No I wish I did. Some of those are worth cash now. I may have had 1-2 at one time but probably sold them at a convention or something.
- LordHumungous

Which Star Trek character did you dress as?

Which Star Trek character did you dress as?
- golfingsince

Never dressed was usually a vendor but man there would be some killer costumes. Darth Vader at the last one was a huge hit with the kids it was very well done!

Who’s to say how many games is a full season, in terms of contracts? I bet you that no where in a player SPC does it say that if player X plays 82 game’s they receive their salary. If the season is 60 games, 40 games, 10 games it is still “a season” they still have to prepare just as rigorously (not getting paid), they still incur the same amount of risk for personal injury and long term disability playing one or eighty game’s, they will in fact be enduring more risk given what is going on right now.
- 1970vintage

All your points deal with a normal season where there's normal revenues. The announced salary cap, individual player contracts, and escrow deal with distribution of the players' 50% share of total league revenues during a normal season.

What they're discussing now is whether they can come to an agreement to play games under unusual circumstances. That being the complete absence of gate or concession revenues.

The players are never entitled to more than a 50% share, and for this season that's 50% of not much of anything. So in effect, the owners have agreed to give the players an advance on their future salaries. All they're arguing about is how much of an advance the players should get. At a time when cash flows are non-existent, the players don't have much leverage.

Imagine going to your boss the day after he's just laid off half the staff in order to keep the doors open and asking for an advance on your next 6 months of salary.

The difference between the scenario you presented and the NHLPA's situation is that they're not salaried employees. The CBA puts them in a partnership arrangement with the owners and they're contractually guaranteed 50% of league revenues.

The original CBA framework never anticipated that games would have to be canceled because fans were prohibited from buying tickets and attending. That’s why they had to renegotiate some of the elements of it in the summer. The players may have agreed to a reduction in salary then so they could keep getting paid, but those negotiations were really just about timing of the payment for their share of the revenues. They're still not entitled to any more than 50%

The owners may be willing to suffer a loss to keep their product in front of their fans, but only to a certain point. The players may feel they already made concessions by agreeing to play for reduced payments on their contracts, but they’re still wanting to be paid more than their 50% share of the revenues. They're also claiming that they deserve to be paid for games they're not playing as well.

Players will have to agree to pro-rate or there won't be any kind of 2020-2021 season.
- YeOldTimer

I find the biggest problem in this situation could very well be, the 50-50 split.
With any deferal escrow etc. it eventually comes out of the Hockey related revenue, whether it be next season or continues on for a few seasons.
Some of these players will be long gone from the league and the new players will be paying the price out of their "share" of the 50%
So, basically players like MacKinnon, the best player in the league, may have to take a bath on his next contract, so that Loui Erickson, can recieve his full paycheck.
It is not a good situation for the younger players in the league and the ones that will be entering the league.

Don't the players also have to cover loses by the league as part of that same CBA? No fans in the stands, and loses of revenue also reduce their overall pay.
- Retinalz

That's what escrow is for. League does a projected estimate of revenues for the coming season and sets the salary cap as an estimate of 50% of those projected revenues. Players decide if they like the salary cap as-is, or use an escalator to increase the cap, but in exchange they pay more into escrow.

I find the biggest problem in this situation could very well be, the 50-50 split.
With any deferal escrow etc. it eventually comes out of the Hockey related revenue, whether it be next season or continues on for a few seasons.
Some of these players will be long gone from the league and the new players will be paying the price out of their "share" of the 50%
So, basically players like MacKinnon, the best player in the league, may have to take a bath on his next contract, so that Loui Erickson, can recieve his full paycheck.
It is not a good situation for the younger players in the league and the ones that will be entering the league.
- Reubenkincade

The agents want their money now.

All your points deal with a normal season where there's normal revenues. The announced salary cap, individual player contracts, and escrow deal with distribution of the players' 50% share of total league revenues during a normal season.

What they're discussing now is whether they can come to an agreement to play games under unusual circumstances. That being the complete absence of gate or concession revenues.

The players are never entitled to more than a 50% share, and for this season that's 50% of not much of anything. So in effect, the owners have agreed to give the players an advance on their future salaries. All they're arguing about is how much of an advance the players should get. At a time when cash flows are non-existent, the players don't have much leverage.

Imagine going to your boss the day after he's just laid off half the staff in order to keep the doors open and asking for an advance on your next 6 months of salary.
- YeOldTimer

They’re not asking for an advance, they’re asking for what they negotiated just a few months ago, when they gave up quite a lot to allow the league to finish it’s season (honor it’s contracts to sponsors)

You are asking Myers to give up $3m and Hughes to give up $450k for this year and probably next. Rookies had no say in how the CBA limited their ability to earn early on - they basically got (frank)ed - and now those tables have turned.

Why would I ask for an advance? How is half the workforce being laid off? Unless half the teams fold and the PA membership is halved, nobody is being laid off.

Perhaps the players should be entitled to a percentage of the gain in value of each franchise?

Which Star Trek character did you dress as?
- golfingsince

That’s not the convention he was at...

The agents want their money now.
- YeOldTimer

Yup.
Not sure why agents are needed when you have a Players Association, that should be looking after player negotiations.

That’s not the convention he was at...
- 1970vintage

well played Vintsy

well played Vintsy
- LordHumungous

Thank you, it’s really my only true contribution to this site.

Here's the cap relief the team needs for this season.

Brendan Batchelor
@BatchHockey
·
2h
Jim Benning: If the season was to start right now, Micheal Ferland wouldn’t be starting. #Canucks
@Sportsnet650

https://twitter.com/anton...tatus/1334565298381459456

Linus Karlsson lighting the lamp in the first.

Here's the cap relief the team needs for this season.

Brendan Batchelor
@BatchHockey
·
2h
Jim Benning: If the season was to start right now, Micheal Ferland wouldn’t be starting. #Canucks
@Sportsnet650
- VanHockeyGuy

What season?

Thank you, it’s really my only true contribution to this site.
- 1970vintage

your wine knowledge/recommendations are unmatched.

What season?
- manvanfan

Then, we'll have contract's that will expire.

That's what escrow is for. League does a projected estimate of revenues for the coming season and sets the salary cap as an estimate of 50% of those projected revenues. Players decide if they like the salary cap as-is, or use an escalator to increase the cap, but in exchange they pay more into escrow.
- YeOldTimer

So what happens in this situation. Cap is 81.5m(i assume that means the estimated revenue is a little over 5b[81.5mx31x2]) and they only earn 3b. DO the players pay back the owners until that 1b(based off 5b/2-3b/2) loss is made back?

So what happens in this situation. Cap is 81.5m(i assume that means the estimated revenue is a little over 5b
- Retinalz[81.5mx31x2]) and they only earn 3b. DO the players pay back the owners until that 1b(based off 5b/2-3b/2) loss is made back?

Escrow is capped isn't it? The salary cap would have to go down.

So what happens in this situation. Cap is 81.5m(i assume that means the estimated revenue is a little over 5b
- Retinalz[81.5mx31x2]) and they only earn 3b. DO the players pay back the owners until that 1b(based off 5b/2-3b/2) loss is made back?

The escrow mechanism was never intended to cover something like this so that's what they tried to sort out during the summer negotiations. They agreed to leave the salary cap at the 2019/2020 level and claw back salaries a bit. I believe the players deficit was to be carried over a few years so they didn't take the hit all at once. The exact details were announced at the time so they should be publicly available.

Saw Kiss in 78. Sittler used me as a mule to smuggle dope into Maple Leaf Gardens.

- boonerbuck

Clever

https://twitter.com/antonj85/status/1334565298381459456

Linus Karlsson lighting the lamp in the first.


- manvanfan

Lousy D coverage lol

Lousy D coverage lol
- Nighthawk

Hey, no criticiz8ng the great Swedish leagues piss poor defensive plays.

For some it is all about goals and points.😉

So what happens in this situation. Cap is 81.5m(i assume that means the estimated revenue is a little over 5b
- Retinalz[81.5mx31x2]) and they only earn 3b. DO the players pay back the owners until that 1b(based off 5b/2-3b/2) loss is made back?

Conversely, the cap based on a projected $5b in revenue and then actual revenue tops $6.5b. Will the players receive $0.75b bonus?

If there was truly a 50/50 split then there wouldn’t be a salary cap, players would be compensated on a point system where the sum total of players per team would equal 100%. In essence, every team would operate with the same “player salary”, there would be no floor and no cap because 100% of the revenue would be equally distributed between players and owners.

Hey, no criticiz8ng the great Swedish leagues piss poor defensive plays.

For some it is all about goals and points.😉
- Reubenkincade

And of course no physicality, that's why you can get away with a lot being a 5'9 halfling.

Conversely, the cap based on a projected $5b in revenue and then actual revenue tops $6.5b. Will the players receive $0.75b bonus?

If there was truly a 50/50 split then there wouldn’t be a salary cap, players would be compensated on a point system where the sum total of players per team would equal 100%. In essence, every team would operate with the same “player salary”, there would be no floor and no cap because 100% of the revenue would be equally distributed between players and owners.
- 1970vintage

Doesn't cap exist primarily to prevent rich teams from over stacking like Detroit did in the early 2000's when they spent like 80m on their teams when others couldn't afford more than 30?