As reported by Pierre LeBrun and Elliotte Freidman on Friday and augmented by Larry Brooks on Saturday, we are finally seeing some traction in the negotiations between the NHL and NHLPA. After a lack of discussions due to the NHL's proposal for additional deferment of salary, the two sides resumed talks last Thursday, which carried forward into Friday. Lots of work still to be done - with the economic issues still on the table for resolution - but maybe, just maybe, we are inching closer to an agreement and start of the season.
Quick NHL-NHLPA Friday morning update:https://t.co/BCXjqeyugt
— Pierre LeBrun (@PierreVLeBrun) December 4, 2020
🎥: @FriedgeHNIC and @reporterchris joined @DavidAmber to discuss the latest talks between the NHL & NHLPA about the 2020-21 season, what the schedule could look like, and how COVID-19 could continue to impact the return-to-play plans. #NHLonSNhttps://t.co/jUgIuy4z8a
— Sportsnet (@Sportsnet) December 5, 2020
Tougher to get a strong grip on economic discussions. Obviously very sensitive. Players have made it clear they will not touch 6 per cent escrow cap in final three years or CBA...We will see on deferring money....both sides working at it
— Elliotte Friedman (@FriedgeHNIC) December 5, 2020
Below are a few of the points from LeBrun, updated to reflect what Friedman reported as we all as Brooks in one case:
• A 52-game and 56-game schedule were both discussed as options Thursday night, but a source says the preference for both sides would be 56 games for obvious revenue reasons. Per Friedman, a 56-game schedule appears to be the preference with the season starting January 15, though potentially without any exhibition games. Brooks added Saturday that 52-56 games seems ambitious, given current travel restrictions, quarantine requirements and the raging spikes across the country. Sources have told The Post that an alternate plan to start a 48-game season on Feb. 1 is the more likely option
• Training camps for all 31 teams would start around Jan. 2, although that could still be tweaked. Per Friedman, the seven teams that did not make the play-in round would start December 28 with the other teams beginning January 1 or 2.
• The good news is that the tone and tenor of the conversations have been positive. Of course, the pandemic is the overarching concern, driving the possibility of hubs.Per Friedman, and reported elsewhere, the season could begin in quasi-hubs and then open up if the vaccine is made available and distributed. Personally, think two games in three names or back-to-backs and move on to the next town.
• Sources suggest the NHL is adamant about wrapping up the Stanley Cup Final by early July, ahead of the summer Olympics. In part, because TV partner NBC is broadcasting those Olympics but another important part is wanting to get back to the normal schedule cycle ahead of the 2021-22 season. Not only is Seattle entering the fray as the NHL’s 32nd team then but the NHL and NHLPA still plan to send players to the winter Olympics in Beijing and therefore have to plan an Olympic two-week break into the schedule. Friedman reported that the regular season would end May 1, allowing room if games needed to with the playoffs completed and the Stanley Cup handed out June 30 to July 7.
The players are adamant right now about declining the deferment. As LeBrun and Friedman both mentioned, expect the players to eventually come back to the table by agreeing to a nominal cut. What that amount is, who knows. But for the players to go that route, look for a request for interest associated with the repayment of that capital in addition to, as mentioned before, post-career health insurance. If the players are going to give, they need to get as well.
Larry Brooks:
NHL's financial squabble rooted in owner's CBA botch https://t.co/JLCJ8TFk4j pic.twitter.com/REtdBGimL7
— New York Post Sports (@nypostsports) December 5, 2020
I hated the deal for that reason and wrote as much. I’d be fine with it if the players volunteer to change the CBA so that the cap could increase by a meaningful degree through the life of the agreement. I believe the more money in the system the better, even at the cost of annual mid-teens escrow.Information we’ve gathered over the last 48 hours indicates that the owners might have reason to be angry — but not at the union. Indeed, we’ve been told by two sources that club owners were largely uninformed about the spring and summer negotiations and had little or no time to examine the CBA before it was put to a vote.
Now that the owners understand the ramifications of the deal given the challenges of playing at least a largely spectator-free 2020-21, there is a group livid at the commissioner and deputy Bill Daly. We are told that Boston’s “Mr. Jacobs… is among them.
I agree with Brooks that the more money in the system, the better, since that means more money in the players' pockets down the road. But can also understand why they wanted to limit the escrow up front to retain a larger % of what they are owed now. Plus, as Brooks said, given the distrust that existed in the past between both sides, why would they think the league has their best interests at heart?
I love that Brooks calls out the owners. Just because you own a team, why is that a guarantee for profits, as Brooks said. Plus, if you knew an agreement was in the works, it behooved you to find out all the key parameters and understand what's included in the agreement. Plus, where were you the last four months after the ink dried, asleep at the switch and couldn't bring up your points during that time frame? I am sorry, the owners don't get a pass here, evidenced by Brooks being on the players side.