into the ground yet again so they can feel like they got a win after we lose at least half a season.  Wash, rinse, repeat. 

It hasn't happened yet and I'm already angry about it.  Ugh. 

Not arguing, but curious, what "legitimate avenues to increase revenues" have the owners passed on?

[Sabel79]

51 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Not arguing, but curious, what "legitimate avenues to increase revenues" have the owners passed on?

I worded that poorly.  I don’t think there’s a money tree out there they’re missing, but just suggesting there’s more to be gained from actually operating the league and marketing it correctly (sell tickets etc., get a better tv deal involving networks you don’t need a Sherpa to find in the channel listings, go to the Olympics or, failing that, work with the IIHF to put a real World Cup on... that sort of thing) than there is attempting to wring more and more out of the players.  They pretty much set the bar at 50/50.  Go forward from there.  

 

[Taro T]

10 minutes ago, Sabel79 said:

I worded that poorly.  I don’t think there’s a money tree out there they’re missing, but just suggesting there’s more to be gained from actually operating the league and marketing it correctly (sell tickets etc., get a better tv deal involving networks you don’t need a Sherpa to find in the channel listings, go to the Olympics or, failing that, work with the IIHF to put a real World Cup on... that sort of thing) than there is attempting to wring more and more out of the players.  They pretty much set the bar at 50/50.  Go forward from there.  

 

Thanks for the clarification.

[mjd1001]

On 5/21/2019 at 9:43 AM, kas23 said:

This brings up an interesting point. Is the NHL season too long? To me, it seems like there are 2 parts to the current season. The 1st half and 2nd half, where the 2nd half is the only one that means anything. Then the playoffs get stretched-out for another 2 months. But, the reasoning behind this has to do with money. More games played, more money made. And it goes both ways too. I’m not sure the players would want to take a substantial pay cut if the season was shortened. 

Most seasons are too long. Football (NFL) I could use more of...give me the 18 game regular season there.

Golf I think is good, esp this year where they spread the majors out a bit.  I could do without the playoffs/fedex cup though or whatever they call it.

But NHL?  Too long. Regular season should be at least 10 games less..maybe more...and the reg season should end 3-4 weeks earlier (start it a week earlier if you must also)

NBA?  Same as NHL above

MLB?   I used to be a big fan but haven't watched a full game in a few years and hardly even follow the standings anymore, but the season could be cut by 20-30 games at least.

Nascar? Wow.  like MLB, I used to follow it a lot but hardly anymore (although I still watch a few races).  Other than Daytona, no track should have more than 1 race, that would get rid of what...6-8 races a year?  Ditch the playoff system there too.

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by mjd1001

[Marvin]

The problem you have with the NHL and the NBA is that you have to contend with the NFL, which is targetting Presidents' Day weekend eventually for the Super Bowl because Baseball keeps running later and later -- and they are targetting Veterans' Day weekend for the end of the World Series.  They probably figure the best idea is to run hockey and hoops playoffs during baseball's "Dog Days" until NFL training camps in June/July.

 

[sweetlou]

I would be for shortening the preseason to 4 games, and shortening the regular season by 8 games.  Training camp would start at the beginning of October. You have one week of camp before two weeks of preseason games.  Season would start around 20th of October.  Teams would still have a "bye" week during January built around the All-Star game.  No games three days before the All-Star game and no games until four days after.  That way everyone including the All-Stars have a little break.  Season would still  end in beginning of April.  The reduced schedule does two things.  It cuts back on the back to back games and makes the pay for each game go up for players.  This would also help potentially cut back on injuries and give coaches more practice time during the season.  The salaries could remain relatively the same since they are now playing less games, owners could argue not increasing salaries because they would be losing revenue on lost ticket and concession sales.  

Where the owners would get the return on lost revenue is by maxing contracts at five years. I would also like to see contracts not guaranteed after the third year. I don't think it will ever happen, but I don't like how owners have to continue to pay for players who either start to suck or get injured half way through long contracts.  Instead of buy-outs you can just cut the player.  Players who get hurt have insurance, the team should not be on the hook.

[Taro T]

There was an article by Joshua Kloke in today's Athletic regarding comments made by Don Fehr at the NHLPA's annual golf tournament.

Key points: Fehr expects to know when formal negotiations would be slated to begin sometime after mid-August.  (My guess would be the 1st formal meeting would be held in December or January w/ nothing real to follow for a couple more months.)

Fehr (not surprisingly) said reducing escrow & adjusting what gets included as HRR are key points to the players.  He expects the owners' response to lowering escrow would be the non-starter of reducing the players portion of HRR.  (Currently a 50-50 split.)

Also mentions he'd expect the next World Cup of Hockey to happen February '21, September '22, or February '22.  Which indicates IMHO that he sees a reasonable likelihood of no NHLers at the '22 Olympics (no way do NHLers do both around the same season).  It also is likely he sees the WCoH as a carrot to the owners in a negotiation which (theoretically) could keep the next lockout shorter than the last 1.  Because no chance they'd breakup for 3 weeks in February an NHL season starting later than early November.  IMO would still be surprised to see the '20 portion of the '20-'21 season played.

Nothing particularly earth shattering here, but none the less interesting.

https://theathletic.com/1052452/2019/06/28/nhlpa-exec-donald-fehr-on-hot-topics-of-salary-cap-offer-sheets-and-more/

[Radar]

There was a time I could get upset with a lockout but now I really don't care much. Both sides turn me off. No hockey? My life doesn't get upset all that much. If they play I'll watch. If they don't I've got other things in my life. Probably the older I've got the less I care.