Skip to content

Will NHL agree to NHLPA’s request for “aftermath” protection?

Nov 21, 2012, 2:51 PM EST

Image (1) emptyseats-thumb-250x170-13752-thumb-250x170-13753-thumb-250x170-17381.jpg for post 2937 Getty Images

While it’s clear the NHLPA has made moves towards the NHL, expect the following part of the union’s latest CBA proposal (as per the memo sent to the players) to grab the league’s attention:

“There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players’ share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players’ share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.”

So basically the union is saying there are no guarantees…unless you count the guarantee that the players’ share will never decrease year to year.

For the NHL, this of course means that hockey-related revenues can’t decrease year to year, otherwise the players will receive more than the agreed upon 50 percent of HRR.

Will the owners take that risk? Because there’s no telling how this lockout will be greeted by fans and sponsors. And the economy is anything but guaranteed to improve. There’s even concern in Canada that the dollar could fall considerably if there’s a slowdown in China.

Business is unpredictable. If it wasn’t, we’d all know if we should buy RIM stock.

Yahoo! Sports’ Nick Cotsonika makes another point:

Maybe the league will be willing to roll the dice that revenue will continue to grow each year as it did under the last CBA, but if we’ve learned anything about NHL owners it’s that they love their “cost certainty.”

Possibly related update (4:44 p.m. ET):

  1. habsman - Nov 21, 2012 at 2:56 PM

    This has a chance of being accepted………………..if you believe in flying pigs.

    • valoisvipers - Nov 21, 2012 at 3:38 PM

      @habsman I live in Mtl but hate the Habs sorry for that but I must say you submit some great posts here at PHT and I agree with lots of them.

  2. 1943mrmojorisin1971 - Nov 21, 2012 at 3:03 PM

    “there’s no telling how this lockout will be greeted by fans and sponsors.”

    I heard on TSN that the NHL has already lost a quarter of its brand value. Sponsors and fans will not unreservedly flock back, so that guarantee provision you mention could certainly be a major sticking point that dooms these talks. Hoping for the best though.

    • chrisvegas - Nov 21, 2012 at 3:07 PM

      I think it is still early enough in the season that they can do damage control and minimize the risk if they can get a deal done soon. If we get hockey back in December the lockout will be a think of the past quickly.

  3. chrisvegas - Nov 21, 2012 at 3:05 PM

    I don’t blame the players for wanting this since it was the owners who were so intend on causing the lockout. On the other hand I think if they can salvage the season now that the aftermath won’t be nearly as bad as it will if they were to cancel the entire season. It may not be that big of a risk for the owners as it is early enough in the season to do damage control. If the owners don’t agree to it then they must feel there is going to be a bug fallout from the lockout. However, if the owners do accept these terms it means they don’t feel the risk is that great.

  4. xaf605 - Nov 21, 2012 at 3:13 PM

    The indication of players still signing contracts today to go play in europe isnt very encouraging

    • shotzongoal - Nov 21, 2012 at 3:34 PM

      I mentioned this in another thread. This is a tough one for the league because it removes the ties in to HRR. It also indites the owners as the cause of the loss in revenues and to take full penalty for the losses but negotiations will still continue. I think the league now works off their offer, agrees to most, gives back on some contract issues and asks for movement on a few others. This clause being one of them. But the end is defiantly near!!

  5. mississippimudslinger - Nov 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM

    Chris you’re a dreamer… there has been damage beyond repair this time , only a fool would return to this with open arms and it sounds as if you’re dipped in fool’s gold

  6. chrisvegas - Nov 21, 2012 at 3:26 PM

    Keep in mind people that the owners don’t have to agree with every part of this proposal for an agreement to be made, they can still negotiate. The important part of this proposal is the fact that the Players have moved in the direction of the league’s demands. What we want to happen now is for them to get together and work it out getting a deal done. So for all you negative Nancy’s who are finding parts in this offer and crying about it, calm down. The important thing is that they moved forward in the process. Now it is the owners turn to counter.

  7. bleedingteal4life - Nov 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM

    This doesn’t sound fair. Now the players are being unrealistic. Bye bye season.

    • paperlions - Nov 21, 2012 at 4:16 PM

      I am willing to bet this was put in there for the sole purpose of “giving it back”….it’s a pretty typical tactic in negotiations…put in something you would love to get, but know won’t be agreed to….just so you can act like you are giving ground by giving it up.

Featured video

More than a Stanley Cup hangover?
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. S. Crosby (4452)
  2. B. Bishop (3057)
  3. D. Krejci (2837)
  4. C. Crawford (2544)
  5. C. Kunitz (2330)
  1. O. Palat (2072)
  2. C. Perry (2037)
  3. B. Elliott (1969)
  4. T. Oshie (1803)
  5. J. Boychuk (1629)