Ken Campbell of The Hockey News and Stan Fischler of MSG Network recently suggested that the NHLPA could be preparing for another labor war with the NHL in two years time, depending on who the PA hires to become its new executive director.
The PA is presently cleaning up the mess left over by former PA director Ted Saskin, who was hired under questionable circumstances to replace Bob Goodenow, whose firing in July 2005 by the PA player executive sparked questioning by a small group of players ultimately leading to Saskin’s downfall.
PA player representatives like Chris Chelios and Eric Lindros are part of a search committee by the association (it’s not a union, folks, certainly not in the traditional sense) to find a new leader. Chelios and Lindros have frequently stated they weren’t in any hurry, would take their time assessing suitable candidates and wouldn’t allow themselves to be rushed by outside forces (read: the league).
It certainly doesn’t sound like the PA has any intention of stirring up labor trouble with the league, but that’s the suggestion made by Fischler and Campbell.
Fischler dismisses the upcoming result of the PA’s recent internal investigation into Saskin’s hiring, seemingly more concerned about Chelios becoming “the new, chief Association power broker” and suggesting there will be “another civil war” in two years time.
By that, Fischler means the NHLPA exercising its right under the current CBA to re-open negotiations with the league if the association considers the current agreement not beneficial to the players.
Campbell meanwhile points to a letter from Adam Larry, the NHLPA’s associate counsel, licensing, concerning the union’s Group Licensing Authorization Agreement (GLA), in which Larry cites the following:
“In addition to generating revenue for the NHLPA that can be used, among other things, to build a war chest for upcoming CBA negotiations, the GLA demonstrates union solidarity among its members.”
To his credit Campbell cites sources suggesting Larry’s comments were “likely more a poor choice of words than an indication of the union’s strategy”, but he also quotes an unnamed player agent suggesting otherwise, pointing the finger squarely at the dissident group of player led by Chelios:
“The (Chris) Chelios group, which is driving the bus, doesn’t like this agreement and on the management side we read all the time about how various people don’t like this agreement,” the agent said. “So where do you think we’re headed? It’s just a matter of time, unfortunately. There will not be a new CBA before this one expires, I think it’s fair to say.”
Campbell also cites some agents speculating that “the new PA executive director will strongly consider terminating the agreement, with the players’ approval, particularly if the salary cap stops going up.”
So should we all brace for another labor war between the league and the NHLPA in two years time?
I might be wrong in saying this, but no, I don’t think it’ll happen.
First, those in the PA who might not like this current agreement will have to convince the membership to approve terminating the agreement in 2009, something I don’t believe the majority of players will do.
It’s only been two years since the season-killing lockout ended, four years by 2009. The majority of players simply won’t have the stomach for another labor war so soon after the last one.
We also don’t have a firm number of how many people within the PA actually hate this agreement and want to end it. The dissidents within the PA ranks obviously exist since it was their efforts that brought down Saskin, but we don’t know how many there are.
It could be fifty, sixty, a hundred or two hundred. Even so, that number wouldn’t win any vote right now for terminating the agreement, and I doubt their ranks will swell in two years time to have any significant impact on swaying the rest to vote for another battle with the league.
Campbell suggests the new PA director, whoever it is, could consider terminating this CBA, but I’m of the opinion that whoever gets the job would likely prefer more time to improve things within the PA ranks first. They’ll also likely take time to fully evaluate the CBA as well as gauge the attitude of the owners and the league’s potential negotiators before charging blindly in a labor war.
We also cannot assume that Chelios, Lindros and company will push for terminating this agreement. Sure, they weren’t happy with it and along with Edmonton’s Dwayne Roloson and former player Trent Klatt openly criticized the deal, but it’s premature to assume their intention is to hire some sap whom they can influence into breaking this CBA.
Campbell also suggests the players might approve such a bold move if the salary cap stops rising, but if the past two seasons and the upcoming one are indications, that’s not going to happen over the next two years.
Heading into this season, eight NHL clubs (Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Boston, Minnesota, San Jose, Buffalo and the NY Rangers) are raising ticket prices and every one of those teams are in cities where hockey is popular.
Philadelphia, another strong hockey town, aren’t raising prices but have announced higher season ticket sales this year compared to last.
The defending Stanley Cup champion Anaheim Ducks raised their ticket prices for this coming season back in March, and recently announced they’ve not only reached their season ticket goal of 15,000 but have now introduced a wait list for season tickets for 2008-09.
The New Jersey Devils are moving into a new arena this coming season and more than doubled the cost of season tickets.
Meanwhile, the NHL's new television contract with CBC’s Hockey Night in Canada starts next season, which sees the network paying the league an estimated $100 million per season for six seasons until 2013-14, a significant increase over the previous contract which paid the league $65 million per season.
Then there’s merchandise sales, which the league recently announced have shown a steady increase in recent months; an increase that’s bound to continue with the unveiling of the expensive new RBK hockey uniforms.
Given all this, revenues are bound to be higher next season and in 2008-09, which in turn will push the salary cap higher. Conservative estimates suggest it could reach $52 million for the 2008-09 season, but it’s also possible it could go as high as $55 million.
Even if the cap increases slow (likely) or stop (which it won’t), it’s doubtful that’ll convince a significant majority of players to put the kibosh on this CBA.
Sure, there may be aging veterans who aren’t seeing the big money they used to under the previous CBA. Some that are unable to land NHL contracts are probably unhappy. Perhaps some marginal players stuck on two-way contracts that pay them considerably less when they’re demoted could be grumbling.
But the majority are and will be those in their twenties and early thirties, either approaching or within their prime earning years, earning salaries comparable to those under the previous CBA.
Indeed, a trend appears to be emerging whereby younger players (thanks to the lower UFA eligibility age) are earning more lucrative contracts under this CBA than under the previous one; a trend likely to occur with more frequency by 2009. Why would those players want to break a CBA that's paying them better than the previous one?
With the average salary already above 2003-04 levels and the median salary creeping upward, it just doesn’t seem possible that a minority of disgruntled players, agents and PA executives can sway the majority into giving up a deal that’s been good to them so far.
My sympathies have always been with the players in their labor wars with the league, as the league has always used the players as scapegoats for problems created by owners, plus made misleading statements to fans during the last lockout (and how are you all enjoying those affordable ticket prices under a salary cap?).
If the PA were actually dumb enough to terminate this current deal in 2009, they won’t have my sympathy. Sure, this deal isn’t perfect, but as we’ve seen and which Campbell alluded to, it’s not just some players and agents grumbling about it. We’re now hearing rumblings of unhappiness from some small market US-based teams over their struggle to keep pace with the cap floor.
There’s legitimate media-generated concern this summer that the gulf between big and small-market teams is widening again, despite the cost certainty that was supposed to level the playing surface and allow all thirty teams regardless of market to be competitive.
So unless the new PA director starts saber-rattling next summer or next season, I just can’t buy into this theory of a new uncivil civil war in the NHL in 2009.
1) We suggest folks listen to what Fischler has to say with regard to these issue. NOT because he has any sage information to share, but because he is/has been a direct conduit of the league owners/Bettman's position.
2) Gary Bettman can't out right say that hiring the wrong person/making Chelios "chief Association power broker" would cause another 'war', but Stan can. We should all therefore rightly heed his statements!
3)So what does this all mean? Of course its all conjecture on our part, but we are NOT optimistic about avoiding further lockouts in the future. It wouldn't be a stretch to forsee in the next 2-3 years before the CBA expires a resuption of owners complaining they are losing money and a 'change' needs to be made. The owners next goal, guarenteed contracts?!? Eliminating those would erase a huge headache. One that the NFL to this day has avoided.
4) The players said they'd never capitulate on a salary cap, and they ultimately did, so the owners may feel they can impliment whatever system they want. Billionares always trump(no pun) millionares!
Last edited by fauxrumors5 on August 30th at 10:58 AM.
And yet when the league emerged with supposed clear cut victories over the players following the last two work stoppages, it turned out to be a better deal for the players than predicted.
Sure, the owners could seek to eliminate guaranteed contracts, but will that address the current problem of the widening gulf between big and small market teams? Nope. Sure, the NFL has non-guaranteed contracts, but it's revenue sharing, not those contracts, that has truly leveled the playing field for the NFL.
That's why I'm anticipating the next labor war could pit small market owners against the big market ones.
1) Agreed, that revenue sharing would seem to be the logical way to assist small markets. Many, you included, were saying this throughout the lockout. The players last proposal before they gave in probably addressed this better than the ultimate deal they acquiesced to.
2) Of course getting all the owners to agree on anything, especially sharing their money, would be harder than to vilify the players as greedy, etc. like they successfully did in 2003
Since you very briefly mentioned the new RBK jerseys, I feel that I can post this here. The Canucks unveiled their new jerseys today, and they are possibly the worst jerseys I have ever seen.
They remind me of when I played hockey as a kid and there would be teams like "The Joe's Electrical Supply Canucks" using an NHL logo with the name of the team sponson emblazoned on top. Ugh. Wow, if the rest of the NHL has jerseys like that, I don't see them getting much in the way of revenue from them.
Lyle how do you determine who is small market? I look at it and Edmonton is a small market, but right now they are doing okay and don't exactly need the revenue sharing. On the other hand once the Canadian dollar goes down, then Edmonton would need all kinds of help.
Another note, I see you touched basis on how the owners thought they came out on top. Pretty funny that the players are doing just fine. I really wonder what the highest salary would be if there were no cap.
1) Probably 'low revenue/high revenue' markets would be a better definition than 'small/large market'.
2) We have read differing opinions of how much the exchange rate has helped the bottom lines of teams up north. Some say its very significant, others say its exaggerated.
Agreed with the revenue, but I could see alot of teams hiding revenue or purposely tweaking so that they get to be apart of the revenue.
Its definitly helping, the other factor that is currenty helping the Oilers investors team is the Oil in this province. They all own other companies throughout the province and right now a ten year old could turn a profit with a company in alberta.
Last edited by Ryan7878 on August 30th at 11:48 AM.
Edmonton is not small market. Cal Nichol in July was quoted in The Tennessean claiming the Oilers revenue ranked them seventh overall in the league. Blogger Tom Benjamin, in commenting on Nichol's statement, reported reading somewhere that all six Canadian teams were among the top team leading revenue makers in the NHL last season.
That should also address any comments from those suggesting the effect of the robust Canadian dollar upon the bottom line of Canadian teams is exaggerated.
Jim Nill of the Detroit Red Wings noted that the reason all six Canadian teams accounted for one-third of league revenues was because of the improved value in the Cdn dollar.
You won't hear the Oilers pleading poverty nowadays, and if the "loonie" remains over .90 cents US by the next round of labor talks, you won't see them siding with small market US-based teams, especially if the owners of those teams push for increased revenue sharing.
After all, if the Oilers revenues continue to place them among the top ten team in the league,why would they want to share it with struggling teams in non-traditional NHL markets in the United States?
Unless, of course, the "loonie" plunges to below .70 cents US again.
For the sake of hockey, I hope the Oilers don't turn that way Lyle. They won't be on top forever. Another losing year and they might just see their profits go down.
Ryan: I doubt that very much. The Oilers are a smaller version of the Canadiens and Maple Leafs. Sure, their market isn't the same size as those two, but the fan base is large and fanatical, and a couple of losing seasons won't put them off.
Indeed, given how the Oilers are now willing to spend money on big name UFAs (even if they're unwilling this summer to play there)and offer sheets to rival teams RFA players, Oilers fans could have an additional incentive to support the team than in the past under the old CBA.
Back then, the weak "loonie" made it impossible for the Oilers to retain their best players or bid for the top UFA talent. But with the stronger Cdn dollar giving the Oilers a willingness to spend to improve the team that they didn't have before, Oilers fans will come out in droves because the team is now willing to spend to ice a competitive team.
The only reason I say the team could lose some profits is that the fans are so cut throat here. The city of Edmonton gained alot of new fans during the cup run that don't understand the game. All they want is to win and at any cost. At the sametime alot of fans were mumbling and grumbling anout how sh*tty the team is after being so great. The true fans know that it takes a couple of rough seasons to bounce back, but the newbies just don't get it. Plus everyone isn't going to have money forever here.
As long as the Cdn dollar remains robust, the Oilers are in great shape to make a lot more money. They' are pushing for a new arena (I believe it's supposedly an 18,000 seat venue they want) because they know they have the potential to rake in even more revenue after reaching 110 percent capacity last season and expecting more of the same this season.
Why do you think the ownership declined to sell to Darryl Katz for far more than they paid for the club? Five years ago if Katz made this offer, Nichol, Laforge and company would've taken it. Not now, not with franchise values climbing, the robust Canadian dollar, and the possibility of seeing a considerable increase in revenue with a new, bigger arena.
Not sure how close you follow Edmonton Lyle, but this arena deal seems to be pretty far fetched right now. If they want to build it downtown it will take a long time to build it, as there are currently not enough roads/bridges into downtown. Plus it sounds like the city will be the main backers on this, so that means another project will end up taking twice as long as it should to build and cost twice as much. A realistic time frame for this project would be 10 years minimum.
Yes, and the current ownership appears willing to take however long it takes to get that deal. Don't be surprised if they keep up pressure in the coming months/years to get it done sooner rather than later.
Considering the Loonie's value at the moment, Edmonton brass has to push for that arena. They'd be fools not to, particularly given there are no guarantees with the economy. The Loonie could plummett again just as easily as it could overtake the USD.
Realistically, the Canadian teams should be milking this time period for all it's worth. Carpe diem.
I think the current cba works well for the players when you look at how much money is being thrown around. If the players want to make more money then they need to play well to get more people into the game and the NHL also needs to get a better tv contract. Europe is slowly turning into a better and better option for NHLers to go to and I think that's going to turn into a path taken more and more by player's who're looking for more money or sometimes even for what's coming to them are going to chose to go over to Europe, which now has several leagues with teams capable of coughing up well over a million a year.
If the players want to be successfull they can't have incredibly high demands, otherwise it'll be easier for teams to lose money and you'll just see the market shrink after that.
First off, I really enjoyed this posting (not that I normally don't). Contained a heck of a lot of good information.
That said, here's the main point as far as I'm concerned: either of these sides would be ridiculously stupid to go ahead and green light another labor war or anything else that could negatively impact the fans' perception of the game just as it's slowly inching its way back to credibility.
Now I know that most fans quote-unquote didn't learn their lesson by quickly taking the game back following the most recent labor exploits (someone should have minted T-shirts "I survived the labor war and all I got was this crummy Thank You Fans painted on the ice") but this would be a total disaster. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, and ultimately greed and ego ruin the best laid plans. Here's to hoping you're right on this, Lyle, because it sounds scary to me.
ohh wonderful anouther cry me a river over pay!! thats what killed baseball for two people i know, my dads partner and my brother, who stated that if MLB went on strike the hell with them thye did and nope no more whatching baseball for them... no im sure MLB could give a ??? if they dont whatch...but i get so tired especialy when the TEACHERS GO ON STRIKE in my view they are saying the hell with the kids we want THIS OR THAT... with so many people out of work.. for god sake be happy for gods sake you have a JOB!!!! yea ill hear it from unionites but i dont care.... MONEY MONEY ISSSUES....... want this want that why not just do what unions want(PULL DOWN YOUR PANTS AND PUCKER UP) kiss someones ####
Last edited by kellyscott on August 31st at 4:20 AM.
prior union management refused to accept a deal, lost one year of salary then accepted a worse deal. i don't see how a new team would try to pull the same stunt. besides, in two years are lindros and chelios going to be part of the NHL?
1) We're all falling into the owners trap when discussing possible future labour unrest. We're focusing on what the players will do, etc, When in reality the last 2 work stoppages have been initiated not from the players but by the owners!
2) If there is another lockout, it will be initiated by Bettman and the owners, not the players. The NHL PR machine (which worked so well last time) will play up the rich players versus the poor ticket buyers/hockey consumers angle again.
Sure, they'll drag that old play out again because it worked so well last time, but it'll be a much tougher sell next time.
Remember, this is the owners CBA, the one Bettman and the owners swore they needed to survive. They've capped the player salaries ensuring they'll never earn more than 57% of revenues, so they can't blame any problems this time on "greedy players".
If anything, this CBA unlike the last one will only further highlight the fact that any problems arising out of this deal aren't of the players making.
I do agree with you, Faux, that as always it'll be the owners initiating labour trouble, not the players.
Last edited by Spector on August 31st at 10:51 AM.
1) We are old enough to recall the rhetoric after the 1995 lockout. Afterwards the media looked upon it as a clear cut owners victory. Much like in 2004 the owners stated they needed the changes that were made to keep themselves afloat. Only to have the pact backfire on them. The only difference in 2003-04 was the bogus Levitt report detailing the financial losses
2) People have very short memories, and we'd be shocked if the PR campaign/new Levitt-type report wasn't successful once again to influence fans. After all its much easier for fans to identify with/resent the success of a player than a corporation/billionaire owner
You're not the only one old enough to remember the '95 lockout. The difference between that, the last one and the next labour war is the salary cap, which not only limits how much a team can spend on an individual player or an entire roster but also how much of league revenues the players received for their salaries. And don't escrow and the strict limitations on bonuses.
But not all hockey fans have short memories, and most importantly, neither does the press, which is already openly questioning this CBA and Bettman's claims in the wake of the Predators struggles and the continued free agent spending frenzies (which usually includes the sentence, "Wasn't this CBA supposed to prevent this from occurring?").
There was a ten year gap between the 1994-95 lockout and the 2004-05 lockout. This CBA is due to expire in 2011, seven year after its ratification, and not enough time for media memory to sufficiently fade.
Let's not forget the 1992 players' strike, which a grim-faced Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier (among others) said was for concessions on behalf of younger players. (Somewhat ironic now that the main complaint against the current CBA is that younger players are making out like bandits.)
Regardless, no matter what happens, hockey will survive. The NHL and the NHLPA may wither away, but hockey will survive.
Apart from the 10-day players strike in 1992, the 1995 lockout and the 2004-05 lost season are the only labour troubles to face professional hockey (both prompted by the owners, I should add). With only six franchises from 1946-1967, the NHL owners were able to crush any union activity, most notably Ted Lindsay's efforts in the 1950s. When the NHLPA was finally created with Alan Eagleson in charge, the owners were essentially in control of the enemy camp until the Eagle resigned in 1991. And from that point the public labour troubles began...
There's a couple of great books on NHL labour history. I'll get the titles from my bookshelf later tonight and will post them here.
Last edited by Matt_McCallum on August 31st at 4:03 PM.
If there is a labor stoppage, no matter which side initiates, it would be disastrous for the game of hockey. I thought I'd never survive the last "unrest", but I did, and I discovered there are other things than hockey in the spring. If it happens again I suspect that hockey would lose most hard core fans, especially ME.
wynn: you're right, the NHL simply cannot afford another work stoppage, even if only for a few weeks. The last one did perhaps irreparable harm to the league's visibility in the American sports market. Another lockout could kill it for good.
It could also potentially dent the league's fanbase. Yes, NHL fans came back in droves but I really think the league would be pushing it to assume the same numbers would return next time. At some point fans patience would be taxed.
Not to mention everything previously reported concerning the league's dire need to get back onto ESPN. I really don't think a blackout due to labor strife would be a good way of encouraging ESPN execs to put aside a good night of darts, log rolling, and bridge.
I'm Lyle Richardson, also known as Spector, Foxsports.com 's "Prince of Pucks".,which is based on the fact I live in Prince Edward Island, Canada and I couldn't think of a better byline. I've been an NHL hockey commentator since 1998 on my website, Spector's Hockey, and I'm a contributing writer for Foxsports.com , The Hockey News and Eishockey News. I'm also a regular on The Faceoff Hockey Show and a frequent guest on "The Late Crew" on The Team 1200 Ottawa.
