CBA Related Is it realistic to expect a lockout?

[ctid]

I'm confused. I do not know too much about the behind the scenes politics. But is the threat of a lockout expected to be realized or is it realistic to expect it to be a scare tactic?

I keep reading about a lockout might happen and all, but in my head, I expect the season to start on schedule and they will come to an agreement about a new CBA.

Am I too naiive? Is it more realistic to expect a lockout or at least a shortened season?

If a lockout happens, what are the consequences for the smaller market teams? I expect the players' current contracts are still valid and they will get paid during a lockout. If so, how would that affect smaller market teams? can they afford to pay out all these terms, eventhough they won't get any revenue from ticket sales, merchandise sales (would probably go way down I would expect), etc...?

As I said, I do not know too much about the behind the scenes politics of such a scenario. What were the consequences for teams during the previous lockout?

[flyerrod]

I expect the players' current contracts are still valid and they will get paid during a lockout.

Only guaranteed bonus money will get paid during a lock out and a miniscule amount of strike fund money if the contract has allotted for it (IE Strike fund). There will be a handful of guys who get paid one way or the other and several players will sell there services to other leagues. The only real losers in a Lock Out are the Fans. When you make as much money as a professional athlete, you should be smart enough to provision yourself for a strike (generally not the case with several athletes and their "possies" though).

[hf101]

I moved the thread to the CBA Forum because it is a topic that is is of interest to more than just Flyer fans here.

I've found some of the articles written for the Globe and Mail to be informative. ----One good thing is that there are fewer teams in serious economic trouble than seven years ago in the previous lockout. The NHLPA this time around is taking their time which is much different than last time. Their counter proposal is expected this week. As long as both sides continue to set up meetings to talk I'm hopeful this will be resolved without a lockout.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/nhl-and-nhlpa-discuss-pensions-ice-conditions-and-training-camp/article4443387/

[ctid]

Only guaranteed bonus money will get paid during a lock out

So Nashville would have to pay out the 20 something millions that Weber is due in the first year in bonuses, even if there is a lockout? wow.

It just baffles me how a smaller market team, like Nashville, could pay so much without getting any real revenue back if the season is lost.

[brelic]

I completely agree with term limits to contracts, but I have a hard time believing the union will agree to that... unless the proposed term limit, from the owners' perspective, is a softened stance from the non-guaranteed contracts they were supposedly pushing for before.

But a rollback? Hey, I think athletes make obscene amounts of money, but the league continues to enjoy growth, so why would you rollback the salaries? The owners are the ones handing out those salaries (and those ridiculous long-term contracts too), so they really have themselves to blame. Of course, I'm sure the Flyers, Rangers, and Wings are not the ones asking for this. It's probably the other teams who are asking for a form of protection from those aggressive (and deep-pocketed) owners.

[DaGreatGazoo]

Does any other league set term limits in contracts? I don't think so, but am not positive. For that reason alone, I can see push back by the NHLPA. Personally, I think there will be a lockout..for a simple reason...nothing gets done in pro sports these days, until it HAS to get done. Which means by November, they will be close to reaching an agreement.

IMO, the league won't extend the current CBA past Sept 15th...removes their leverage.

Hope I'm wrong.

[JackStraw]

So Nashville would have to pay out the 20 something millions that Weber is due in the first year in bonuses, even if there is a lockout? wow.

It just baffles me how a smaller market team, like Nashville, could pay so much without getting any real revenue back if the season is lost.

From what I've read salaries are insured, but signing bonuses are not. So the Preds would have to eat Weber's $13 million (or whatever it is) signing bonus.

[DaGreatGazoo]

@JackStraw

Also, signing bonuses are paid out on July 1st, from what I've read. They can't trade him until AFTER July 1, 2013..which means they have to pay $26 million in signing bonuses. In less than 1 calendar year...OUCH!

[jammer2]

I think the best case scenario is the NHLPA and the NHL agreeing to play this season under last years CBA rules and try to hash things out next summer. Why do they wait so long to start the negotiating process, very frustrating. This should have started a week after the cup was awarded. I know it's a long year, people need a break and so forth, but this is the future of the league we are talking about, how about some urgency?

I know a lot of teams are losing money hand over fist, but how does the NHL say the system is broken with a straight face, when they have soared to new heights in profits year after year? The cap is directly tied to the financial viability of the NHL, so as we know, business is booming. Of course, contraction should be on the table, but the NHLPA and the NHL will both stubbornly hold onto their teams and members. Newsflash, hockey does not belong in some of the markets where it currently resides. For God sake, move some teams to the money making areas ie Quebec for one!!!

[JackStraw]

@JackStraw

Also, signing bonuses are paid out on July 1st, from what I've read. They can't trade him until AFTER July 1, 2013..which means they have to pay $26 million in signing bonuses. In less than 1 calendar year...OUCH!

Yeah, a lockout would be a worst-case scenario for Nashville.

[radoran]

It just baffles me how a smaller market team, like Nashville, could pay so much without getting any real revenue back if the season is lost.

You have $100,000. You enter into a deal in which you need to put up $1,300 now and $1,300 next July in order to have a very valuable piece of equipment for your company. You also have an agreement with four other people that will pay you back $2,080 of that investment over the next 10 years - with guaranteed interest (or, say, the entire up-front cost with no interest).

Now, imagine you have $1,000,000,000. That's what $26,000,000 is, effectively, to you.

Do you make that investment in the valuable piece of equipment for your company that you expect to be useful for the next decade - even if your company may see a loss next season because of a foreseen economic difficulty?