AFTER spending more than a year in sisting that the NHL would never ever agree to a compensation system based primarily on payroll taxes, Gary Bettman proposed just that in meetings with the PA in Toronto on Thursday and Friday.
Now that the league has abandoned its ideology, now the stalemate is merely about numbers (merely) and no longer about philosophy, it should only be a matter of time before a CBA is reached that will allow the season to begin on time.
The 2009-10 season, that is.
For according to individuals with knowledge of the complex proposal that featured floating thresholds based on overall payroll levels and tax rates designed to escalate dramatically for clubs repeatedly in the top third-to-half of the league spenders, teams with annual payrolls in the $33-35M range would have faced $200M in payroll taxes over the six-year term of the CBA – and forfeiture of three first-round draft picks, as well.
Indeed, as those who spent all of Thursday night analyzing the out-of-left field proposal – that also featured a hard cap upper and lower per-team number based on revenue – figured it, either two-thirds of the league would have been catapulted into the highest tax bracket by the middle of the CBA, or no team would have dared to spend more than $28-30M on payroll.
To say the least, the PA was baffled by the approach, which seemed to represent a wild league mood-swing from its previously stated positions and its public commitment to bargain off the high/low structure presented by the union early last month.
Indeed, we’re told that Friday morning’s session between the parties became “heated,” when the union presented its analysis of how the proposal would actually work, with Bettman first expressing shock at the PA’s projections (sure) before suggesting that the tax levels might be readjusted as not to act so onerously (sure).
Of course, it was just an accident that the proposal was designed to maintain payrolls at a level that would, in the end, represent an expenditure of approximately 54 percent of projected league revenue. Of course it was. And what else is new?
From their first proposal on Oct. 1, 2003 – the one-pager mandating an average payroll of $31M per team – through their proposal last December, through their “compromise trigger” proposal of early February, through any and all presented since they canceled 2004-05, that’s been constant in every league offer.
They can dress it up any way they want, camouflage it as carefully as possible, but in the end, as Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs would say, it’s about the bogus concept of 54 percent of the gross; bogus because without massive revenue sharing, there is no league gross to apportion to clubs.
In the meantime, now nearly three months following cancellation and just four months away from what would be the regularly scheduled opening of training camp, there has not been a single discussion of systemic issues such as arbitration and qualifiers, nor has there been a single discussion about 2004-05 contract issues and team/player rights.
As well, there’s been absolutely no understanding reached regarding either the definition of league revenues or the manner in which they would be calculated. We’re told that the league on Apr. 19 simply cited its previously commissioned Levitt Report when the matter was raised by the PA.
Is this anyone’s definition of progress?
It’s anybody’s guess, then, why the league has its teams – Ottawa was the latest – expressing so much optimism that a deal will be struck within the next month. Actually, it isn’t a guess, at all.
The league needs to present a unified front of optimism in order to have its best chance to sell sponsorships for next year and to get commitments from season-ticket holders. That’s why the owners are singing, “Happy Days Are Here Again,” even as they whistle in the dark.
But then, now that this is merely about numbers and no longer about philosophy – now that the league has embraced the notion of a tax-based system after saying they would never ever agree to such a structure – it’s only a matter of time.
Isn’t it?
