2018 Pyeongchang - Winter Olympics

[The Unknown Poster]

The players better be careful what they wish for.  I dont see the CBA getting much better.  They wont get more than 50%.  Removing escrow means they get more than 50% so I dont see how they resolve escrow issues either.  They won a big change to the pension already.  They are treated pretty darn good.

[JCon]

1 minute ago, Goalie said:

Poor players. How can they live on 8 year 50 million dollar contracts 

How many players are getting 8x50 million dollar contracts.

And really, they should all be paid $200,000 and be happy they play hockey for a living. Am I right?

They signed an agreement and are living by it. They have the right to renegotiate once that deal expires.

[JCon]

4 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

The players better be careful what they wish for.  I dont see the CBA getting much better.  They wont get more than 50%.  Removing escrow means they get more than 50% so I dont see how they resolve escrow issues either.  They won a big change to the pension already.  They are treated pretty darn good.

I'm not sure how they fix the CBA. I doubt they'll get more either. But they have more power than they think.

[Rich]

How about going to stop alienating your current fan base.

Is there any existing hockey fan out there that doesn’t want to watch the best players in the world compete with each other under their countries flag? 

What hockey fan out there has said, no … I don’t want a three week stoppage so I can watch Olympic hockey with NHL players!  Give me the all-star game instead.

I’ve usually been on the side of the owners when it comes down to CBA discussions, but tying CBA negotiations into the Olympics is wrong.

The PA should be accommodating for scheduling reasons in the Olympic year (starting earlier, giving up mandated practice days off / mandatory breaks, or whatever) to accommodate the season stopping, but not re-negotiating other key issues of the CBA.

Why should the NHL go to the Olympics?  Because the vast majority of their existing fans … the ones who pay for the tickets, the ones who the sponsors need to keep generating television revenue, want it.

The NHL can do it.  They’ve done it before.  This is just another slap in the face of the existing fans who support their game.

Will they lose fans over this decision?  Probably not.  But at some point they need to realize who ultimately pays their bills.  If you keep doing things that alienate your fans, at some point they won’t come back.

 

[JCon]

13 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

The players arent seeing a benefit to the CBA???  The MILLIONAIRE players?  They get 50% of league revenue.  What would be more fair to the players? 

They're not seeing a financial benefit from playing in the Olympics. I wasn't debating whether or not the CBA is fair. That's another argument.

[The Unknown Poster]

3 minutes ago, JCon said:

How many players are getting 8x50 million dollar contracts.

And really, they should all be paid $200,000 and be happy they play hockey for a living. Am I right?

They signed an agreement and are living by it. They have the right to renegotiate once that deal expires.

That's not what you said.  And no one else said anything of the sort.  You said the players dont benefit.

Why are the players entitled to go play for someone else in the middle of the season when they have contracts but the owners are dastardly for not wanting to allow it?

The owners asked for the CBA to be extended.  Thats not unreasonable.  Players declined and did not counter off.  ZERO negotiations.  No one said the players dont have the right to re-negotiate when the CBA expired.  That wasnt on the table.  But if the players expect to negotiate for THEIR benefits why do they think its so crazy that the owners want to negotiate this?

Owners didnt say no to the Olympics.  They said lets negotiate.  Players refused.  Players said no.  Players screwed players.

[The Unknown Poster]

3 minutes ago, JCon said:

They're not seeing a financial benefit from playing in the Olympics. I wasn't debating whether or not the CBA is fair. That's another argument.

They are clearing benefiting from playing in the Olympics. 

[JCon]

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

They are clearing benefiting from playing in the Olympics. 

How? (I'm actually curious how the players benefit financially)

[The Unknown Poster]

4 minutes ago, Rich said:

How about going to stop alienating your current fan base.

Is there any existing hockey fan out there that doesn’t want to watch the best players in the world compete with each other under their countries flag? 

What hockey fan out there has said, no … I don’t want a three week stoppage so I can watch Olympic hockey with NHL players!  Give me the all-star game instead.

I’ve usually been on the side of the owners when it comes down to CBA discussions, but tying CBA negotiations into the Olympics is wrong.

The PA should be accommodating for scheduling reasons in the Olympic year (starting earlier, giving up mandated practice days off / mandatory breaks, or whatever) to accommodate the season stopping, but not re-negotiating other key issues of the CBA.

Why should the NHL go to the Olympics?  Because the vast majority of their existing fans … the ones who pay for the tickets, the ones who the sponsors need to keep generating television revenue, want it.

The NHL can do it.  They’ve done it before.  This is just another slap in the face of the existing fans who support their game.

Will they lose fans over this decision?  Probably not.  But at some point they need to realize who ultimately pays their bills.  If you keep doing things that alienate your fans, at some point they won’t come back.

 

This isnt a slap in the face to fans at all.  If it is, be mad at the players for refusing to negotiate.  The owners have NEVER said the Olympics were a sure thing.  In fact they have consistently been sour on it.

The Olympics is awesome.  But if a fan is actually offended and chased away from watching the NHL because the NHL players dont play in the Olympics, well, thats crazy.  There are many reasons to be hot at the NHL but not going to the Olympics isnt one of them.

The players didnt want to negotiate.  Every time the owners make a dollar, the PA wants their cut.  So be it.  Players want to go to Olympics, owners say "okay, lets talk".  Nope.  No talking.

And your points are valid which prove this point - the mandatory days off, the length and scheduling etc.  Those are all important to be worked out.  I havent heard the players say "hey, we have no problem starting early and giving up some days off".  In fact I bet they'd be against those things. They will say "they are in the CBA, we will not concede them".

The NHL reached out to the players.  The players slapped their hand away.  Blame the players.

[The Unknown Poster]

3 minutes ago, JCon said:

How? (I'm actually curious how the players benefit financially)

Olympic athletes earns stipends, clothing and bonuses for winning medals.  I dont know if the NHL players decline theirs or not (I doubt it).  I believe gold medals earn $20,000.  Small fries for NHL superstars.  But a benefit nonetheless.  Plus, they WANT to go so badly.  Its a benefit to them personally.

What benefit to the owners get?  "growing the game".  Okay, well, its a 50/50 split so players benefit from growing the game too.  So there's that.

[Rich]

5 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

This isnt a slap in the face to fans at all.  If it is, be mad at the players for refusing to negotiate.  The owners have NEVER said the Olympics were a sure thing.  In fact they have consistently been sour on it.

The Olympics is awesome.  But if a fan is actually offended and chased away from watching the NHL because the NHL players dont play in the Olympics, well, thats crazy.  There are many reasons to be hot at the NHL but not going to the Olympics isnt one of them.

The players didnt want to negotiate.  Every time the owners make a dollar, the PA wants their cut.  So be it.  Players want to go to Olympics, owners say "okay, lets talk".  Nope.  No talking.

And your points are valid which prove this point - the mandatory days off, the length and scheduling etc.  Those are all important to be worked out.  I havent heard the players say "hey, we have no problem starting early and giving up some days off".  In fact I bet they'd be against those things. They will say "they are in the CBA, we will not concede them".

The NHL reached out to the players.  The players slapped their hand away.  Blame the players.

I haven't seen the players say no we won't concede anything with scheduling, so that is pure conjecture.

At the end of the day, they are in the business of selling entertainment.  And they aren't giving their customers what they really want.  It is the same with every lockout and strike, I blame both sides.

Same old, same old  .... billionaires arguing with millionaires ... and the average fan loses out.

[bb1]

This is siily. Its a world class showing for the NHL. Its like cancelling the World cup for soccer. Maybe it's more of a concern that fans will see how hockey really  is  at the highest level....instead of a typical boring NHL game.?

Edited April 4, 2017 by bb1

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, Rich said:

I haven't seen the players say no we won't concede anything with scheduling, so that is pure conjecture.

It is the same with every lockout and strike.  At the end of the day, they are in the business of selling entertainment.  And they aren't giving their customers what they really want.  I blame both sides.

Its pure conjecture that the players would concede.  So you cant use that as "well the players will concede this and that" to make your point.  Only one side reached out and said "lets talk and make a deal".  The owners.  What did the players think would happen.  They always screw themselves.  Owners said "extend CBA three years and we go".  Players said no.  And....nothing....and owners announce they arent going and players are shocked.  huh? 

The Olympics arent the NHL so its not their customers.  Their customers might watch but its not the same thing.  I WANT the players to go.  I love it.  But I 100% see the owners side in this.  Now if the players had said, look a three year extension doesnt work for us, but how about we do this...and the NHL said no, take it or lave it, then I'd say the owners are unreasonable and greedy.  But we never got that far because the players do what they always do - play it wrong.

What if the PA had said, we will promise not to opt out (that makes it a ten year deal rather then 8 so essentially a 2 year extension) and we will concede on days off and start of season.  Maybe the NHl agrees.  Maybe it starts the ball rolling.  But the players never did that.  They have no one to blame right now but themselves.

[JCon]

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Olympic athletes earns stipends, clothing and bonuses for winning medals.  I dont know if the NHL players decline theirs or not (I doubt it).  I believe gold medals earn $20,000.  Small fries for NHL superstars.  But a benefit nonetheless.  Plus, they WANT to go so badly.  Its a benefit to them personally.

What benefit to the owners get?  "growing the game".  Okay, well, its a 50/50 split so players benefit from growing the game too.  So there's that.

That's a drop in the bucket.

It's the IOC that makes the money, so the NHL should be negotiating with them.

IIHF is paying the insurance, as they should.

 

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, bb1 said:

This is siily. Its a world class showing for the NHL. Its like cancelling the World cup for soccer. Maybe it's more of a concern that fans will see how hockey really  is  at the highest level....instead of a typical boring NFL game.?

Sort of.  Its actually another unrelated corporate entity using the NHL's contracted talent to make money.  Just because the NHL happens to benefit by way of exposure doesnt mean the league should just gladly allow another corporate entity to use its assets for enrichment.  The NHL wants a piece of the action.  They were willing to negotiate.  Thats the bottom line.  Why werent the players??

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, JCon said:

That's a drop in the bucket.

It's the IOC that makes the money, so the NHL should be negotiating with them.

IIHF is paying the insurance, as they should.

 

The PA should be talking to the IOC then.  "Help us make this happen".  The league hasnt even got past the players yet, let alone talking about a cut from the IOC.  Players dont want to negotiate so negotiating with the IOC is moot.

[JCon]

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

The PA should be talking to the IOC then.  "Help us make this happen".  The league hasnt even got past the players yet, let alone talking about a cut from the IOC.  Players dont want to negotiate so negotiating with the IOC is moot.

They don't need anything from the players, that's my point.

The NHL wants money, pure and simple. Go to the bank, the IOC.

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, JCon said:

They don't need anything from the players, that's my point.

The NHL wants money, pure and simple. Go to the bank, the IOC.

Ofcourse they need something from the players, they asked for something from the players.  If the NHL wanted money from the IOC, they would have asked the IOC.  Do you think the owners said "look, we will go to the Olympics but we want money from the IOC, so Gary, ask the PA to extend the CBA".  Doesn't make sense.

Bettman's job is to sell it to the owners.  He knows what they want.  He asked to discuss the CBA, PA said no.  End of negotiations.  So what, the league should have said "ooookay, you got us.  Go on, have a good time, kids".  They asked to talk, PA said no.  This is on the PA. 

The players do not have the right to breach their contracts.  They need permission.  They refused to talk.  How is this the fault of the owners?  Because they get a 50% intangible benefit? 

[IC Khari]

I prefer these Olympics ...

[The Unknown Poster]

 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

 

Need the Oly people to set age limit to force juniors.

[JCon]

4 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Need the Oly people to set age limit to force juniors.

Why?

Every other league in the world is going. The IIHF is not going to cut it off just for juniors.

Let the pros play.

[The Unknown Poster]

If playing in the Olympics is enough to lure any NHL free agents away from the NHL, then so be it.  I dont see too many doing that...but that's fair game for sure. 

I hope it gets worked out but players like Ovi saying he's going either way doesnt help the cause of the players.  He isn't going unless its sanctioned by the NHL or he doesnt have an NHL contract.  If a fine and suspension is worth it to him, then the PA can get together and offer the league a cash incentive to do it.

Extending the CBA is sort of a no-brainer to me.  Right now there are two Olympic games within the current CBA length, which expires in spring 2022.  Both sides have an opt out in 2020.  Assuming the NHL's offer to extend for three years would mean expiry in 2025 and keep the opt out to 2023, that still works to the player's favour.  Because they'd be able to opt out after playing two Olympics and then they can get Olympic participation in the next CBA.

If they dont go to South Korea, we all assume the NHL will go to China but they can still use that as leverage against the players.  Now we assume the players will opt out of the CBA in 2020 so to the players its a moot point.  But the owners wont be overly agreeable to concessions the players want under this situation.

The players might hate the CBA but most players dont understand it and are fueled by agents who tell them they deserve more.  In the end, they always settle because they are already treated fairly and the owners are more easily united and able to hold out then the entire PA.

If Im a player, I'd accept the owners' offer on its face as I see no issue with it.  But the fact the owners made an offer means they are willing to negotiate.  I'd ask for an agreement to go to both Korea and China and I'd offer up a willingness to concede days off and start the season earlier those years.  I'd then agree to waive the opt out which is in essence a two year extension.  But its not really since it was a ten year deal anyway so the players dont lose anything.  Owners get two more years of labour happiness and dont have to screw their own willingness to go to China.

[Noeller]

That really depends on how much you hate escrow, I think.....

[The Unknown Poster]

4 minutes ago, Noeller said:

That really depends on how much you hate escrow, I think.....

Im not sure what they do about it through.  Escrow is to claw back that money that puts the players over 50%.  That's the deal they made.  To want to get rid of it is to say they want more than 50%.  In essence it violates a fundamental aspect of the CBA.  Im no accountant but isnt it in part due to the PA triggering an automatic increase in the salary cap?  Thus, players get paid more than 50% of revenue and owners have a right to claw it back.

I suppose they could lower next year's salaries by the required amount but that would be rolling back wages. 

Im fascinated by the idea the players will fight to get rid of escrow...curious as to what other plan they will suggest.  I imagine it will be "well, if we make too much, we get to keep it."