NHL Season suspended - Now what?

[SKYO]

nhl bidness -

Elliotte:

“The league wants long-term stability.

The players want a cap on escrow, and word is that it is being considered. If the season does not resume, their hit would be 35 per cent. Even if there are games, they are looking at 27 or 28 per cent. I heard rumblings of a 20 per cent escrow cap over the next few seasons — others said they heard slightly less. A flat salary cap of $81.5 million for a few seasons is possible, too.”

[JelloPuddingPop]

nhl bidness -

Elliotte:

“The league wants long-term stability.

The players want a cap on escrow, and word is that it is being considered. If the season does not resume, their hit would be 35 per cent. Even if there are games, they are looking at 27 or 28 per cent. I heard rumblings of a 20 per cent escrow cap over the next few seasons — others said they heard slightly less. A flat salary cap of $81.5 million for a few seasons is possible, too.”

Ok, this time of year has too much sun where I am - and it is likely bleaching my brain... but I don't understand how they can have a cap on Escrow - when it is tied to revenue? Isn't it in stone that it is a 50/50 split players/owners? So if for example they had a cap on escrow during this CBA, and Covid tanked revenue, the players would be capped at some percentage - say 20% as Elliotte stated - doesn't that make it such that the owners are taking a bigger hit to their revenue % then?? What am I missing?

[ESQ]

nhl bidness -

Elliotte:

“The league wants long-term stability.

The players want a cap on escrow, and word is that it is being considered. If the season does not resume, their hit would be 35 per cent. Even if there are games, they are looking at 27 or 28 per cent. I heard rumblings of a 20 per cent escrow cap over the next few seasons — others said they heard slightly less. A flat salary cap of $81.5 million for a few seasons is possible, too.”

Ok, this time of year has too much sun where I am - and it is likely bleaching my brain... but I don't understand how they can have a cap on Escrow - when it is tied to revenue? Isn't it in stone that it is a 50/50 split players/owners? So if for example they had a cap on escrow during this CBA, and Covid tanked revenue, the players would be capped at some percentage - say 20% as Elliotte stated - doesn't that make it such that the owners are taking a bigger hit to their revenue % then?? What am I missing?

It is a very bizarre system - escrow is to ensure the owners get the correct cut of revenue. Every year, owners are pushing the PA to raise the cap, because they want to sign more UFA contracts. This is with no regard to escrow/HRR's actual growth.

So, if the owners had their way, we'd probably be at a $90 million cap, with big contracts signed every July 1, and every player paying more and more into escrow because Cap Growth > HRR Growth. Then if you signed a deal 5 years ago, and escrow keeps going up, you're receiving less and less money on your contract because the owners want to sign The Next Contract.

But then, the PA has had the power to reject cap increases to reduce escrow, but they don't.

Its a true vicious cycle - owners have a cap to protect themselves but always push to increase it, players can reject cap increases to reduce escrow but always cave in to the owners.

What will capping escrow accomplish? Well, in this short-term COVID crisis I guess it'll mean the cap stays flat, rather than seeing it drop by 25% and putting every team out of compliance. But as Doc says, the players have to give something to get that - maybe they average HRR over 3 years to smooth out the curve, maybe they owners a bigger cut of HRR to re-pay the COVID years, maybe they give owners a couple World Cups with 75% of that revenue or something.

But I agree with you, capping escrow seems unnecessary as the players have the power to prevent escrow jumping up in normal times, they've just chosen not to exercise that power consistently.

[Strangelove]

^ Good post Esquire, yeah the PA is probably asking to cap escrow at 20% in any one season

... and spread any excess owing over future years.

This is probably why Fucknuts Friedman mentions the possibility of a flat cap for a few seasons in the same breath.

I hate reading Friedman, he has access to info, sure, but the Good Lord didn't bless the poor bastard with a decent brain.

Therefore he can't seem to figure some things out, and when he does his writing is so atrocious, he often can't explain it well.

[Megaterio Llamas]

Another three positive COVID tests, this time inside the USNTDP.

https://www.tsn.ca/report-3-usntdp-play ... -1.1494184

[Cornuck]

Another three positive COVID tests, this time inside the USNTDP.

https://www.tsn.ca/report-3-usntdp-play ... -1.1494184

Meanwhile, the USHL announced today they are planning on a full 20-21 season.... we'll see how that goes.

[2Fingers]

Another three positive COVID tests, this time inside the USNTDP.

https://www.tsn.ca/report-3-usntdp-play ... -1.1494184

Meanwhile, the USHL announced today they are planning on a full 20-21 season.... we'll see how that goes.

Until there is a full vaccine or something else there will be positive tests for players. So unless we want to shut down all sports until then what are the other options?

[Topper]

Owners are the House and players keep rolling the dice that revenue will meet projections and they'll keep their full salary.

One born every minute.

[Megaterio Llamas]

Another three positive COVID tests, this time inside the USNTDP.

https://www.tsn.ca/report-3-usntdp-play ... -1.1494184

Meanwhile, the USHL announced today they are planning on a full 20-21 season.... we'll see how that goes.

Until there is a full vaccine or something else there will be positive tests for players. So unless we want to shut down all sports until then what are the other options?

It's hard to imagine it getting out of the starting gate with infection rates being what they are in parts of the US.

But I guess anything is possible.