NHL business

[Megaterio Llamas]

Hey, long established businesses here in my village are going belly up one after the next. The NHL can't stay afloat on tv revenue, they could be goners too.

Is H.B. only a village Meg? In alberia a village is less than 1k residents

I'm not sure what the pop is here but it's about to probably double when the mega Sewell's development is finished and ruins Horseshoe Bay. Won't be a village then...

[Megaterio Llamas]

Just based on the tone from Donald Fehr and some of the comments I've seen floating around from certain players it's looking increasingly to me like there won't be a season. The players quotes I have read seem to imply a complete divorce from reality on their part. They can all sit for five years the way I'm feeling right now and in the event that the season is cancelled I expect the court of public opinion will judge them harshly.

If the NBA plays and Hockey players don't, they can kiss their US broadcasting contract good-bye. Sportsnet might say f**k you too.
We're all fighting away, trying to make things work. Entertainment and sports are no different, it all meshes together.

Hey, long established businesses here in my village are going belly up one after the next. The NHL can't stay afloat on tv revenue, they could be goners too.

This is really not a good look for the League, and suggests that the CBA was not negotiated in good faith. The league pushed hard for the CBA to be co-signed with the Return to Play deal, they made their deadline and had a great playoffs. Now, 3 months of COVID behaving exactly as predicted since at least April (big-ass second wave, vaccine near but not ready, still restrictions on gatherings), they're going to threaten the players with a flat-cap to try to change the terms of the barely-dry deal?

Apparently (can't recall where I read it, maybe Friedman?) the League is desperate to play this season and bring the bad NBC deal to an end. If the season is cancelled, the NBC deal rolls over another year.

So that means, in the period that the League is threatening a flat cap, there will be a new US TV deal and a new Franchise, which is juicing HRR by $650 million already plus another likely-sold out venue 41 nights a year.

By the bye, HRR in 2018/19 was $5.1 billion, that that expansion fee alone is a 13% boost in revenue. Factor in the US TV deal projected to rise by $150 million to $250 million, and if Seattle contributes leage average HRR ($164 million), that's basically an extra billion dollars in HRR, which is factored into the cap in year 2021/22.

I'm 100% with the players on this - stick to the deal (which Bettman imo is acknowledging is within their power), and let the chips fall where they may in the next 6 years of cap calculations.

I'm not. Fuck em. I hope they sit for a few years at least. Go get real jobs ya bunch of self-entitled babies.

[Strangelove]

Just based on the tone from Donald Fehr and some of the comments I've seen floating around from certain players it's looking increasingly to me like there won't be a season. The players quotes I have read seem to imply a complete divorce from reality on their part. They can all sit for five years the way I'm feeling right now and in the event that the season is cancelled I expect the court of public opinion will judge them harshly.

If the NBA plays and Hockey players don't, they can kiss their US broadcasting contract good-bye. Sportsnet might say f**k you too.
We're all fighting away, trying to make things work. Entertainment and sports are no different, it all meshes together.

Hey, long established businesses here in my village are going belly up one after the next. The NHL can't stay afloat on tv revenue, they could be goners too.

This is really not a good look for the League, and suggests that the CBA was not negotiated in good faith. The league pushed hard for the CBA to be co-signed with the Return to Play deal, they made their deadline and had a great playoffs. Now, 3 months of COVID behaving exactly as predicted since at least April (big-ass second wave, vaccine near but not ready, still restrictions on gatherings), they're going to threaten the players with a flat-cap to try to change the terms of the barely-dry deal?

Apparently (can't recall where I read it, maybe Friedman?) the League is desperate to play this season and bring the bad NBC deal to an end. If the season is cancelled, the NBC deal rolls over another year.

So that means, in the period that the League is threatening a flat cap, there will be a new US TV deal and a new Franchise, which is juicing HRR by $650 million already plus another likely-sold out venue 41 nights a year.

By the bye, HRR in 2018/19 was $5.1 billion, that that expansion fee alone is a 13% boost in revenue. Factor in the US TV deal projected to rise by $150 million to $250 million, and if Seattle contributes leage average HRR ($164 million), that's basically an extra billion dollars in HRR, which is factored into the cap in year 2021/22.

I'm 100% with the players on this - stick to the deal (which Bettman imo is acknowledging is within their power), and let the chips fall where they may in the next 6 years of cap calculations.

The league is not "threatening a flat cap".

The new CBA dictates the cap will be flat until revenues reach $3.3Billion

... after which increases are specified.

The NHL is not trying to change that.

In fact the NHLPA prefers a lower cap these days.

(which is why they've been cutting down the inflator)

The cap has been about 10% too high for years now... which leads to escrow payments... which the players hate.

And the players' refusal to share more of the up-front costs of a falling revenue COVID season

... ensures the cap will remain flat (or flat-ish) for years to come.

Whatever... Cap goes up... Cap goes down... players still get the exact same amount of cashola: 50% of revenues.

The players are set to receive way more than they should this coming season.

That money has to be paid back in the future because they are only entitled to 50% of revenues.

Today's players want more than they are entitled to... and they want players of the future to pay that back.

It's greed, plain and simple.

And that greed could possibly result in the NHL deciding to cancel the season.

So... 50% of a coupla billion... or 50% of nothing. Well players?

This would make the players greedy and stupid, a bad combination.

Also ESQ, expansion fees in and of themselves do not affect revenues, they are not included in HRR.

[ESQ]

Also ESQ, expansion fees in and of themselves do not affect revenues, they are not included in HRR.

Really? Well, in that case, in particular fuck the owners!

Today's players want more than they are entitled to... and they want players of the future to pay that back.

Yessss, and said players are the ones voting on kicking themselves in the ass. Do you think its likely?

Its pretty clear that the CBA extension MOU clearly envisions this scenario - revenues being 60% of where they were in 2018/19 (3.3 billion vs. 5.2 billion). They can't just "cancel" the season - which would be a lockout - and force majeure would obviously not apply to a CBA negotiated during a global pandemic, to address the pandemic-caused problems specifically.

I don't think the NHL has any cards to play other than the threat of higher escrow in later years - oh wait, no they don't, because they agreed to cap escrow in years 4-6 as part of the bargain.

Everything the league is now "worried" about - revenues remaining low - is addressed in the CBA. Revenues don't hit $3.3 bil? Then escrow in 21/22 climbs to 18%.

I'm really surprised that the bulk of the board is on the owner's side in this. I guess maybe because it was a CBA extension negotiated without much conflict, and no lockout/strike, we give the owners more of the benefit of the doubt to change the deal 6 months later?

Especially you Doc - I mean, even Erin O'Toole has come out in favour of stronger unions!

[Cherry Picker]

I think the players have a case that they were needlessly locked out if the owners cancel the season, but I have no idea if they would win that case over the force majeure. They probably shouldn’t risk losing. They have an arbitrator that both sides agreed on. They should probably check with him before they throw away the season. They could all compromise, but the odds of that are getting lower each day.

[Strangelove]

They can't just "cancel" the season - which would be a lockout - and force majeure would obviously not apply to a CBA negotiated during a global pandemic, to address the pandemic-caused problems specifically.

This is incorrect.

The MOU never promised the 2020-21 season would be played.

In fact a force majeure was purposely written into the MOU for this coming season

... in case fan attendance was severely limited or there were major travel problems due to Covid.

They did not include an FM for the rest of the 2019-20 season, but they made damn sure they had one for 2020-21

... just in case the league felt they had to cancel the season.

And it's not a union in the classical sense, unions are for the working class.

Not for spoiled brats who play a game for an average salary of $3.5M+

[ESQ]

They can't just "cancel" the season - which would be a lockout - and force majeure would obviously not apply to a CBA negotiated during a global pandemic, to address the pandemic-caused problems specifically.

This is incorrect.

The MOU never promised the 2020-21 season would be played.

In fact a force majeure was purposely written into the MOU for this coming season

... in case fan attendance was severely limited or there were major travel problems due to Covid.

Where, please? All I see is:

The parties agree to negotiate in good faith regarding the 2020/21 calendar and schedule.

They did not include an FM for the rest of the 2019-20 season, but they made damn sure they had one for 2020-21

... just in case the league felt they had to cancel the season.

Having read through the whole thing now, I don't see anywhere in there that League left the door open for cancellation due to COVID. The only issue left for negotiation is "Calendar and Schedule". And that negotiation must be in good faith.

Looking more closely, the League didn't even get the right to pro-rate salaries in 20/21, so whether its a 40 game season or a full 82, they have to pay the full nut minus deferral and escrow.

Ya, I'm just not seeing how the League is going to win this one, other than by appealing to the players to give up more of their salary so that the kids coming along in 4, 5, and 6 years get less escrow.

[Topper]

An MOU has little legal standing. It is a snap shot of negotiations, not a contract.

[Strangelove]

They can't just "cancel" the season - which would be a lockout - and force majeure would obviously not apply to a CBA negotiated during a global pandemic, to address the pandemic-caused problems specifically.

This is incorrect.

The MOU never promised the 2020-21 season would be played.

In fact a force majeure was purposely written into the MOU for this coming season

... in case fan attendance was severely limited or their were major travel problems due to Covid.

Where, please?

Well it was late and I kinda misspoke last night.

Let me explain...

I think you realize that the new CBA hasn't been drawn up yet right?

What we have then is the old CBA + any-and-all-changes (AKA the MOU).

In the old CBA, force majeure is covered in Article 5 on page 13 and Section 17 Exhibit 1 on page 319.

So those clauses in the old CBA stand... except for any modifications made in the MOU.

There is a modification to not invoke Section 17 for last season.

But for the 2020-21 season, only Section 17(c) is modified.

This means Section 17(a) and 17(b) are in full force.

This means force majeure is available to the NHL this season.

(they can legally cancel the season if Covid-effects limit attendance/travel/games-played/etc)

Also pro-rated salaries (or deferment increase) in a partial season would have to happen or the league could choose to cancel the season.

The league would totally "win this one" so the sooner the players get with the program and stop being greedy/stupid, the better!

[SKYO]

Dreger:

Sources say there will be no more discussions on proposed financial changes to the MOU outlining the terms of the CBA.

Sunday the NHLPA proposed more deferred money, but didn’t include an increase in escrow percentage at any point.

Focus now on a mid Jan start to season.

LeBrun:

Both sides targeting Jan. 13 start to season in order to get 56-game sked but even with financials no longer an issue as Dreger first reported, still some work to be done on protocols, schedule, critical date, etc, plus subject to NHL BOG and NHLPA executive board approval

https://russianmachineneverbreaks.com/2 ... -schedule/

[SKYO]

Hell muthafuckin' yeah!!

Dreger:

There is a working agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA.

The economic proposal the NHL made to the NHLPA a few week ago was a stand-alone and isn’t tied to season logistics.

This is how both sides move to get the season going.

[ESQ]

The league would totally "win this one" so the sooner the players get with the program and stop being greedy/stupid, the better!

Hell muthafuckin' yeah!!

Dreger:

There is a working agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA.

The economic proposal the NHL made to the NHLPA a few week ago was a stand-alone and isn’t tied to season logistics.

This is how both sides move to get the season going.

Doc, your thoughts?

[Mickey107]

Greg Wyshynski@wyshynski
From an NHL team exec this monrning, FWIW: "NHL is season is starting Jan 13th. Confirmed last night. We are going to be playing 56 games."
9:12 AM · Dec 8, 2020

https://www.traderumours.com/Start-date ... -29544&s=8

It appears the NHL's proposed start date for the 2020-21 season has now been confirmed. According to ESPN's Greg Wyshynski, an NHL executive confirmed to him Tuesday morning that "NHL season is starting Jan 13th. Confirmed last night. We are going to be playing 56 games."

Both TSN and Sportsnet are reporting that owners and players have moved away from financial negotiations and are leaving the collective bargaining agreement signed four months ago in place for the upcoming season. There's also speculation that teams will at least start the season in some sort of bubble or bubbles, until it is safe to get fans back at arenas. Those details have not yet been finalized.

"Nothing finalized, however, focus in discussions related to NHL training camps has been on 10 day camps with no exhibition games," said TSN's Darren Dreger. "In the summer, [Return to Play] non playoff teams were hoping for a 7 day head-start to 20-21 training camps. 7 days is unlikely at this point."

It's unfortunate that there won't be any exhibition, but understandable as the NHL is attempting to get things underway as soon as possible. That said, it could take a few games for teams to get fully back up to steam, especially the seven that haven't played since last March.

Pierre LeBrun@PierreVLeBrun
I want hockey back as bad as anyone else, but let me reiterate: the Covid situation could still de-rail things. That's the part nobody at the NHL and NHLPA are taking for granted. If not de-rail, then perhaps further delay. So yes, Jan. 13 puck drop is the plan but...
6:57 AM · Dec 8, 2020

Cautiously optimistic.

[Strangelove]

The league would totally "win this one" so the sooner the players get with the program and stop being greedy/stupid, the better!

Hell muthafuckin' yeah!!

Dreger:

There is a working agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA.

The economic proposal the NHL made to the NHLPA a few week ago was a stand-alone and isn’t tied to season logistics.

This is how both sides move to get the season going.

Doc, your thoughts?

I have no idea what you're trying to imply lol.

The league WOULD "totally win this one" (right to cancel season)... pretty sure I've proved that beyond the shadow of a doubt.

But perhaps the league decided to let it go because in the end they'd rather not cancel the season.

The players ARE being "greedy" because they're taking more than they should today

... and that comes directly from players of the future.

Maybe they aren't being "stupid"... if they figured correctly that the league would choose not to cancel.

Or maybe the league decided to save the players from their own stupidity.

Letting it go means the league takes a bit more of a hit up front, but assuming all the teams survive, it's all the same in the end.

Remember: All hockey related revenues are split 50/50.

Take more than that today, pay it back tomorrow.

ESQ, your thoughts?

[ESQ]

I have no idea what you're trying to imply lol.

The league WOULD "totally win this one" (right to cancel season)... pretty sure I've proved that beyond the shadow of a doubt.

But perhaps the league decided to let it go because in the end they'd rather not cancel the season.

Well, if you choose to take the view that the League giving up and acquiescing is you "proving that beyond the shadow of a doubt", I don't think there's any point to debating any further!

At the end of the day, who cares, hockey's back in a month!