BOSTON – Six months into a six-year agreement in which the NHLPA submitted to givebacks of an unprece dented nature in the history of pro sports’ collective bargaining, the union is at it again, prepared to yield and give back on perhaps the only philosophical position to which it remained steadfast throughout the lockout and canceled 2004-05.
Slap Shots has learned that the PA Executive Board – which consists of the 30 player reps plus the current Executive Committee officers – will hold a conference call today chaired by Ted Saskin, in which it will discuss, if not vote on, narrowing the payroll band that would thus reduce the cap beginning next season.
Apparently terrified by the prospect of significant escrow losses over the life of the CBA, the PA appears poised to accept the NHL’s long-preferred payroll band of $10M as opposed to the $16M set forth in the agreement. This would fix the cap at $5M above the calculated midpoint, not $8M, with the floor similarly established.
Which means that if this season’s revenues come in at the now projected $2B, next season’s cap will be $41.55M rather than $44.55M.
Which means that free agents will have dramatically fewer options available to them when they hit the open market, and this, not at all coincidentally, with the league moving to unrestricted free agency for players as young as 25 by the summer of ’07.
Which means that teams will have less maneuverability.
Which means that successful teams will have less of a chance of remaining intact.
Which means that elite players – already triple-capped – will be allowed to earn even less under the CBA, with the max contract immediately reduced from a projected $8.91M per to $8.31M, and all the cascading ripple effects that will follow straight down the salary structure.
It’s almost beyond belief that the players would submit to such a change halfway through the first season of this terrible deal. It’s even more astounding that they’re being asked to even consider such a significant adjustment to this deal without having the time to be educated on the long-term ramifications of such a move, and to study the impact of this amendment.
How, in the middle of a season, can the players possibly be competent to make such a decision? They can’t, and they aren’t. And yet they appear ready to herded as sheep into making such a call, all in the name of avoiding escrow losses in case league revenues flat-line over the length of the CBA.
There are two ways the players can protect themselves against escrow losses, which occur once the league-wide payroll exceeds 54 percent of revenue. One is the way they will consider today, to depress league-wide payroll by reducing the cap. That’s the fool’s way.
The other, which apparently no one either on the league side or union side (as if there’s any distinction at this point) has any interest in attempting, is to work to increase revenues. That’s the industrious way.
It’s remarkable. But of course, it isn’t. The NHL – Gary Bettman, by the way, has already informed Saskin that the Board will accept amending the CBA to adopt the $10M band – has not developed a single revenue-producing initiative this year. The league has no Research and Development department.
The NHLPA, whose sole responsibility under this agreement would seem to be to find ways to create new revenue streams, similarly has done nothing to create new programs. It has no department dedicated to producing new business. The joint NHL-NHLPA marketing committee established by the CBA seems to be a farce.
(An aside here: For the 1998 and 2002 Olympics, the PA negotiated an agreement with the league that provided that each selected player was to receive first-class airfare, accommodations and game tickets for one guest apiece. There’s no such agreement for this year in Turin. The players’ families are entirely on their own. Just another giveback.)
Saskin has told Slap Shots, “Reducing the band is not a ‘Ted issue.’ ”
We’re told that the issue was raised by players worried about escrow. But rather than extol the virtues of generating revenue-enhancing programs, Saskin presented the easy, narrow-band option.
It’s narrow-minded and short-sighted and mind-boggling. Rather than demanding that its leaders work to generate revenue in order to avoid escrow – never mind actually increasing the cap and the value of the 54 percent which increases to 55 percent when revenues hit $2.2B, by the way – these beaten-down players appear ready to adopt an even lower ceiling for themselves than they agreed to under duress last summer.
If they do this – in the middle of a season, without any education, without any time to study the issue – they deserve ridicule. If they now give back on the one position to which they remained firm throughout the lockout, this group of players will be known as the weakest and most foolish in the history of organized labor.
larry.brooks@nypost.com
