It's Hopeless, Just Cancel It

Yesterday as I sat listening to Gary Bettman talk about the failed negotiations, and I could not help but notice his recognition that the players realize the economics have to change. He appreciates the 24% roll-back in salaries, and realizes they want to get the NHL into good financial shape. “Clearly, the 24 per cent rollback is an essential agreement in the implementation of a new system - the union has admitted as much. However, the rollback is not, in and of itself, a new system...”, Bettman explained.

Bettman offered class, and explanation of what was involved with the players’ proposal, and the league’s proposal. He talked about the players’ proposal putting the salaries at 56% of the league’s revenue on day one, and that there is no guaranty that the number wouldn’t go higher. He’s absolutely right.

NHLPA Director Bob Goodenow claims the league isn’t willing to negotiate, and will only accept a hard cap. “In short, the league took what they liked from our proposal, made major changes and slapped a salary cap on top of it.” That looks like a negotiation to me, Mr. Goodenow. They liked parts of your proposal, and wanted add things of their own. What’s wrong with that? Goodenow also added, “The NHL spent very little time in their proposal.” They had one week to get their proposal together. They also have a clear understanding of what they need to do to fix the systematic problems.

It seems to me that the NHLPA has an agenda, and they see it as their way or the highway. The league took their proposal, talked it over for a week, studied it, and made their changes. The NHLPA spent three and a half hours talking about why they wouldn’t accept a cap, why salary cuts work long time, and refused to accept the NHL’s offer.

Bob, get real. Your tactics and rederick are ruining the NHL. Your league has about $2 billion in yearly revenue to work with, and each day you jeopardize more and more of it. The league, for the first time, tried to negotiate with you, but you would not consider their offer. You looked at it, had a quick meeting, and got on your high horse to ride off into the sunset.

Unless something changes with the players association, there will not be a 2004-2005 hockey season. We’re nearing the close of the window of opportunity to get a short season in, and salvage the Stanley Cup playoffs. At the rate things are continuing, this will be the first time in professional sports history that a season was cancelled. Can the NHL really afford to be the league that accomplishes that?

If the players and owners cannot reach an agreement, and cancel this season, they must find a way to play hockey next season. If it means bringing in replacement players, then so be it. If you call up the right players from around the world, you most likely set the talent level back two to three years. Would it be bad hockey? Probably not. The scoring might even go up. Hey, since we’re using replacement players, why not take some of those ideas from Shanahan’s summit, and test them out? I bet the young guys could adjust better to new rules than the old guys.

The point to all of this is to get players on the ice. Get the league operating again, and show the NHLPA that if they do not want to cooperate, then they will find other people who can abide by a healthy economic system. The rederick has to stop, and the game of false numbers has to stop.

“Gary insists that player compensation had gone up by 12 per cent a year and projected that unsigned players would receive increases of over 23 per cent in 2005-2006 under our proposed system.”, Goodenow explains, “The facts are different. Over the last five years, player compensation has actually gone up around seven per cent a year. And the real numbers over the last five years of this agreement have been 5.2 per cent, 5.8 per cent, 14.4, 9.0 and 2.2.” Now let’s get real. Look at the 14.4 and the 9.0. That is clearly and indication that that Bettman is right in what he says. The only reason that you see a 2.2 is because the league warned the economic system is killing the NHL, and the owners decided not to increase it much in anticipation of a new CBA.

It’s all about the dollars. If you listen to a lot of the veterans, their only problem is the hard cap. They claim that it will hold them back from making what they are worth. If the company you work for only has room in their budget for $35 million, why would think that the players as a whole should be paid $43 million? This really is simple economics. It seems ok to them that the owners lose money, but if you ask them to work for $1.3 million instead of $1.8 million, you get the cold shoulder.

I don’t know if this is the best brainwashing job by a union in the history of negotiations, or true greed. Whatever the case, I hope they do cancel the 2004-2005 season. I hope they bust the union, and use replacement players. One thing is for certain, I will be in line to buy tickets to opening night, and I hope you will be too.

-Dan Joseph