LeHab
Registered User
- Aug 31, 2005
- 15,990
- 6,286
Full text of NHL/NHLPA MOU for new 2020 CBA - analysis and discussion
- Thread starter LeHab
- Start date
So no change to paragraph 17 of the SPC, meaning there’s going to be a whole nother round if wrestling a greased pig when both sides realize they’ll have to play regular season games behind closed doors.
LadyStanley
Registered User
NHL to change qualifying offer rules
QO rules changing. Will be based on AAV, not $$ of last year of contract.
QO rules changing. Will be based on AAV, not $$ of last year of contract.
mouser
Business of Hockey
Still reading through and absorbing. One change I see that I really like and advocated for in the past is the 2nd part in the banning of conditions in trades.
#65: Trade Conditions Making it More Onerous for an Acquiring Club to Re-Sign a Player
Clubs shall not be permitted to include as a condition in the Trade of a Player(“Traded Player”)from one Club (“Trading Club”) to another Club(“Acquiring Club”), a modification to the compensation exchanged between the Trading Club and the Acquiring Club, either in the event: (i) that a Club signs the Traded Player to an NHL SPC, or (ii) of the subsequent Assignment of the Traded Player by the Acquiring Club. The restriction in (i) shall only be applicable when the Traded Player has a current or future NHL SPC at the time of the Trade.
For example the Ottawa to San Jose trade of Erik Karlsson included two clauses that hit both (i) and (ii):
a) 2021 conditional 1st or 2nd round pick if San Jose re-signs Karlsson
b) Conditional 1st round pick owed from one of 2019 to 2022 if San Jose were to trade Karlsson to an eastern conference team in 2018-19.
The (ii) clause would appear to eliminate conditions like (b) going forward. It's understandable Ottawa didn't want to see Karlsson playing for another team in the eastern conference, but once Ottawa traded him they should have forfeited all influence over what team Karlsson might play for following the trade.
#65: Trade Conditions Making it More Onerous for an Acquiring Club to Re-Sign a Player
Clubs shall not be permitted to include as a condition in the Trade of a Player(“Traded Player”)from one Club (“Trading Club”) to another Club(“Acquiring Club”), a modification to the compensation exchanged between the Trading Club and the Acquiring Club, either in the event: (i) that a Club signs the Traded Player to an NHL SPC, or (ii) of the subsequent Assignment of the Traded Player by the Acquiring Club. The restriction in (i) shall only be applicable when the Traded Player has a current or future NHL SPC at the time of the Trade.
For example the Ottawa to San Jose trade of Erik Karlsson included two clauses that hit both (i) and (ii):
a) 2021 conditional 1st or 2nd round pick if San Jose re-signs Karlsson
b) Conditional 1st round pick owed from one of 2019 to 2022 if San Jose were to trade Karlsson to an eastern conference team in 2018-19.
The (ii) clause would appear to eliminate conditions like (b) going forward. It's understandable Ottawa didn't want to see Karlsson playing for another team in the eastern conference, but once Ottawa traded him they should have forfeited all influence over what team Karlsson might play for following the trade.
mouser
Business of Hockey
Another interesting one is #47:
#47 PESP: Threshold Limits
CBA §47.8 amended to provide that the presence of the following substances shall be considered a positive test result only if the confirmation test level exceeds the below:
•Zeranol: 0.9 ng/mL
•Zilpaterol: 0.9 ng/mL
•Clenbuterol 0.9ng/mL
However, results at (or below) the above levels will be reported to the Program Committee. In the event that a Player tests at or below the above confirmation test levels, the Player shall be subject to Reasonable Cause Testing pursuant to Section 47.6(c)(i), but not Sections 47.6(c)(ii) or (iii)for a period of no more than 6 months.A test result pursuant to such Reasonable Cause Testing shall be considered a positive only if the confirmation test level exceeds the levels set out above.
CBA §47.3 amended to provide that the Parties, with the assistance of the Independent Administrator, shall confer on an annual basis to consider whether additional substances should be added to the list of substances subject to confirmation test levels.A decision to include an additional substance on the list, as well as the confirmation levels applicable thereto, shall be made jointly by the Parties, taking into account evidence confirming the presence of the substance in the food chain and/or the environment and such other evidence and considerations relevant and appropriate to the determination.
In it's current state CBA 47.8 doesn't list any specific prohibited substances, just says the league will put together a list using WADA as a source, but not constrained to including every single substance banned by WADA. Zeranol and Zilpaterol are used on livestock. Clenbuterol has a veterinary history as well but is used in human asthma treatments.
Carter Ashton was suspended for Clenbuterol back in 2014. Have to wonder if Nate Schmidt tested positive for one of these three in 2018.
#47 PESP: Threshold Limits
CBA §47.8 amended to provide that the presence of the following substances shall be considered a positive test result only if the confirmation test level exceeds the below:
•Zeranol: 0.9 ng/mL
•Zilpaterol: 0.9 ng/mL
•Clenbuterol 0.9ng/mL
However, results at (or below) the above levels will be reported to the Program Committee. In the event that a Player tests at or below the above confirmation test levels, the Player shall be subject to Reasonable Cause Testing pursuant to Section 47.6(c)(i), but not Sections 47.6(c)(ii) or (iii)for a period of no more than 6 months.A test result pursuant to such Reasonable Cause Testing shall be considered a positive only if the confirmation test level exceeds the levels set out above.
CBA §47.3 amended to provide that the Parties, with the assistance of the Independent Administrator, shall confer on an annual basis to consider whether additional substances should be added to the list of substances subject to confirmation test levels.A decision to include an additional substance on the list, as well as the confirmation levels applicable thereto, shall be made jointly by the Parties, taking into account evidence confirming the presence of the substance in the food chain and/or the environment and such other evidence and considerations relevant and appropriate to the determination.
In it's current state CBA 47.8 doesn't list any specific prohibited substances, just says the league will put together a list using WADA as a source, but not constrained to including every single substance banned by WADA. Zeranol and Zilpaterol are used on livestock. Clenbuterol has a veterinary history as well but is used in human asthma treatments.
Carter Ashton was suspended for Clenbuterol back in 2014. Have to wonder if Nate Schmidt tested positive for one of these three in 2018.
LadyStanley
Registered User
NHL, NHLPA ratify plan to resume season
Prospects can not participate in this year's playoffs, but can sign M-W next week and burn a year off of their ELC.
Prospects can not participate in this year's playoffs, but can sign M-W next week and burn a year off of their ELC.
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,727
They didn't improve this for lower-paid players, though. Nice job, NHLPA. Way to look out for who's [apparently not] important.
I'm OK with this one. It was effectively turning UFAs into RFAs by trying to restrict where they could sign without compensation.
Shall I start the list of items the NHLPA could (should) have fixed and didn't? Eh, I'll wait and see what everyone else notices first and then drop my list of glaring issues. [Spoiler: they didn't fix compressed scheduling. If anything, they made it slightly worse.]
Escrow: I'm not totally convinced the players actually fixed it, but I need to think this one out a lot more. I do know that if (when) the owners overspend the midpoint on average, the players still bear the full brunt of it. (Maybe Fehr got the players monogrammed plush bath robes of minimum softness instead.) My gut says the escrow problem is better but the players still may be subject to it, and that escrow caps may come back to haunt the players. Also think the method for setting the cap is half-assed and has flaws, but need to think about this one more as well. (Think this will be a problem in low-growth periods.)
No change to paragraph 17 of SPC because escrow takes care of it.
So when regular seasons starts behind empty doors, teams pay full boat(and in USA can write off against profits elsewhere on past, current and future income) while getting the money returned to them on the back end of the deal.
RTP exempts players for now, but players will have to play in the fall or otherwise be in breach of contract.
So when regular seasons starts behind empty doors, teams pay full boat(and in USA can write off against profits elsewhere on past, current and future income) while getting the money returned to them on the back end of the deal.
RTP exempts players for now, but players will have to play in the fall or otherwise be in breach of contract.
uncleben
Global Moderator
Can’t find it in the CBA at the moment, but it’s related to the gifts players get for playing 1,000 games. Doesn’t count towards salary cap.
Added: Falls under exhibit 38: milestone gifts.
Last edited:
uncleben
Global Moderator
LadyStanley
Registered User
LadyStanley
Registered User
Kane One
Registered User
uncleben
Global Moderator
One that attempted to uphold the superfluous complexity of the original trade conditions
The original trade was broken down into finite possibilities that involved both playoff and regular season appearances by Vatanen. Because the regular season went out the window, they needed to factor in the possibility of Vatanen playing some games in the Qualifying Round.
Lempo
Recovering Future Considerations Truther
- Feb 23, 2014
- 27,704
- 86,617
Per 58, the receiving team choosing to not honor a NTC/NMC that has not yet become active is no longer an option.
That was always a head-scratcher for me; it feels silly that the receiving team could receive a better SPC than the sending team is trading away. Similarly, it feels a huge one-sided renegotiation on a deal where the player had negotiated for being in control his destiny once he's eligible for UFA status and probably had left money on table.
I tried to explaing it to myself by forcing myself to think that RFAs are not eligible for having a trade clause which puts limit to their negotiating for one before actually reaching the UFA status eligibility,
because tradeability is an important feature in an NHL SPC, and such pre-agreed trade clause would de facto extend the trade clause protection being available to an RFA,
and that NHL/NHLPA probably thought that the team A and the player should not be able to agree between themselves on a special clause that would, upon trade, come to effect on team B (so a third party) instead,
but it still felt like massive diversion from pacta sunt servanda. This is probably a good thing.
That was always a head-scratcher for me; it feels silly that the receiving team could receive a better SPC than the sending team is trading away. Similarly, it feels a huge one-sided renegotiation on a deal where the player had negotiated for being in control his destiny once he's eligible for UFA status and probably had left money on table.
I tried to explaing it to myself by forcing myself to think that RFAs are not eligible for having a trade clause which puts limit to their negotiating for one before actually reaching the UFA status eligibility,
because tradeability is an important feature in an NHL SPC, and such pre-agreed trade clause would de facto extend the trade clause protection being available to an RFA,
and that NHL/NHLPA probably thought that the team A and the player should not be able to agree between themselves on a special clause that would, upon trade, come to effect on team B (so a third party) instead,
but it still felt like massive diversion from pacta sunt servanda. This is probably a good thing.
Lempo
Recovering Future Considerations Truther
- Feb 23, 2014
- 27,704
- 86,617
The (ii) makes plenty sense
1) in NHL where the tradeability on an SPC is paramount, and
2) in real life, where a term in a trade contract that restricts the new owner in
some way from using the rights inherent to ownership could legally be a no-go as such condition would pretty much undermine the whole legal concept of ownership.
(For the point 2, I'm thinking especially the b2c type standardized sales terms that try to prevent the buyer from further transferring their ownership of an item to a third party, like a "condition" on a physical CD trying to ban the buyer from re-selling of the CD,
or a condition witholding the "right of first refusal with the original price" for the original seller in case of a resale.)
Not a fan of full ban on (i) though. Some players will outright refuse to (re-)sign except to
A reasonable compensation for (re-)signing such a player to the previous team is not out of place IMO, because the value of the player asset is higher to the team A who actually has better chance to get the player signed. They could've perhaps tried limiting the compensation so that it isn't allowed to be higher than a 3rd round pick (for example) to keep it from becoming onerous.
Last edited:
I haven't read through all 71 pages... but something to me seems kind of flawed...
There was/is presumably a massive balance owed to the owners from the players following this year. The players recieved all but one paycheque. The owners missed out on one paycheque's worth of regular season games entirely, and an entire playoffs of fans in the stands.
As far as I understand, the escrow percentage over the last few years has hovered around 10-15% as the average team spend is not the midpoint of the cap/floor, but much closer to the cap.
With the new CBA, the NHL is capping escrow as follows:
2020/21 20%
2021/22 14% if Preliminary HRR for the 2020/21 League Year equals or exceeds $3.3 Billion; 18% if Preliminary HRR for the 2020/21 League Year equals or is below $1.8 Billion; pro-rata rate in between $1.8 Billion and $3.3 Billion (e.g.Escrow Percentageof 16% if HRR is $2.55 Billion)
2022/23 10%
2023/24 6%
2024/25 6%
2025/26 6%
Now, if you look at all of the contracts currently committed to next year, I think the reality is that teams are going to be forced to be much closer to the cap than they want to be (and would normally be in a regular league year), simply because there's nowhere to shed the salary.
I don't know what a realistic estimate is for revenue drop from the projected $4.8b for 2020-21, but it's gotta be well north of 15-20%.
Seems like the escrow cap only covers the effect of too many teams being close to the cap... nevermind the revenue drop. How are the players supposed to make a dent in the balance owed to the owners from this year, and presumably next year when revenues are unlikely to rebound to their projected 2019-20 levels?
There was/is presumably a massive balance owed to the owners from the players following this year. The players recieved all but one paycheque. The owners missed out on one paycheque's worth of regular season games entirely, and an entire playoffs of fans in the stands.
As far as I understand, the escrow percentage over the last few years has hovered around 10-15% as the average team spend is not the midpoint of the cap/floor, but much closer to the cap.
With the new CBA, the NHL is capping escrow as follows:
2020/21 20%
2021/22 14% if Preliminary HRR for the 2020/21 League Year equals or exceeds $3.3 Billion; 18% if Preliminary HRR for the 2020/21 League Year equals or is below $1.8 Billion; pro-rata rate in between $1.8 Billion and $3.3 Billion (e.g.Escrow Percentageof 16% if HRR is $2.55 Billion)
2022/23 10%
2023/24 6%
2024/25 6%
2025/26 6%
Now, if you look at all of the contracts currently committed to next year, I think the reality is that teams are going to be forced to be much closer to the cap than they want to be (and would normally be in a regular league year), simply because there's nowhere to shed the salary.
I don't know what a realistic estimate is for revenue drop from the projected $4.8b for 2020-21, but it's gotta be well north of 15-20%.
Seems like the escrow cap only covers the effect of too many teams being close to the cap... nevermind the revenue drop. How are the players supposed to make a dent in the balance owed to the owners from this year, and presumably next year when revenues are unlikely to rebound to their projected 2019-20 levels?
LadyStanley
Registered User
13 of 31 teams have (bonus) cap overages for the 19-20 season. They have a few days to determine whether to roll entire amount over to 20-21, or spread out hit over multiple seasons.
uncleben
Global Moderator
LadyStanley
Registered User
To quote from article: "Teams must make their decision seven days before free agency begins, or roughly by the end of the playoffs."
They’re not
US owners can write off losses this year against past, current and future earnings in all their other businesses.
Expect a lot of team sales going forward.
NHLPA knew they were going to take it in the shorts, so they settled for improved creature comforts for a little wage compression.
I'm not sure I understand your response.
With escrow capped, it's the owners who are going to "take it in the shorts"...
The revenue split is firm, the escrow is capped, but never ending over the CBA even as the owners get the perpetual tax credit for money they don’t actually pay out.
So they negotiated paragraph 17 of the SPC collectively. Short term status quo, every new player in the league gets hosed.
It puts public pressure on guys to sign with the new team and on the flip side that fellow in Toronto might be out of a job over a second round pick. There is no reason to mess with players public image or screw them out of work after they are UFA's
