The deadline for
Club-Elected Salary Arbitration notification is July 6, 2008 at 5 p.m.
ET. Hearings will be held in Toronto from
July 20 to August 4, 2008."
More significant is the fact that these players are now ineligible to receive offer sheets from rival teams.
"The National Hockey League and the National Hockey League Players’ Association
announced today that the Team Payroll Range established for the 2008-09 League
Year, pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, provides for a Lower
Limit of $40.7 million, an Adjusted Midpoint of $48.7 million and an Upper Limit
of $56.7 million."
Reuters recently reported NHLPA Executive Director Paul
Kelly said the players likely won’t make a decision on re-opening the current
NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement until the middle of the 2008-09 season.
Under the terms of the current CBA the players have the
option of re-opening the deal after the end of next season, but Kelly suggests
there may not be much desire from the majority of players to do so.
"We're just beginning to have that dialogue with the players," he
said at the Sports Lawyers Association's annual conference in San Francisco.
"I don't think anyone has a tremendous appetite for serious labor
negotiations unless there's a good, solid business reason for it."
While acknowledging the union would love to kill the salary cap, he warned
that reopening the deal would also give owners a crack at renegotiating parts
of the contract they do not like.
"The players need to understand ... be careful what you wish for; that
you could be finding yourself embroiled in a much longer and more difficult
discussion," he said.
Quite frankly, at this point in time there’s no logical
reason for the players to revisit labor negotiations with the NHL.
The current CBA has worked out far better for the players
than their numerous critics predicted when the deal was ratified in July 2005. The average player salary and median salaries are higher now
than they were in 2003-04, the final season under the previous CBA.
Since the NHL returned to action under the current deal, the
salary cap has risen significantly each season, from the $39.5 million of
2005-06 to this season’s $50.3 million, to the projected $55-$56 million for the
2008-09 season.
And with the Nashville Predators, Chicago Blackhawks, Los
Angeles Kings, Minnesota Wild and Buffalo Sabres all reportedly raising ticket
prices for next season, the NHL’s new $100 million per season contract with
Hockey Night in Canada, the robust Canadian dollar and the tapping of other
revenue streams, the cap will likely rise again for the 2009-10 season.
The mandated salary cap “floor” - $16 million less than the
cap “ceiling” – ensures teams cannot get cheap with players salaries, forcing
them to spend a mandated set amount each season.
In 2005-06, the “floor” was $23.5 million. Next season, it
could be around $39.5 million – the same figure as the cap ceiling just three
short seasons ago.
The constantly rising salary cap is by itself enough of a
reason for the players not to re-open the CBA. They may not like the cap but it
hasn’t hurt them anywhere near as much as predicted.
By making the comment about the lack of appetite by the
players to re-open talks unless there’s a sound business reason for doing so, I
think Kelly’s already tipped hockey fans as to their intent. There
really isn’t the stomach for another potentially contentious round of labor
talks among the majority of players, or for that
matter among many of the owners, so soon after the season-killing lockout of 2004-05.
Of course it’s always possible things could change between
now and next summer to spur the players into re-opening talks, but seeing how
the league and the owners cannot make any changes to the CBA without getting
the concurrence of the NHLPA, that doesn’t appear possible.
Even if the PA were to decide to re-open negotiations, the
unwillingness between both sides for another protracted labor battle could
potentially bring about a far quicker resolution than we’ve seen in previous
rounds.
Rest easy, NHL hockey fans, there won’t be another CBA labor
war in 2009.
Various reports since Sunday claim the NHL Players Association’s selection committee is expected to unanimously recommend the hiring of lawyer Paul Kelly as their new Executive Director.
“Kelly is the former U.S. assistant district attorney who tried to have NHLPA founder Alan Eagleson extradited to the United States to face charges of fraud and embezzlement.”
If Kelly is hired as expected, what does it mean for the PA, the NHL and future labor negotiations between the two sides?
The first consequence is the end of over two years of infighting and disarray in the NHLPA. His hiring won’t be under the questionable circumstances as that of his predecessor, Ted Saskin, meaning there shouldn’t be any divisions within the PA ranks over it.
Second, forget about any cozy relationship between Kelly and league headquarters that continues to dog Saskin since his dismissal as well as NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly. Kelly’s being hired to represent the players, and given his resume that’s exactly what he’ll do.
Now it remains to be seen if he’ll become “a Bob Goodenow clone” which some observers are likely to paint him, but given his work in corporate law he’s expected to be a tough negotiator.
How well this sits with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and Deputy Daly (who did the heavy lifting on the league’s behalf during the last lockout) remains to be seen. If they don’t know what to expect in Kelly will be rest assured they’ll begin the feeling-out process soon.
Third, despite the dire warnings from some pundits we can likely expect over this both now and in the future, Kelly’s hiring doesn’t mean the PA will re-open labor talks with the league in 2009 as they’re allowed to do under the current collective bargaining agreement.
For one thing, Kelly has to get settled into his new role and gauge the lay of the land before plunging ahead into any serious negotiations or plans. He’s first got to meet with the PA membership, heal the rifts within its ranks, encourage the younger members to engage more actively in association business and determine the direction the membership wants to take in the coming years.
Some pundits have painted Chris Chelios, Dwayne Roloson and the other dissidents who led the charge in ousting Saskin as power brokers within the PA ranks, who’ll try to maneuver Kelly into cashiering the current CBA and re-opening labor talks with the league in 2009.
“Chelios never intended to run the NHLPA--first, and foremost, he’s very busy both managing two successful restaurants and playing hockey for the Detroit Red Wings, which he plans on doing so for at least a few more years. Moreover, he never wanted to stage another lock-out--Chelios wanted to get Saskin’s butt kicked out of office, and he wants the NHLPA to act and operate as an honest, open, and accountable union. That’s all.
Chelios has his beefs with the collective bargaining agreement, there’s no doubt…but undoing the salary cap is not a fight Chelios or anyone else can win at this point.”
Assuming for a moment that Kelly is Goodenow incarnate or is actually a front man for Chelios and his hordes who supposedly want to undo this cap, they’d first have to convince the PA membership that this is a fight worth having.
That’s not an easy sell. For one thing, players salaries are now as high or higher than they were in 2003-04, the final year of the last CBA. It’s awfully hard to rile up the membership when they’re doing as well as they ever have and could be poised to earn more.
But the biggest hurdle is convincing a currently fractured PA membership weary of the internal politics and possibly apathetic regarding association business that it’s worthwhile to return to the labor war trenches.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the majority of the members of the NHLPA lack the stomach for another fight with the league only four years after the last lockout ended.
Not because they’re cowards, but because right now they’d rather play hockey than risk possibly losing another season or part of one to a potentially contentious work stoppage.
With salaries consistently rising, escrow payments as yet having no serious consequences and the cap adversely affecting only past-their-prime veterans and marginal players who’d otherwise be career minor-leaguers if not for bloated NHL rosters, there’s really not an impetus there for a return to the bargaining table in 2009. To convince the players otherwise would take a sell job for the ages on Kelly’s part.
The earliest to expect labor talks again is 2011, when the current CBA is due to expire, or 2012 if the PA votes to extend it by another season.
Things could be different by then and perhaps the players will want a new deal, but considering how it’s been the league and the team owners who’ve brought about the last two work stoppages by locking out the players trying to get a deal they want, that doesn’t seem likely.
If there’s another lockout within the next five years, it’ll be the league and the owners doing, not the players.
By that time, the league should expect to face a more unified NHLPA, with a more involved membership, led by an executive director who could prove to be one tough, savvy negotiator.
Bettman recently said he believes in a strong NHLPA, and he might’ve received his wish, possibly to his regret.
As for the NHLPA, another chapter in their history has closed and another soon to begin, one they hope will have a better ending than the previous chapters.
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.
Gambling has become a bit of a sticky topic in the NHL ever since former Phoenix Coyotes assistant coach Rick Tocchet’s alleged involvement in an illegal gambling ring hit the news last February.
If Tocchet is indeed found guilty of any wrongdoing he could be facing some jail time and any hopes he may have had of one day becoming an NHL head coach will suffer a serious setback.
Some in the media disgraced themselves by attempting to smear Tocchet’s boss, Wayne Gretzky, when it was revealed his wife, sometime actress Janet Jones, placed bets with Tocchet.
Never mind that Jones was never accused of committing any crime; the fact that there was a whiff of tabloid scandal swirling about the Great One was enough for some hockey reporters to wallow in yellow journalism before all the facts were in.
Gambling in the NHL remains a sore spot for some in the media. The Toronto Star’s Damien Cox recently suggested the NHL might be engaging in hypocrisy by shunning Tocchet for his actions but at the same time embracing the Pittsburgh Penguins bid for a gaming license from the Isle of Capri gaming corporation to fund a new arena.
Mr. Cox is one of the better pundits covering the NHL, but I believe he's wrong in this case. There’s simply no hypocrisy to be found here.
Tocchet allegedly placed bets for an illegal gambling ring. The Isle of Capri is involved in legalized gambling thus the Penguins aren’t doing anything illegal in obtaining a gaming license.
Kukla’s Korner recently noted sixteen current and former NHL players taking part in a charity poker tournament, which will be televised on TSN in Canada.
The poster of this piece correctly observed that this could generate some negative media publicity for the league and the NHLPA because of the ongoing investigation into Tocchet’s alleged activities.
In my humble opinion, any pundit who tries to draw comparisons to Tocchet over this charity event is nothing more than a cheap sensationalist out to sell papers or to increase the traffic to their site.
It’s comparing apples to oranges. The PA poker tournament is legalized gambling and there’s nothing wrong with it.
It’s really quite simple. If a player does what Tocchet is alleged to have done, it’s illegal. If an NHL players bets on NHL games, even if he’s not betting on his own team, it has legal ramifications. Just ask former MLB great Pete Rose. Former NHL players Billy Taylor and Babe Pratt also found out the hard way back in the late 1940s.
If, on the other hand, an NHL player is placing bets through a legal gambling operation on any other sport, or is engaged in other legalized forms of gambling like poker, there’s nothing wrong with it unless that player no longer knows their limits and becomes addicted to gambling. In that case, they need to seek treatment.
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.
