NHL, players exchange proposals

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

The NHL and the players union exchanged more proposals and counter-proposals in about 24 hours than seemingly had been exchanged in the previous five months, but in the end, there was no agreement last night in the bitter lockout that threatens to cancel the 2004-05 season.

The league made what it called its last offer last night, a hard salary cap set at $42.5 million that removed the link between salaries and league revenue. Three hours later, the union, which in a startling about-face earlier in the day said it would accept some sort of cap, countered with a proposal of a soft $49 million cap, which NHL commissioner Gary Bettman quickly rejected.

"If every team spent to the $49 million ... total player compensation would exceed what we spent last season," Bettman said in his second letter of the day to NHL Players Association executive director Bob Goodenow. "We cannot afford your proposal."

In his first letter, Bettman gave the union until 11 a.m. today to accept the league's final offer. Without acceptance, he said, a press conference would be held two hours later to cancel a season that never started. Today is the 154th day of the lockout that started Sept. 15.

The crux of the labor dispute had been the idea of a salary cap, but by late last night the argument was reduced to figures, how high the league would go vs. how low the union would drop. The first letter from Bettman stated in no-uncertain terms the $42.5 million cap would be the league's final proposal, something the union did not repeat in its counter. However, Goodenow did chide the league for not getting to the meat of the issue " dropping the link between salaries and revenue for a cap " sooner so negotiations could start in earnest.

"This offer is not an invitation to begin negotiations " it's too late for that," Bettman wrote to Goodenow. "This is our last effort to make a deal that's fair to the players and one that the clubs [hopefully] can afford. We have no more flexibility, and there is no time for further negotiations."

Despite that, it only can be assumed the two sides will continue to exchange paperwork up to the deadline and possibly past it.

The top lieutenants for each side, NHL chief legal officer Bill Daly and players association senior director Ted Saskin, met for more than nine hours in the Niagara Falls, N.Y., area Monday night and early yesterday morning, resulting in the first offer by the owners that removed the link between league revenues and player costs. Once the league dropped that, the players union backed off its refusal of a salary cap.

However, the league sought a hard salary cap figure of $40 million, while the union's counterproposal wanted a cap set at $52 million with tax thresholds and tax rates on team payrolls. That led to Bettman's take-it-or-leave-it proposal.

The league has said time remains to squeeze in a 28-game regular season and a full slate of playoff games if a truncated season could start by March 1. But the credibility of such a venture was being questioned almost before NHL officials uttered it.

The bitter labor disagreement has been ongoing for years. The league maintained it collectively has lost nearly $500 million over the past two years, while the union questioned the league's accounting methods and dollar figures. That distrust by the union was a major reason it did not want the link between revenue and salaries.

The union's agreement to accept a salary cap was a stunning announcement, one that left some hard-core union members wondering about both its meaning and its timing.

"If that's where we're going, I wonder why now," Buffalo player representative Jay McKee said when he heard the union would accept a cap after stonewalling against one.

"If it could have been done two years ago. It could have been a lot more convenient for everyone," Ottawa defenseman Wade Redden said.

"We probably could have gotten this thing done in the summertime," Chicago forward Matthew Barnaby added. "Am I mad? No, I want to get back to work. But at the same time I'm just a little disappointed that it went this far to play poker and to have someone call your bluff."

• The Associated Press contributed to this article.