New CBA Agreement close

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

New CBA Agreement close

Postby longtimefan on Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:29 am

The NHL and NHLPA are apparently close to a new CBA agreement. I've heard some inklings, but am almost stunned. It's refreshing to have a deal without all the drama, and it appeared not long ago that they were again headed down an ugly road. It's preliminary, but a lot of things we've been discussing receive some clarity.

https://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/nhl- ... er-report/

There are also hurdles facing the CBA specifically. Escrow is the hot button topic for the players, which is a system where a percentage of withholding from players' paychecks each season. Under normal circumstances, that system maintains a 50-50 revenue split between players and owners in the form of either going to the owners if there's a shortage in revenue, or being refunded back to the players if revenue markers are met.

But these under normal circumstances given that there's a global pandemic going on that shut down sports pretty much all over the world for a couple of months. As things stand, escrow is expected to be 35% under the current set up -- as the ESPN report notes, last season's escrow loss was about 9.25% for players.

The CBA being discussed would cap escrow at 20% for the next two seasons, with things returning to the old system afterward. The success of this set up is contingent on the salary cap freezing for the next two seasons, and increased revenue from a new TV deal and the official arrival of Seattle's NHL franchise. There is also talk of a 10% salary deferral for players, which both sides have apparently agreed upon.


It's expected to be a six year extension. It also addresses the question of the cap, saying it will freeze for the next two seasons. The way I understand that is that it will remain at it's current level. Which is what I've been expecting all along. It's going to be enough of a scramble without the fiasco you'd see if the cap went down. It's good for both sides. The owners aren't pushed even further up against the cap, and the players aren't getting as squeezed by not having the money available for new contracts. It's nice to see the two sides play nice. Although I've been down this road before, and won't trust them until it's official.
longtimefan
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:33 pm

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby FLPensFan on Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:41 am

This is a bit different than what I heard, and, honestly, this sounds much, much better. What I had originally heard from several well known beat reporters was that this was nothing more than an extension of the current CBA for 6 more years. That would have been awful. I know players hate escrow, and have heard it would be "the hill they die on" to get it fixed. The Olympics would be another issue. DOPS incompetence another. Probably a few more, but, an extension of existing versus a new 6 year agreement are two different things....the latter much better.
FLPensFan
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,929
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby longtimefan on Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:37 pm

I know ESPN isn't well thought of by the hockey world, but they do have a recent story that explains things in more detail. https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/293 ... ff-rosters

Then there's the salary cap. Remember, the NHL's salary cap is linked to revenue. Lower revenue, lower cap. To avoid a huge decrease in the ceiling next year, the NHL and the players would artificially keep the cap at $81. 5 million for the next two seasons and then raise it $1 million to $82.5 million in 2022-23. Later in the CBA, it would be "relinked" to revenue.


It would make roster projections a lot simpler to project if the numbers are known for the next three seasons. And it will tamp down new salaries for a few years. Under the circumstances, I don't have a problem with it. No doubt the cap on the escrow at the beginning of the deal was a big selling point to the players. They were being set up to get whacked really hard.
longtimefan
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:33 pm

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby FLPensFan on Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:48 am

longtimefan wrote:I know ESPN isn't well thought of by the hockey world, but they do have a recent story that explains things in more detail. https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/293 ... ff-rosters

Then there's the salary cap. Remember, the NHL's salary cap is linked to revenue. Lower revenue, lower cap. To avoid a huge decrease in the ceiling next year, the NHL and the players would artificially keep the cap at $81. 5 million for the next two seasons and then raise it $1 million to $82.5 million in 2022-23. Later in the CBA, it would be "relinked" to revenue.


It would make roster projections a lot simpler to project if the numbers are known for the next three seasons. And it will tamp down new salaries for a few years. Under the circumstances, I don't have a problem with it. No doubt the cap on the escrow at the beginning of the deal was a big selling point to the players. They were being set up to get whacked really hard.

On the cap part, I think anything that can keep the cap above 80M after all this is a win for the NHL and the players.

On the escrow part, I understand some things will need to be different because of this pandemic, but, escrow going to 20% for at least 2 years then "returning" to the current escrow system...I have a hard time believing that. There doesn't seem to be any concession there by the NHL, and it seems worse for the players, actually. Take this higher rate for 2 years, then go back to what you had????? Again, maybe they had to do this to keep the 81.5M cap, but, the way ESPN states that part seems like a major concession by the players, and one I don't see them likely making...unless there is some other big give in by the NHL.
FLPensFan
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,929
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby lemieuxReturns on Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:33 pm

How do teams pay out 80 million a year in salaries if fans are not allowed in the stands? There is a reason that the cap was linked to revenue. It is the same problem that is occurring throughout the entire country when it comes to business. How do you pay your employees when restaurants are only allowed to operate at 50% or all elective procedures at hospitals are postponed.
lemieuxReturns
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,297
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:00 pm

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby longtimefan on Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:26 am

FLPensFan wrote:
longtimefan wrote:I know ESPN isn't well thought of by the hockey world, but they do have a recent story that explains things in more detail. https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/293 ... ff-rosters

Then there's the salary cap. Remember, the NHL's salary cap is linked to revenue. Lower revenue, lower cap. To avoid a huge decrease in the ceiling next year, the NHL and the players would artificially keep the cap at $81. 5 million for the next two seasons and then raise it $1 million to $82.5 million in 2022-23. Later in the CBA, it would be "relinked" to revenue.


It would make roster projections a lot simpler to project if the numbers are known for the next three seasons. And it will tamp down new salaries for a few years. Under the circumstances, I don't have a problem with it. No doubt the cap on the escrow at the beginning of the deal was a big selling point to the players. They were being set up to get whacked really hard.

On the cap part, I think anything that can keep the cap above 80M after all this is a win for the NHL and the players.

On the escrow part, I understand some things will need to be different because of this pandemic, but, escrow going to 20% for at least 2 years then "returning" to the current escrow system...I have a hard time believing that. There doesn't seem to be any concession there by the NHL, and it seems worse for the players, actually. Take this higher rate for 2 years, then go back to what you had????? Again, maybe they had to do this to keep the 81.5M cap, but, the way ESPN states that part seems like a major concession by the players, and one I don't see them likely making...unless there is some other big give in by the NHL.


I've never understood the players position on escrow. The "hill they'll die on" frankly makes them look dense. It is what it is, and there isn't a ton they can do about it. Here's a quote from Don Fehr:

NHLPA executive director Don Fehr said escrow has been discussed in talks with Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly and expects more to come. But there’s no quick fix to reduce or eliminate escrow without changing substantial things about the economics of the league.

”Obviously it’s an irritant to players and from time to time it can be a big one,” Fehr said. ”But the question is how you do it. I mean, you can fix escrow by cutting salaries. I don’t think players are interested in doing that. So it has to become something that you address in a manner which makes sense for the players and addresses their concerns.”


Fehr says it all right there. The league and players have agreed on a 50/50 split. At the end of the day, that's that. When the cap initially went into effect, the players routinely executed their right to artificially inflate the cap by executing an escalator clause. And that's what Fehr is saying. "you can fix escrow by cutting salaries." All escrow does is levels the amounts off. They've agreed on a 50/50 split. If you generate the money the model is based on, theoretically, the players receive 100% of their agreed upon salaries. If revenues fall short, all players agree to share the burden equally in terms of a percentage. So what do the players expect the league to do? The only way to get your full share is if the revenues don't fall short.

That 20% cap on escrow for two seasons is worth more than you think. Last year's escrow was just shy of 10%. So the first two season escrow losses are going to more than double last season. So a $10M player made about $9 last season, and agrees to basically take $8M for two seasons. But it could be $6.5M at the projected 35%. That's a chunk of change.

The artificial cap with the 20% max on escrow is a significant concession. The hope is things will begin to normalize after the first couple of years. The league will also have the full influx of revenue from the Seattle expansion, and they'll have a new American TV contract. As things level out, will the players execute the escalator? If they do, they'll invariably increase escrow. But 50% of hockey related revenue is 50%. Perhaps they should explore what constitutes HRR?
longtimefan
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:33 pm

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby FLPensFan on Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:01 am

longtimefan wrote:
FLPensFan wrote:
longtimefan wrote:I know ESPN isn't well thought of by the hockey world, but they do have a recent story that explains things in more detail. https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/293 ... ff-rosters

Then there's the salary cap. Remember, the NHL's salary cap is linked to revenue. Lower revenue, lower cap. To avoid a huge decrease in the ceiling next year, the NHL and the players would artificially keep the cap at $81. 5 million for the next two seasons and then raise it $1 million to $82.5 million in 2022-23. Later in the CBA, it would be "relinked" to revenue.


It would make roster projections a lot simpler to project if the numbers are known for the next three seasons. And it will tamp down new salaries for a few years. Under the circumstances, I don't have a problem with it. No doubt the cap on the escrow at the beginning of the deal was a big selling point to the players. They were being set up to get whacked really hard.

On the cap part, I think anything that can keep the cap above 80M after all this is a win for the NHL and the players.

On the escrow part, I understand some things will need to be different because of this pandemic, but, escrow going to 20% for at least 2 years then "returning" to the current escrow system...I have a hard time believing that. There doesn't seem to be any concession there by the NHL, and it seems worse for the players, actually. Take this higher rate for 2 years, then go back to what you had????? Again, maybe they had to do this to keep the 81.5M cap, but, the way ESPN states that part seems like a major concession by the players, and one I don't see them likely making...unless there is some other big give in by the NHL.


I've never understood the players position on escrow. The "hill they'll die on" frankly makes them look dense. It is what it is, and there isn't a ton they can do about it. Here's a quote from Don Fehr:

NHLPA executive director Don Fehr said escrow has been discussed in talks with Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly and expects more to come. But there’s no quick fix to reduce or eliminate escrow without changing substantial things about the economics of the league.

”Obviously it’s an irritant to players and from time to time it can be a big one,” Fehr said. ”But the question is how you do it. I mean, you can fix escrow by cutting salaries. I don’t think players are interested in doing that. So it has to become something that you address in a manner which makes sense for the players and addresses their concerns.”


Fehr says it all right there. The league and players have agreed on a 50/50 split. At the end of the day, that's that. When the cap initially went into effect, the players routinely executed their right to artificially inflate the cap by executing an escalator clause. And that's what Fehr is saying. "you can fix escrow by cutting salaries." All escrow does is levels the amounts off. They've agreed on a 50/50 split. If you generate the money the model is based on, theoretically, the players receive 100% of their agreed upon salaries. If revenues fall short, all players agree to share the burden equally in terms of a percentage. So what do the players expect the league to do? The only way to get your full share is if the revenues don't fall short.

That 20% cap on escrow for two seasons is worth more than you think. Last year's escrow was just shy of 10%. So the first two season escrow losses are going to more than double last season. So a $10M player made about $9 last season, and agrees to basically take $8M for two seasons. But it could be $6.5M at the projected 35%. That's a chunk of change.

The artificial cap with the 20% max on escrow is a significant concession. The hope is things will begin to normalize after the first couple of years. The league will also have the full influx of revenue from the Seattle expansion, and they'll have a new American TV contract. As things level out, will the players execute the escalator? If they do, they'll invariably increase escrow. But 50% of hockey related revenue is 50%. Perhaps they should explore what constitutes HRR?

I think everything you say about escrow is correct, but....they are still the only cap league handling salaries that way. Their is no escrow in the NFL, and none in the NBA that I am aware of. I'm sure that was one of the points Fehr was making when he said "no quick fix to reduce or eliminate escrow without changing substantial things about the economics of the league."

They don't necessarily lose all of that escrow money, either. I've never heard the escrow being 10% for last year, but, I never looked. Traditionally, it has been in the 12-15% range. At the end of the year (maybe even longer), they determine the revenues, and then determine what, if anything, the players are to receive back as salary. I think traditionally, they've only been getting 3-5% of that escrow money back. The 10% makes sense though, because the cap stayed relatively low because the players didn't use their Escalator clause to inflate the cap last year. And my understanding is, they were tired of putting more money in escrow, which is why they didn't use escrow. Escalating the cap means more in escrow to determine if the league can make that amount of revenue.

Taking a slight players perspective for a moment, I think I would be asking myself if this system really works well if EVERY YEAR, I put money into escrow in case revenues aren't what was expected, and EVERY YEAR, the NHL takes the majority of that escrow money. I'm not a financial expert, and a lot of these guys are coming into the league as teenagers, from other countries, etc...that are most likely lacking in that type of financial knowledge...but, that seems like a bad system for me as a player.

I cannot recall who first suggested the current system, NHL or NHLPA, but, I would say it is much, much more owner friendly, and based on prior statements, I expected the NHLPA to put up a bigger fight to revise it. I think Fehr's statements are correct, but, it doesn't mean they are still the best system for the players.

I mean, cry me a river for these guys and their millions in salary, but again, from their perspective...if I have a 10M a year AAV:
--4-5M of that goes to taxes. Let's just say 4M.
--5-10% in agent commission. Again, let's go on the lower end, 5%, 500K
--Escrow has been between 10-15%, now going to be 20%...2M
--Let's guess another 500K for accountants, finance advisors, blahdee, blah, blah
--That 10M a year salary is now 3M to the player.
--Dial that back a bit, the 1M a year player is only getting 300K

That's still a pretty big paycheck, but, roughly 70% of a players salary isn't going to the player. I think as a player, I'd be fighting tooth and nail to give up less wherever I could.

Just spitballing here without much thought into longer-term implications, but I wouldn't mind seeing some type of "soft-cap, hard-cap" system. Soft cap is 80M, with a hard cap of 90M, just as an off the cuff example. 80M is the soft cap based on revenues. There is no escrow at 80M. If a team wants to go as high as 90M in cap $, they can, but they are responsible for any losses (ie, league revenues don't justify that high of a cap) and maybe some type of penalty for exceeding soft cap. Sort of took this from the NBA with their luxury tax type system, where teams can exceed the cap but pay a tax, and the tax gets higher the more over the soft cap. NBA teams can go well over 20M over the soft cap. The NHL can't afford to do that, and making a big range would kill small market teams. But rules can be put in place. Teams can only exceed soft cap X times in X years, etc, etc, teams taxed more if they exceed soft cap in successive years, etc.

Just a thought.
FLPensFan
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,929
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby longtimefan on Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:37 am

FLPensFan wrote:
longtimefan wrote:
FLPensFan wrote:
longtimefan wrote:I know ESPN isn't well thought of by the hockey world, but they do have a recent story that explains things in more detail. https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/293 ... ff-rosters

Then there's the salary cap. Remember, the NHL's salary cap is linked to revenue. Lower revenue, lower cap. To avoid a huge decrease in the ceiling next year, the NHL and the players would artificially keep the cap at $81. 5 million for the next two seasons and then raise it $1 million to $82.5 million in 2022-23. Later in the CBA, it would be "relinked" to revenue.


It would make roster projections a lot simpler to project if the numbers are known for the next three seasons. And it will tamp down new salaries for a few years. Under the circumstances, I don't have a problem with it. No doubt the cap on the escrow at the beginning of the deal was a big selling point to the players. They were being set up to get whacked really hard.

On the cap part, I think anything that can keep the cap above 80M after all this is a win for the NHL and the players.

On the escrow part, I understand some things will need to be different because of this pandemic, but, escrow going to 20% for at least 2 years then "returning" to the current escrow system...I have a hard time believing that. There doesn't seem to be any concession there by the NHL, and it seems worse for the players, actually. Take this higher rate for 2 years, then go back to what you had????? Again, maybe they had to do this to keep the 81.5M cap, but, the way ESPN states that part seems like a major concession by the players, and one I don't see them likely making...unless there is some other big give in by the NHL.


I've never understood the players position on escrow. The "hill they'll die on" frankly makes them look dense. It is what it is, and there isn't a ton they can do about it. Here's a quote from Don Fehr:

NHLPA executive director Don Fehr said escrow has been discussed in talks with Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly and expects more to come. But there’s no quick fix to reduce or eliminate escrow without changing substantial things about the economics of the league.

”Obviously it’s an irritant to players and from time to time it can be a big one,” Fehr said. ”But the question is how you do it. I mean, you can fix escrow by cutting salaries. I don’t think players are interested in doing that. So it has to become something that you address in a manner which makes sense for the players and addresses their concerns.”


Fehr says it all right there. The league and players have agreed on a 50/50 split. At the end of the day, that's that. When the cap initially went into effect, the players routinely executed their right to artificially inflate the cap by executing an escalator clause. And that's what Fehr is saying. "you can fix escrow by cutting salaries." All escrow does is levels the amounts off. They've agreed on a 50/50 split. If you generate the money the model is based on, theoretically, the players receive 100% of their agreed upon salaries. If revenues fall short, all players agree to share the burden equally in terms of a percentage. So what do the players expect the league to do? The only way to get your full share is if the revenues don't fall short.

That 20% cap on escrow for two seasons is worth more than you think. Last year's escrow was just shy of 10%. So the first two season escrow losses are going to more than double last season. So a $10M player made about $9 last season, and agrees to basically take $8M for two seasons. But it could be $6.5M at the projected 35%. That's a chunk of change.

The artificial cap with the 20% max on escrow is a significant concession. The hope is things will begin to normalize after the first couple of years. The league will also have the full influx of revenue from the Seattle expansion, and they'll have a new American TV contract. As things level out, will the players execute the escalator? If they do, they'll invariably increase escrow. But 50% of hockey related revenue is 50%. Perhaps they should explore what constitutes HRR?

I think everything you say about escrow is correct, but....they are still the only cap league handling salaries that way. Their is no escrow in the NFL, and none in the NBA that I am aware of. I'm sure that was one of the points Fehr was making when he said "no quick fix to reduce or eliminate escrow without changing substantial things about the economics of the league."

They don't necessarily lose all of that escrow money, either. I've never heard the escrow being 10% for last year, but, I never looked. Traditionally, it has been in the 12-15% range. At the end of the year (maybe even longer), they determine the revenues, and then determine what, if anything, the players are to receive back as salary. I think traditionally, they've only been getting 3-5% of that escrow money back. The 10% makes sense though, because the cap stayed relatively low because the players didn't use their Escalator clause to inflate the cap last year. And my understanding is, they were tired of putting more money in escrow, which is why they didn't use escrow. Escalating the cap means more in escrow to determine if the league can make that amount of revenue.

Taking a slight players perspective for a moment, I think I would be asking myself if this system really works well if EVERY YEAR, I put money into escrow in case revenues aren't what was expected, and EVERY YEAR, the NHL takes the majority of that escrow money. I'm not a financial expert, and a lot of these guys are coming into the league as teenagers, from other countries, etc...that are most likely lacking in that type of financial knowledge...but, that seems like a bad system for me as a player.

I cannot recall who first suggested the current system, NHL or NHLPA, but, I would say it is much, much more owner friendly, and based on prior statements, I expected the NHLPA to put up a bigger fight to revise it. I think Fehr's statements are correct, but, it doesn't mean they are still the best system for the players.

I mean, cry me a river for these guys and their millions in salary, but again, from their perspective...if I have a 10M a year AAV:
--4-5M of that goes to taxes. Let's just say 4M.
--5-10% in agent commission. Again, let's go on the lower end, 5%, 500K
--Escrow has been between 10-15%, now going to be 20%...2M
--Let's guess another 500K for accountants, finance advisors, blahdee, blah, blah
--That 10M a year salary is now 3M to the player.
--Dial that back a bit, the 1M a year player is only getting 300K

That's still a pretty big paycheck, but, roughly 70% of a players salary isn't going to the player. I think as a player, I'd be fighting tooth and nail to give up less wherever I could.

Just spitballing here without much thought into longer-term implications, but I wouldn't mind seeing some type of "soft-cap, hard-cap" system. Soft cap is 80M, with a hard cap of 90M, just as an off the cuff example. 80M is the soft cap based on revenues. There is no escrow at 80M. If a team wants to go as high as 90M in cap $, they can, but they are responsible for any losses (ie, league revenues don't justify that high of a cap) and maybe some type of penalty for exceeding soft cap. Sort of took this from the NBA with their luxury tax type system, where teams can exceed the cap but pay a tax, and the tax gets higher the more over the soft cap. NBA teams can go well over 20M over the soft cap. The NHL can't afford to do that, and making a big range would kill small market teams. But rules can be put in place. Teams can only exceed soft cap X times in X years, etc, etc, teams taxed more if they exceed soft cap in successive years, etc.

Just a thought.


I would leave it at this. They lost a season and a half coming to agreement on this system. I dread the idea of trying to start from scratch. In the article I read, it stated that escrow was I believe 9.82% last season, which I rounded up. Using the excuse that these kids are so young doesn't really fly with me with high priced agents. They're paid to know what they are doing. The players are the reason escrow is so high. If they don't use the escalator, you drive down escrow. But they wanted the artificial numbers to maximize new deals. A lot of this is on the players. Usually, I take the other side.
longtimefan
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:33 pm

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby Hatrick on Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:49 am

FLPensFan wrote:
longtimefan wrote:
FLPensFan wrote:
longtimefan wrote:I know ESPN isn't well thought of by the hockey world, but they do have a recent story that explains things in more detail. https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/293 ... ff-rosters

Then there's the salary cap. Remember, the NHL's salary cap is linked to revenue. Lower revenue, lower cap. To avoid a huge decrease in the ceiling next year, the NHL and the players would artificially keep the cap at $81. 5 million for the next two seasons and then raise it $1 million to $82.5 million in 2022-23. Later in the CBA, it would be "relinked" to revenue.


It would make roster projections a lot simpler to project if the numbers are known for the next three seasons. And it will tamp down new salaries for a few years. Under the circumstances, I don't have a problem with it. No doubt the cap on the escrow at the beginning of the deal was a big selling point to the players. They were being set up to get whacked really hard.

On the cap part, I think anything that can keep the cap above 80M after all this is a win for the NHL and the players.

On the escrow part, I understand some things will need to be different because of this pandemic, but, escrow going to 20% for at least 2 years then "returning" to the current escrow system...I have a hard time believing that. There doesn't seem to be any concession there by the NHL, and it seems worse for the players, actually. Take this higher rate for 2 years, then go back to what you had????? Again, maybe they had to do this to keep the 81.5M cap, but, the way ESPN states that part seems like a major concession by the players, and one I don't see them likely making...unless there is some other big give in by the NHL.


I've never understood the players position on escrow. The "hill they'll die on" frankly makes them look dense. It is what it is, and there isn't a ton they can do about it. Here's a quote from Don Fehr:

NHLPA executive director Don Fehr said escrow has been discussed in talks with Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly and expects more to come. But there’s no quick fix to reduce or eliminate escrow without changing substantial things about the economics of the league.

”Obviously it’s an irritant to players and from time to time it can be a big one,” Fehr said. ”But the question is how you do it. I mean, you can fix escrow by cutting salaries. I don’t think players are interested in doing that. So it has to become something that you address in a manner which makes sense for the players and addresses their concerns.”


Fehr says it all right there. The league and players have agreed on a 50/50 split. At the end of the day, that's that. When the cap initially went into effect, the players routinely executed their right to artificially inflate the cap by executing an escalator clause. And that's what Fehr is saying. "you can fix escrow by cutting salaries." All escrow does is levels the amounts off. They've agreed on a 50/50 split. If you generate the money the model is based on, theoretically, the players receive 100% of their agreed upon salaries. If revenues fall short, all players agree to share the burden equally in terms of a percentage. So what do the players expect the league to do? The only way to get your full share is if the revenues don't fall short.

That 20% cap on escrow for two seasons is worth more than you think. Last year's escrow was just shy of 10%. So the first two season escrow losses are going to more than double last season. So a $10M player made about $9 last season, and agrees to basically take $8M for two seasons. But it could be $6.5M at the projected 35%. That's a chunk of change.

The artificial cap with the 20% max on escrow is a significant concession. The hope is things will begin to normalize after the first couple of years. The league will also have the full influx of revenue from the Seattle expansion, and they'll have a new American TV contract. As things level out, will the players execute the escalator? If they do, they'll invariably increase escrow. But 50% of hockey related revenue is 50%. Perhaps they should explore what constitutes HRR?

I think everything you say about escrow is correct, but....they are still the only cap league handling salaries that way. Their is no escrow in the NFL, and none in the NBA that I am aware of. I'm sure that was one of the points Fehr was making when he said "no quick fix to reduce or eliminate escrow without changing substantial things about the economics of the league."

They don't necessarily lose all of that escrow money, either. I've never heard the escrow being 10% for last year, but, I never looked. Traditionally, it has been in the 12-15% range. At the end of the year (maybe even longer), they determine the revenues, and then determine what, if anything, the players are to receive back as salary. I think traditionally, they've only been getting 3-5% of that escrow money back. The 10% makes sense though, because the cap stayed relatively low because the players didn't use their Escalator clause to inflate the cap last year. And my understanding is, they were tired of putting more money in escrow, which is why they didn't use escrow. Escalating the cap means more in escrow to determine if the league can make that amount of revenue.

Taking a slight players perspective for a moment, I think I would be asking myself if this system really works well if EVERY YEAR, I put money into escrow in case revenues aren't what was expected, and EVERY YEAR, the NHL takes the majority of that escrow money. I'm not a financial expert, and a lot of these guys are coming into the league as teenagers, from other countries, etc...that are most likely lacking in that type of financial knowledge...but, that seems like a bad system for me as a player.

I cannot recall who first suggested the current system, NHL or NHLPA, but, I would say it is much, much more owner friendly, and based on prior statements, I expected the NHLPA to put up a bigger fight to revise it. I think Fehr's statements are correct, but, it doesn't mean they are still the best system for the players.

I mean, cry me a river for these guys and their millions in salary, but again, from their perspective...if I have a 10M a year AAV:
--4-5M of that goes to taxes. Let's just say 4M.
--5-10% in agent commission. Again, let's go on the lower end, 5%, 500K
--Escrow has been between 10-15%, now going to be 20%...2M
--Let's guess another 500K for accountants, finance advisors, blahdee, blah, blah
--That 10M a year salary is now 3M to the player.
--Dial that back a bit, the 1M a year player is only getting 300K

That's still a pretty big paycheck, but, roughly 70% of a players salary isn't going to the player. I think as a player, I'd be fighting tooth and nail to give up less wherever I could.

Just spitballing here without much thought into longer-term implications, but I wouldn't mind seeing some type of "soft-cap, hard-cap" system. Soft cap is 80M, with a hard cap of 90M, just as an off the cuff example. 80M is the soft cap based on revenues. There is no escrow at 80M. If a team wants to go as high as 90M in cap $, they can, but they are responsible for any losses (ie, league revenues don't justify that high of a cap) and maybe some type of penalty for exceeding soft cap. Sort of took this from the NBA with their luxury tax type system, where teams can exceed the cap but pay a tax, and the tax gets higher the more over the soft cap. NBA teams can go well over 20M over the soft cap. The NHL can't afford to do that, and making a big range would kill small market teams. But rules can be put in place. Teams can only exceed soft cap X times in X years, etc, etc, teams taxed more if they exceed soft cap in successive years, etc.

Just a thought.

the last part of that sounds lke baseballs luxury tax, of course they don't have a cap but the greater the amount they exceed it by and the more years in a row the greater the % tax is. Of course baseball is a much richer sport as a whole and doesn't have any type of hard cap.

I don't like the idea of escrow either, to me it seems like both the owners and players wanted to be able to inflate the numbers in a contract. Of course since the numbers might not have been realistic there was the drawback that had to have the escrow in. If they just started with reasonable numbers in the first place that wouldn't be necessary. But what is reasonable to say Toronto and the Rangers isn't necessarily reasonable to Arizona. Part of that does equalize in the taxes though, a player in Toronto will pay more than one in say Florida. The key is getting to a fair cap number that allows the whole contract to be honored, and allows small market teams to still compete, without such a low number that it keeps salaries too low, which is tough, especially cause it is not reasonable to ever actually lower the cap.
Hatrick
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:48 pm

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby longtimefan on Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:40 am

An article that confirms much about what was already reported, but a bit more in depth.
https://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2 ... ement.html

The term here is an additional 3 years, in the other article is was 4. The deal would run through '24='25.

Key among the details is a flat cap of $81.5 million US for the next two seasons, with the cap rising to $82.5 million in 2022-23 and $83.5 million in 2023-24. The salary cap will not be linked to league revenues for the first time since 2005-06, but there is an opportunity to relink it in the last year of the deal.

The escrow rate — the percentage of player salaries withheld during the season as a way to ensure teams and players achieve a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue — will be 20 per cent next season, up from 10 per cent, then drops to 18, 12 and nine per cent in subsequent years. The players are also taking an additional 10 per cent deferral (from salary and signing bonuses) that will be paid back to them through the next three seasons.

Salary variances on standard player contracts will also change, particularly with multi-year and front-loaded salary structures. Under the previous CBA, the year with the lowest salary could not be less than 50 per cent of the year with the highest salary. That number has dropped to 35 per cent.


The article also says that Edmonton and Toronto are going to serve as the hubs, and that they will participate in both the '22 and '26 Olympics.
longtimefan
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:33 pm

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby pens_CT on Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:43 am

longtimefan wrote:An article that confirms much about what was already reported, but a bit more in depth.
https://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2 ... ement.html

The term here is an additional 3 years, in the other article is was 4. The deal would run through '24='25.

Key among the details is a flat cap of $81.5 million US for the next two seasons, with the cap rising to $82.5 million in 2022-23 and $83.5 million in 2023-24. The salary cap will not be linked to league revenues for the first time since 2005-06, but there is an opportunity to relink it in the last year of the deal.

The escrow rate — the percentage of player salaries withheld during the season as a way to ensure teams and players achieve a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue — will be 20 per cent next season, up from 10 per cent, then drops to 18, 12 and nine per cent in subsequent years. The players are also taking an additional 10 per cent deferral (from salary and signing bonuses) that will be paid back to them through the next three seasons.

Salary variances on standard player contracts will also change, particularly with multi-year and front-loaded salary structures. Under the previous CBA, the year with the lowest salary could not be less than 50 per cent of the year with the highest salary. That number has dropped to 35 per cent.


The article also says that Edmonton and Toronto are going to serve as the hubs, and that they will participate in both the '22 and '26 Olympics.


Once the United States proved it couldn't control the virus, moving both hub cities to Canada was the obvious choice.
pens_CT
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,743
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:47 pm

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby FLPensFan on Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:17 pm

A few odds and ends:

--According to Bob McKenzie, sounds like the CBA extension is nearing a tentative agreement in principle, which would then require players to vote. Majority needed for the CBA to get approved.

--One of the things McKenzie said which I do not like, and continues to not make sense is the draft. According to McKenzie, once all of the play-in round games are over, they will have the lottery to see who gets the #1 pick, and the draft would follow "shortly after." Sounds like draft will go on while teams still playing, which, again, will make trades of players still playing all but impossible. :roll:

--On the flip side, not directly CBA related, but DK or Molinair talked in the Friday Insider piece that, according to a league source, there is no way the NHL can pull off a full season next year. The way things are playing out, next season isn't going to start until January at the earliest. There is major concern of trying to get a full season in after missing 2 and a half months of normal time. Injuries would be a huge concern. Source said league is going to have to bite the bullet on next year and come up with a plan for a shortened season, and get things back to as normal as possible for 21-22 season.
FLPensFan
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,929
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby thehockeyguru on Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:51 pm

FLPensFan wrote:A few odds and ends:

--According to Bob McKenzie, sounds like the CBA extension is nearing a tentative agreement in principle, which would then require players to vote. Majority needed for the CBA to get approved.

--One of the things McKenzie said which I do not like, and continues to not make sense is the draft. According to McKenzie, once all of the play-in round games are over, they will have the lottery to see who gets the #1 pick, and the draft would follow "shortly after." Sounds like draft will go on while teams still playing, which, again, will make trades of players still playing all but impossible. :roll:

--On the flip side, not directly CBA related, but DK or Molinair talked in the Friday Insider piece that, according to a league source, there is no way the NHL can pull off a full season next year. The way things are playing out, next season isn't going to start until January at the earliest. There is major concern of trying to get a full season in after missing 2 and a half months of normal time. Injuries would be a huge concern. Source said league is going to have to bite the bullet on next year and come up with a plan for a shortened season, and get things back to as normal as possible for 21-22 season.


Isnt the same thing happening in the premier league? Players have signed new deals with different teams but are staying on to play in the remaining champions league games.

I dont see why they couldn't work out something similar with an out clause if a serious injury occurred.
thehockeyguru
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,516
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:43 pm
Location: I'm 30 minutes away, I'll be there in 10.

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby interstorm on Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:35 am

FLPensFan wrote:--On the flip side, not directly CBA related, but DK or Molinair talked in the Friday Insider piece that, according to a league source, there is no way the NHL can pull off a full season next year. The way things are playing out, next season isn't going to start until January at the earliest. There is major concern of trying to get a full season in after missing 2 and a half months of normal time. Injuries would be a huge concern. Source said league is going to have to bite the bullet on next year and come up with a plan for a shortened season, and get things back to as normal as possible for 21-22 season.


I think that is where I question the logic of trying to complete this season (at the expense of next). My quick math gives the following:

If EVERY series of the to-be-finished season goes the distsnce, we'd be looking at a maximum of 165 games (5 x 12, 7 x 8, 7 x 4, 7 x 2 and 7 x 1). Should the 20-21 season be shortened to 60 games, and 22 are cancelled, that would be 341 games dropped (almost 500 games lost if the season was shortened to 50). Now I know without fans the revenue would be almost entirely from TV deals and I don't think it is a bad assumption to say playoff games (especially the finals) have more viewers but it seems a bit extreme to put that many games in jeopardy in order to complete this season (acknowleding I don't know the financial considerations or constraints). I think my focus would be on minimizing the disruption to the 20-21 season and would prioritize that over finishing this season. Again, however, I don't know what the profit of each type of game would be or any legalities that bind the NHL in delivering a product. Interesting times...
interstorm
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,092
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: From IglooReport - same user name

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby longtimefan on Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:59 am

interstorm wrote:
FLPensFan wrote:--On the flip side, not directly CBA related, but DK or Molinair talked in the Friday Insider piece that, according to a league source, there is no way the NHL can pull off a full season next year. The way things are playing out, next season isn't going to start until January at the earliest. There is major concern of trying to get a full season in after missing 2 and a half months of normal time. Injuries would be a huge concern. Source said league is going to have to bite the bullet on next year and come up with a plan for a shortened season, and get things back to as normal as possible for 21-22 season.


I think that is where I question the logic of trying to complete this season (at the expense of next). My quick math gives the following:

If EVERY series of the to-be-finished season goes the distsnce, we'd be looking at a maximum of 165 games (5 x 12, 7 x 8, 7 x 4, 7 x 2 and 7 x 1). Should the 20-21 season be shortened to 60 games, and 22 are cancelled, that would be 341 games dropped (almost 500 games lost if the season was shortened to 50). Now I know without fans the revenue would be almost entirely from TV deals and I don't think it is a bad assumption to say playoff games (especially the finals) have more viewers but it seems a bit extreme to put that many games in jeopardy in order to complete this season (acknowleding I don't know the financial considerations or constraints). I think my focus would be on minimizing the disruption to the 20-21 season and would prioritize that over finishing this season. Again, however, I don't know what the profit of each type of game would be or any legalities that bind the NHL in delivering a product. Interesting times...


There's a lot of layers. There's no question they have a contractual obligation to deliver games as part of their TV contract. They're in no position to forfeit any cash. I don't know details, but i would presume the playoffs are worth more on the whole than the entire regular season. Many consider the playoffs the greatest tournament of its kind. There are upsets galore, and winning your conference in the regular season means nothing. And many non-fans admit that there's nothing that matches the suspense of a playoff OT.

The other factor is where you play. There's still a decent chance they don't pull this off. The Blues closed their facility temporarily. The Lightning did earlier. They've re-opened. But the teams are training in their home rinks. Which would be where regular season games would be played. There are just too many variables, especially when you add in all the travel. It's why the two hubs ended up in Canada. The hubs allow them to contain things much easier. It will be interesting to see once all teams are in the hubs. Canada has a much better handle on the virus. That's when you'll be able to tell if it's practical to play.

Is it the right approach from a public health perspective? I don't know. But from a business standpoint, bringing closure to a season is important. It's what the league is based on. Awarding a championship every season. It's not ordinary, and some will feel it's tainted. I am not one of those. If the Pens win the Cup, there's 19 memorable wins awaiting. Once the tournament ends, decide if it's tainted. But it's a long, hard road for whoever wins this thing.

There are other reasons it's a good idea. Namely, TV. Their contract with NBC is nearing its end, and contracts have been skyrocketing recently. It's expected the NHL is in for a bit of a windfall. It's one of the major fallbacks to righting the ship post COVID. This is the NHL's made for TV event. Like never before. There will be some competition, with the NBA and MLB starting back as well, but people are starved for live sports of any kind. The NHL has an opportunity to capitalize, as does NBC and NBCSN. They've made it very clear they want the NHL back, although there are expected to be other suitors. They also have multiple networks. It's likely COVID will still be around, so people will be largely pent up.

Any way you slice it, next season isn't going to be normal. They won't be able to start up safely with fans by October. Fans may watch, but it's early regular season hockey, As a long time season ticket holder, I can tell you a late October game against Vancouver isn't easy to get excited about. It just doesn't have the sizzle of a playoff game. I realistically didn't see them starting until January either way. Some major adjustments are going to be necessary regardless.
longtimefan
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:33 pm

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby longtimefan on Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:12 am

https://www.tsn.ca/talent/details-emerg ... -1.1492091

Explained a bit differently, but still let's us know the cap is going to be $81.5M for the foreseeable future.

> Salary cap: The salary cap’s upper limit will be frozen for 2020-21 at $81.5 million and remain there until hockey-related revenue returns to $4.8 billion - the amount projected for this 2019-20 season before the pandemic hit.

Once HRR rebounds to $4.8 billion, the upper limit will be calculated using a new formula that relies on the actual HRR from two seasons ago, plus the projected HRR from the immediately prior season.
longtimefan
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:33 pm

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby longtimefan on Sun Jul 05, 2020 11:47 am

https://www.dkpittsburghsports.com/2020 ... mpics-tlh/

Taylor Haase gives a few more details. A bit of a different explanation. It addresses escrow in much more detail.

• The salary cap will remain at $81.5 million for the 2020-21 season, and potentially beyond. Once the league's revenue returns to the amount originally projected for the 2019-20 season ($4.8 billion), the league will calculate a new salary cap.

• There will be a cap on the amount of money that can be taken out of a player's contract in escrow for the next several seasons over the course of the agreement:
2020-21: 20 percent
2021-22: 14-18 percent
2022-23: 10 percent
2023-24: 6 percent
2024-25: 6 percent
2025-26: 6 percent

• Players will also essentially loan 10 percent of their salaries and signing bonuses next season to the league, which will be paid back to them in full over three years beginning in 2023.
longtimefan
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:33 pm

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby no name on Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:59 am

One insider, whos name i can't remember said "he never saw the league and union work so well with each other to find a solution.
no name
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,163
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby pens_CT on Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:49 am

no name wrote:One insider, whos name i can't remember said "he never saw the league and union work so well with each other to find a solution.


Even more surprising when you have Don Fehr as the union president who was always a hardliner when he was the head of the baseball union.
pens_CT
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,743
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:47 pm

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby DelPen on Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:14 am

The Pending Top tier UFA players will still get payed the upper limit by somebody. But the RFA pool has a lot less leverage now which is good for us. The mid to bottom tier UFA will also take a hit. I doubt a guy like Tanev would get a similar contract this fall because part of the cost and term considers what has been an ever increasing cap.

Only trap I see with the Pens is keeping a often injured, one trick pony like Schultz just because he should be cheaper to sign now.

But McCann won’t be too expensive, Murray shouldn’t be either. Sheary though will be a cap casualty unless he has a monster playoffs.
DelPen
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 50,651
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:27 am
Location: Lake Wylie, SC

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby thehockeyguru on Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:39 am

DelPen wrote:The Pending Top tier UFA players will still get payed the upper limit by somebody. But the RFA pool has a lot less leverage now which is good for us. The mid to bottom tier UFA will also take a hit. I doubt a guy like Tanev would get a similar contract this fall because part of the cost and term considers what has been an ever increasing cap.

Only trap I see with the Pens is keeping a often injured, one trick pony like Schultz just because he should be cheaper to sign now.

But McCann won’t be too expensive, Murray shouldn’t be either. Sheary though will be a cap casualty unless he has a monster playoffs.


Itll also be harder to move dead weight like Bjugstad.
thehockeyguru
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,516
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:43 pm
Location: I'm 30 minutes away, I'll be there in 10.

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby Jim on Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:22 am

If Bjugstad is healthy then he is a solid player. If he is broken by whatever all has been going on with him then he is LTIR. Either way, whatever.

Sheary is going to be a UFA and is going to take a MASSIVE pay cut.
He signed his current deal after getting 23g 53pts in 61 games, 0.377gpg, 0.869ppg.
Since then, his goals per game have fallen each year to reach 0.159gpg this year, less than half of his contract year. His points per game has taken an even harder hit, on topping 0.4 once in the three years and is 0.365 ppg this year, about 40% of his contract year.

I could see Sheary signing a $1Mx1 deal. Maybe $1.2M. His 10g 23pth in 63 games isn't going to impress anyone. I would be okay with Sheary at $1M.
Jim
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,873
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:18 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: New CBA Agreement close

Postby longtimefan on Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:56 pm

Jim wrote:If Bjugstad is healthy then he is a solid player. If he is broken by whatever all has been going on with him then he is LTIR. Either way, whatever.

Sheary is going to be a UFA and is going to take a MASSIVE pay cut.
He signed his current deal after getting 23g 53pts in 61 games, 0.377gpg, 0.869ppg.
Since then, his goals per game have fallen each year to reach 0.159gpg this year, less than half of his contract year. His points per game has taken an even harder hit, on topping 0.4 once in the three years and is 0.365 ppg this year, about 40% of his contract year.

I could see Sheary signing a $1Mx1 deal. Maybe $1.2M. His 10g 23pth in 63 games isn't going to impress anyone. I would be okay with Sheary at $1M.


I agree on Bjugstad. He's had injury problems and didn't work out, but he's a proven commodity. Plus it's an expiring contract. He's a great buy low candidate for somebody. If he still isn't healthy, he ends up on LTIR. He's not going to be much of an issue as far as shedding his contract.

I'd be fine with Sheary at $1.2M, but I doubt he's the best fit. It seems he's Sid's RW or bust. I don't see him as a bottom 6 guy. He'd be fine value wise, but I suspect they'd prefer to bring back Simon or Rodrigues, who offer more versatility. How he plays in the playoffs will determine if they attempt to bring him back.
longtimefan
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,274
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:33 pm


Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Steve Dave and 36 guests


e-mail