Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Move it, or stand to lose it all

By JOHN ROMANO
Published May 20, 2005

Based on currently available evidence, hockey players have determined that NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is a conniving, little weenie.

In related news:

The NHL accused the union of deliberately misleading statements and distortions, while strongly denying the commissioner is little.

And so it goes. A trillion insults into the worst work stoppage in sports, the players and owners of the NHL continue to miss the point.

While they bicker and diddle, their game fades a little deeper into the background. Its relevance has waned. Your devotion has diminished.

Meanwhile, three months after the 2004-05 season was officially canceled, the league has reached another critical juncture.

Yes, the summer has not yet begun. And, yes, there still is plenty of time for owners and players to reach accord before training camps startin the fall.

In the next month, teams traditionally begin their push for season tickets. It is when sponsorships come due. It is when ESPN must decide whether to continue its association with a disappearing sport.

In other words, the amount of money players and owners will divide tomorrow depends greatly on whether they can persuade anyone to invest today.

Sobering thought, isn't it? People who will slander for a nickel and slime for a dime could be facing an even greater loss of funds. And won't that make it easier to work out a collective-bargaining agreement?

"We are in the best position of any team in the NHL because we can drape that (Stanley Cup) banner when we get back," Lightning president Ron Campbell said. "We've held our own through this. Better than we originally thought. But if this extends into the fall, there could be quite a bit of decay."

The worst part is that negotiations continue to be a competition. A battle of who wins what point. And which side can make the other blink.

Players and owners have yet to recognize they are in this together, and the true enemies are time and animosity.

The players already have lost more than $1-billion in salaries and, in a way, this has emboldened the union. Even if there were no lockout, their paychecks would have stopped coming in mid April. So the union assumes the players have nothing to lose with a hard-line stance in the offseason.

I'm guessing union boss Bob Goodenow figures the owners are the ones sweating today. He knows they're worried about season tickets for October. He knows Coca-Cola and Geico and every other potential sponsor is questioning whether to commit money to a venture that may remain grounded.

If the players weren't going to cave when they were supposed to be getting paid twice a month, why should they bow in the offseason?

As a strategy, this sounds appropriate. But in reality, it is flawed. For the same reasons that caused last season to vanish into the abyss.

The owners have shown, quite clearly, they are going to stick together. I have no doubt they will remain steadfast today, sponsorships be damned.

So if the union thinks leverage has swung in its direction in the offseason, I fear it only sets the players up to make more concessions later.

The players already have seen it. The deal they could have gotten in February was not as good as the deal they might have gotten last fall. And a deal they could get today will not be as good as one they will get next fall.

Understand, this is not a vote in favor of ownership. It is merely pragmatic. The players have given ground, and it is reasonable to assume they will eventually agree to give more.

That doesn't mean owners aren't at fault. They actually share a much greater portion of blame for the NHL getting to this point.

They grew the league too fast. They spent too recklessly. And, once they got into this predicament, their handpicked leader behaved atrociously.

Whether he is only a mouthpiece for the owners or not, Bettman has failed to display the vision or the personality to get a deal done.

His antagonistic letter to Goodenow after the players finally agreed to a salary cap in February was the height of arrogance or stupidity, or both.

Yet, even with all of that in mind, the owners are the ones who must invest their funds in the league. They're the ones taking a financial risk. And they're the ones, most everyone seems to agree, who are losing money.

The players? Their decision is simply a matter of degree. Do we settle for stinking rich, or do we keep holding out for filthy rich? That may be an oversimplification, but it's still pretty darned accurate.

The players, thus far, have supported Goodenow. They appreciate how wealthy he made them in the past decade, and are repaying him with loyalty today.

But, at some point, they have to question the union's leadership. Goodenow obviously misjudged ownership's resolve the past eight months and, if that trend continues, the league's future could be in serious jeopardy.

Both sides - players and owners - have to get past the idea of triumphing over the other. The players have to pull their heads out of the sand. And the owners need to recognize the amount of ground already given by players.

You say a salary cap and revenue linkage are necessary? Fine. Then give the players something else in return. Allow them the appearance of dignity.

Whatever it takes, get a deal done.

And it better be sooner rather than later.

Or there might not be much left to save.

[Last modified May 20, 2005, 01:07:09]