COVID-19 and NHL

[JTech780]

 

[jjgallow]

 

I'm still trying to wrap my head around responding to social distancing by gathering all fans, players, staff, flights etc together in one place.

[The_People1]

4 hours ago, JTech780 said:

 

 

Not Vegas anymore?  Interesting.

[cross16]

 

[The_People1]

42 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

 

Great.  Let's drop the damn puck already.

[travel_dude]

1 minute ago, The_People1 said:

 

Great.  Let's drop the damn puck already.

 

What a long haul to even get to camp.

I'm a big hockey fan, but I don't know how I feel about watching with the same interest as a normal year.

Hockey starting in August?

Spring into June is one thing.

Off-season starting in October?

 

I must say, the choice between Vegas and Toronto is a East Coast decision.

Edmonton over Vegas is pretty easy considering the big differences in infection.

Hope we go deep or go home.

Nothing in the middle please.

 

[JTech780]

4 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

What a long haul to even get to camp.

I'm a big hockey fan, but I don't know how I feel about watching with the same interest as a normal year.

Hockey starting in August?

Spring into June is one thing.

Off-season starting in October?

 

I must say, the choice between Vegas and Toronto is a East Coast decision.

Edmonton over Vegas is pretty easy considering the big differences in infection.

Hope we go deep or go home.

Nothing in the middle please.

 

 

Having Eastern teams playing in the East and playing at earlier times makes sense if you want to maximize TV ratings.

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

Having Eastern teams playing in the East and playing at earlier times makes sense if you want to maximize TV ratings.

 

That's what I was alluding to with the "East Coast" reference.

NHL offices, percentage of viewership, TV deals, tc.

[The_People1]

 

 

[robrob74]

23 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

 

If they keep travel bans in place like they should, this one shouldn’t spread. But wow, another thing! 

[cross16]

There is a lot to digest in here but Friedman lays out some of the CBA Modifications they've agreed upon under to the return to play. Sure looks like there is going to be labor peace though which is HUGE for the game. I think give some credit here that while other leagues can't seem to get out of their own way (baseball...) Hockey seems to have used this time to come together.

 

Some highlights:

Looks like a 5 year extension

Cap to be set at 81.5 million and it will stay there until revenues hit a number. Once it does rather then project he cap they'll base is off off 2 season prior. Ie 20-21 season revenue would be used to calculate the 22-23 cap.

Escrow is capped

Guaranteed Olympic participation in 22 and 26 pending IOC approval. 

No trade and no move clauses will automaticlly follow the player. Before they had to agree.

Players 35 years or old can sign multi year extensions (that have to either be a flat or ascending cap number) and it won't stay on the books if they retire. (i'm surprised by this one as this seems like team are going to take advantage of this one)

No longer allowing picks to be upgraded if player signs there. Ie give up a 3rd rounder that becomes a 2nd if player signs. 

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/potential-cba-modifications-emerging-nhl-nhlpa-continue-negotiations/

[The_People1]

 

[robrob74]

28 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

i don’t think the season will continue, there’s just too much on the line. I think the disease has the capability of ruining careers. 

[Thebrewcrew]

It’s one of those things where it sucks that there was positive tests, how many is multiple though?

 

Read today about 30+ major leaguers testing positive, at first blush that feels like a lot. That headline conveniently left out they tested 3300 major leaguers

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, Thebrewcrew said:

It’s one of those things where it sucks that there was positive tests, how many is multiple though?

 

Read today about 30+ major leaguers testing positive, at first blush that feels like a lot. That headline conveniently left out they tested 3300 major leaguers

 

I think all it takes is a few to infect more. 

[sak22]

1 hour ago, Thebrewcrew said:

It’s one of those things where it sucks that there was positive tests, how many is multiple though?

 

Read today about 30+ major leaguers testing positive, at first blush that feels like a lot. That headline conveniently left out they tested 3300 major leaguers

So a headline needs to focus on the low percentage of tests of a disease that has had over 100k deaths in that country and not worry about the fact that it is still counts up to a whole team.  But I guess if a headline sounded like  "Mass Shooting at Las Vegas Outdoor Concert Attended by Thousands, only 50 Killed" it may sound nicer to the event and the city.  

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, Thebrewcrew said:

It’s one of those things where it sucks that there was positive tests, how many is multiple though?

 

Read today about 30+ major leaguers testing positive, at first blush that feels like a lot. That headline conveniently left out they tested 3300 major leaguers

 

Ya.  Plus, the article is so vague it doesn't even say if it was players or coaches, trainers?  Stick boy?  Who?

 

But all in all, just bad news.  I thought all players would check into Edmonton and Toronto to begin 2 week quarantine?  Are they still in their home cities practicing?

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

i don’t think the season will continue, there’s just too much on the line. I think the disease has the capability of ruining careers. 

 

There's too much on the line either way.   If they cancel the season, then networks are going to immediately demand a refund for buying TV rights.  Owners going to give back money that they probably already spent.

 

That, VS fighting lawsuits against players who's careers may have been damaged by being "forced" back to work.

[travel_dude]

10 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

There's too much on the line either way.   If they cancel the season, then networks are going to immediately demand a refund for buying TV rights.  Owners going to give back money that they probably already spent.

 

That, VS fighting lawsuits against players who's careers may have been damaged by being "forced" back to work.

 

If the NHLPA agrees to the Back to Play format, how is the NHL liable for forcing players back to work?  

[sak22]

https://www.tsn.ca/talent/details-emerge-on-expected-new-nhl-agreement-1.1492091

 

Quote

> Critical Dates: Training camps are scheduled to open on July 13, with teams slated to arrive in the hub cities of Toronto and Edmonton by July 26, with games scheduled for Aug. 1. Absent of a COVID-19 outbreak that shuts down play, the Stanley Cup would be on track to be awarded in the first week of October.

The Alexis Lafreniere Draft Lottery sweepstakes will be held on Aug. 10, with the NHL Draft to follow in mid-October. Free agency would take place in the fall for the first time in league history on Nov. 1.

> Opt-out: Any player can opt-out of Return to Play this summer for any reason and there is no penalty or discipline for doing so. There was originally talk that a player opting out for anything other than an underlying medical condition would not be eligible for a playoff share and would not receive the final quarterly pension credit for the season.

> Playoff share: The playoff bonus pool is doubling this season from $16 million to $32 million. A player on a team that loses in the best-of-five qualifying round will receive $20,000. Players in each round will see bonuses increase from there, with a share from the Stanley Cup winning team worth $240,000 per player.  

> Term: The new CBA will have a term of six years, ensuring labour peace through at least 2025-26. It can also be extended one year if the escrow debt from 2019-20 owing to owners exceeds $125 million at the end of the deal.

> 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.

> Olympic participation: As reported, NHL players will participate in the 2022 Beijing Olympics and the 2026 Milan Olympics, pending negotiation with the IIHF and IOC.

> No signing bonus limits: There will be no changes to the signing bonus system in the new CBA. During negotiations, the NHL was believed to have sought to limit signing bonuses to a maximum of 50 per cent of the total contract compensation.

> Final paycheque: The players’ final paycheque from the 2019-20 regular season season, which had been deferred until this point, will go to repaying their debt to owners. That totalled roughly $140 million USD.

> Escrow cap: While they work to repay their debt to owners, players cannot pay a higher escrow percentage than:

2020-21: 20 per cent
2021-22: 14-18 per cent (TBD)
2022-23: 10 per cent
2023-24: 6 per cent
2024-25: 6 per cent
2025-26: 6 per cent

 

> Salary deferral: Players will defer 10 per cent of both salary and signing bonus for the 2020-21 season, which will be paid back to players in three equal instalments in 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26.

> No-trade/no-move clauses: All no-trade and no-move clauses will travel with the player in a trade, even if the player is traded before the clause kicks in.

Example: The Montreal Canadiens traded defenceman P.K. Subban days before his no-move clause kicked in. The Nashville Predators, the team that acquired Subban, subsequently voided Subban’s no-move clause, then making him susceptible later to a trade to New Jersey.

> Outlawing front loaded deals: For high-value, front loaded long-term deals (at least 6 years, worth at least 7.5 per cent of cap), salary variability from the highest year to the lowest year will go from 50 per cent down to 35 per cent.

 

> No European Waivers: We should call this the Ryan O’Reilly Rule. Players who play in Europe will no longer require waivers to come back to the NHL, provided they sign their NHL contract by Dec. 15. Previously, if a player played in Europe after the start of the regular season, waivers were required. The Flames signed O’Reilly to an offer sheet in 2013 during the lockout while he was holding out from Colorado in the KHL; if the Avalanche had not matched, he would have been subjected to waivers and the Flames likely would have lost him. Go Feaster!!

 

 

[The_People1]

11 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

If the NHLPA agrees to the Back to Play format, how is the NHL liable for forcing players back to work?  

 

Trues.  It's all on the union then.

[Heartbreaker]

If a player opts out of Return to Play this summer, will they be able to opt back in? It seems obvious, but I'm not entirely clear. 

 

For example, if Mitch Marner were to opt out, and the Leafs make the Conference Final, could he decide that now he wants to be on the roster? 

 

Love. 

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Trues.  It's all on the union then.

 

14 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

If the NHLPA agrees to the Back to Play format, how is the NHL liable for forcing players back to work?  

 

 

I get that it is to be agreed by both sides but who’s to say players won’t feel threatened to play regardless. I’ve read that some players will play even if they don’t want to. 
 

Will concussion lawsuits only be available for players before a certain time? Or will players still be able to if they feel it was due to in play that caused them harm?

 

maybe a separate issue but for some reason I feel they’re similar.

[robrob74]

1 minute ago, Heartbreaker said:

If a player opts out of Return to Play this summer, will they be able to opt back in? It seems obvious, but I'm not entirely clear. 

 

For example, if Mitch Marner were to opt out, and the Leafs make the Conference Final, could he decide that now he wants to be on the roster? 

 

Love. 

 

I could see that being the case, with the possibility of it being safer to play. Perhaps things could change by then or the steps taken to insure player safety has worked, maybe by then players might see it that way?

 

perhaps they’d only get a portion of the playoff money.

[travel_dude]

10 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

 

I get that it is to be agreed by both sides but who’s to say players won’t feel threatened to play regardless. I’ve read that some players will play even if they don’t want to. 
 

Will concussion lawsuits only be available for players before a certain time? Or will players still be able to if they feel it was due to in play that caused them harm?

 

maybe a separate issue but for some reason I feel they’re similar.

 

As with any union, you have rights.

Whether you choose to use them is your decision.

You essentially have accepted the risks by doing so.

 

TBH, I have no idea.  I do believe that opting out removes your name from any bonuses.  Doesn't matter if you change your mind or not.  On the other hand, if you and the coach/GM decide to miss a few rounds, it's more of a question of how they assign the bonus money.