RE:Lockout: Erneutes Treffen zwischen NHL und NHLPA am Mittwoch

NHL CANCELS SEASON
Wednesday, February 16, 2005

NHLPA Executive Director Bob Goodenow spoke to the media on Wednesday, February 16th, in response to the NHL's announcement to cancel the 2004-05 season:

4:03 p.m.

MR. GOODENOW: Good afternoon. I had hoped we would never see the NHL owners and their commissioner do the unthinkable and cancel an entire season. Unfortunately, Gary Bettman and the owners did exactly that today. Let's step back for a minute for some perspective. The expired CBA provided a marketplace in which owners set player values. It was extended twice by the owners. They did not -- they decided not to extend it again, which was their right. The owners wanted to get a new CBA that would be more favorable for them. The owners made their first proposal for a new CBA almost two years ago. Their proposal then had two primary components. First, they wanted linkage or cost certainty, which means total player compensation is limited to a percentage of league-wide revenues. Second, they wanted an individual team cap at approximately $31 million. Players were opposed to both demands. In response to the owners' demands for a better deal for themselves, the players made a number of offers over the ensuing months. Every offer by the players moved in the owners' direction. The players never tried to improve their position or keep the old CBA. The players sincerely wanted a fair deal and pushed hard to get one.

Unfortunately, we never had a real negotiating partner. The league maintaining its demand for both linkage and a team by team cap, the players made a series of major moves in the owners' direction. For example, the players offered two comprehensive proposals to establish a framework to end the owners lockout. The players offered to roll back their salaries by 24 percent, a move that would have saved the owners over 500 million dollars this year and more than one billion over three years. The players offered extensive changes and the ELS system, which would have severely restricted compensation for players coming into the league. The players offered new arbitration rights to clubs. The players offered payroll taxes, and players wanted the clubs to agree to truly, meaningful, ongoing revenue sharing. The league's revenue sharing proposals have never done that. The owners do want -- do not want to be true partners with each other, let alone with the players. The players offered to reset the entire marketplace and ensure that salary drags and system deflaters were in place for years to come.

In addition, in January, our president, Trevor Linden, initiated a series of meetings that included Harley Hotchkiss. For those,Trevor was publicly applauded by league people, the media, and fans for his efforts, unfortunately, no progress was made. The league's response to every initiative by the players remained the same. Every time the owners demanded both linkage and individual team caps, they never negotiated any of the proposals submitted by the players; Although they quickly tried to grab the players' offer of a 24 percent roll back. The league maintained both its linkage and its team cap demands until Monday afternoon of this week. At that time, the owners finally dropped their demand for league-wide linkage. On Monday evening, the players responded with a ground-breaking team cap offer. The league rejected it. Last night, Gary presented the players with a take it or leave it final offer and said he would refuse to negotiate.

The players responded with a counteroffer that moved again in favor of the clubs. Continuing the pattern we have seen for years, the other side refused to negotiate. So less than 48 hours after he finally abandoned linkage, the owners' commissioner today cancelled the season. Players play hockey. It's what they love to do, and players proactively offered proposals and initiated talks with the league to keep the game on the ice long before the commissioner triggered the second lock out during his tenure. Keep one thing perfectly clear. The players never asked for more money. They just asked for a marketplace to exist where they could negotiate with their clubs' owners for what their value was to their teams. Marketplaces exist in the revenue side of every NHL business. Tickets, parking, concessions, suites, naming rights, television, radio, merchandise, et cetera. And players fully accept the fact that markets go up, and markets go down. We have said all along that players don't want to earn a dollar more or a dollar less than they're worth. During the last CBA, when revenues went up, so did salaries. When revenues eased, so did salaries. As evidenced by recent signings. The league's threats, ultimatums, take it or leave it tactics, and refusals to negotiate ultimately prevented a deal here. The players wanted to reach a fair agreement, but never had a negotiating partner to work with. At some point, concessions end, and they've ended here today. I'd be glad to take questions.

QUESTION: Bob, when and why did the players association change its philosophy on accepting a hard salary cap?

MR. GOODENOW: The move on Monday night, as I mentioned in my comments, was a direct response to the league moving off of their linkage demand to tie salaries, compensation to league wide -- to a percentage of league-wide revenue. To answer the questions why and how, from the fact that there was the timing of that and whether it was in response, to answer that might take me, you know, an awful long time, and, you know, I think it just stands for itself that it was obviously a very major step by this group to do this, to try to find and bridge the gap between the parties. It was not with any ease at all that that move was made, and it's something that failed unfortunately when the owners rejected it almost on the spot.

QUESTION: Some players were really surprised to wake up Tuesday and realize what happened, and some player reps were very surprised. What was the process like in maybe trying to keep players involved in your thought process at the time and maybe why weren't some people in on it.

MR. GOODENOW: Well, I guess the best way to describe it is let's go back a few months to December 9th. When we announced our proposal of the 24 percent roll back, you can imagine the level of surprise that that triggered amongst a number of players, and this committee here and myself were entrusted to negotiate on behalf of all 700 players, and just from a practical point of view, not all issues and matters are, you know, able to be share in their entirety as they're developed and rejected or developed and proposed. That's part of the work and the responsibility of the committee and ourselves. And so, you know, I think that the -- when something changes a bit, you know, not everyone's involved in that process. Not surprisingly be a surprise to those that aren't involved until they've heard about it, and they've had a chance to think about it.

QUESTION: There was a story that Chris Pronger and Jarome Iginla contacted Bill Daly. Did you feel that subverted your authority?

MR. GOODENOW: No, I think -- I know that our players have the ability to talk to anyone and answer any interviews from anyone. I would -- you know, I can't comment. I don't know about those conversations specifically, but it doesn't really have an impact on us. We have our job to do. You know, players can can obviously answer any questions or make any comments that they want. I'm certain that no player would do anything to jeopardize the process, though.

QUESTION: I talked to some players on Tuesday after you had put that offer, including Jay, the player rep, and it was more anger they expressed there, not that you did that, but why couldn't we put an offer earlier, where you take the restrictions off, and we offer a cap. Why now. Do you feel you have to get confidence back in some of the players now?

MR. GOODENOW: Let's go back and say the reason why the committee took the step it took was because of the step the league took. So it wasn't a matter of timing necessarily that we controlled. If you can understand the trade off there. As far as explaining things to players and the whys, how things were done, I've spoken with Jay McKey in the last couple of days, and he fully understands the rationale of what was done at that stage of the process, and different things are done at different times -- different reasons, and, you know, if you've spoken with him recently, fully in support of the steps we've taken, understands them, and now the process will move forward.

QUESTION: Most fans would -- let's play devil's advocate here. Most fans would kill. What do you say to the ones who think this is all about greed.

MR. GOODENOW: Well, fan interest in the sport is one thing that's obviously going to be an issue going forward. I believe that the sport itself is, you know, the best sport, best spectator sport, best team spectator sport in the world, and I believe the gentlemen that are sitting up here that play it and perform for all of us will again be able to provide a top level product that will draw the fans back. Your reference to greed, it's indeed unfortunate, during the course of these negotiations, that the league has tried, through multiple PR initiatives, to paint the players as being greedy, et cetera, et cetera. As you know from my comments, it's very clear. The players have never asked for one thing. Every step of the way, every proposal has been in response to the owners' concerns. They set player values, and then the owner -- the players have responded to their issues and their concerns. This is not about greed. This is about a fair deal, and that's what this has all been about for everybody sitting up here since the outset. If you want to talk about greed, I could suggest to you that you maybe ask that question to the other side.

QUESTION: Can you just explain your reasons against allowing the rank and file members to vote on any of the owners' offers?

MR. GOODENOW: Again, similar to the question that was asked, I guess, one or two questions prior to that, this committee is entrusted and been voted in to do a job, and the job that they've been entrusted to do and instructed to do and authorized to do is to negotiate on behalf of the membership. And when they feel that there's an agreement that is appropriate for the membership to vote on for a ratification purpose, then they will bring it back to the membership for ratification. That is nothing different than it was since I've started with the players association 1 years ago. It's a typical, appropriate, and professional way in which an organization like this would conduct its business, and that's the way we're going to conduct our business, and it should be of no surprise to anyone, and it's of no surprise to any of the members because everyone's apprised of how we operate.

QUESTION: Considering that the commissioner is now saying that he's going to put linkage back on the table, what is the next step for you guys? Where do you go from here.

MR. GOODENOW: Well, I guess -- until we get to the table, we don't know what we're going to be faced with. If he said he's putting linkage back on, that's fine. I think it's a fresh start. I think everything is off the table, and we begin anew because it's new circumstances, and the process will commence again but under, you know, totally different environment. That is absolutely for sure.

QUESTION: Are you at all discouraged, then, by the fact that the commissioner is saying that linkage is back on the table.

MR. GOODENOW: No, I'm not discouraged at all. This is a negotiation and, you know, we know that both sides will negotiate in a professional way, and that's the way these things work, so it's not a surprise. It triggers no discouragement whatsoever.

QUESTION: In his opening comments this afternoon, Gary Bettman made an apology to the fans. Does the NHL PA have any apology to the fans at all or owe them one.

MR. GOODENOW: Absolutely an apology to all the fans, and speaking on behalf of all the players up here, they didn't want to be locked out. They didn't want to be not allowed to entertain the fans. Gary owes an apology because he started the lock out. He put all this in motion, and the proposals that these players have put forward, in particular, the roll back, which would have made the league successful in one fell swoop, very serious steps were taken, and, you know, yes, we apologize to the fans for this situation, this circumstance, and the fans can say, what are you going to do about it? Well, we've done abawful lot, we feel, to get to a fair resolution, and unfortunately,ly, it's the other side that we haven't been able to make a contact with, and it's unfortunate that this situation will continue. That's all I can say.

QUESTION: I just wanted to know if there was any discussions or anything else last night after all the letters regarding the proposal being traded and also any of your comments about Gary Bettman's comments about saying that he wouldn't mind having a press conference at 5 o'clock, say, if you picked up the phone and gave him a call.

MR. GOODENOW: Okay. Your first question was what was the activity at the end of the exchange yesterday, the letters. I would say that the -- you know, there was limited time, and we knew exactly what we were able to do and prepared to do. We made a proposal, a counterproposal, and we were told that there was nothing coming back, so it just -- you know, the events just kind of ground to a halt, and so that's the best way I could describe them for you.

QUESTION: Nothing this morning or --

MR. GOODENOW: There was nothing this morning. Gary Bettman told us that he was not negotiating off of their proposal, and, you know, that's what happened. He did not negotiate off of that. As far as, you know, anything happening this afternoon, it's not happening.

QUESTION: Bob, Gary -- Gary said in his press conference today that it essentially came down to money, and for two years, we had been hearing that this was more of a philosophical dispute. Do you share that, and do you share Gary's opinion that you guys really weren't very close at all?

MR. GOODENOW: Well, again, as you know, the issues are intertwined, money and philosophy and how teams can operate. It's -- you know, sometimes just one issue can lead into a couple other issues as well, so it's not easy to separate them. As far as, you know, trying to -- would you repeat the second question because I want to make sure I understand.

QUESTION: Gary said people were overstating the fact that you guys were close to a deal last night, and that it really never got that close, and I'm wondering if that's what your perception of the situation was, or were you under the impression that maybe this could get done and that you were close.

MR. GOODENOW: It's not a simple dollar calculation in terms of a number here and a number there. I wouldn't want to -- I don't agree with Gary's characterization as to what it was because what he did is he extrapolated that all the teams would rise to the highest level, and that the salary cap would act as a magnet and actually draw teams up, and that is not the case at all. The number of teams that would have been affected by the tax and the difference between where the respective parties were was not significant. I believe it would be about nine teams, according to the forecast.

QUESTION: Hello, Bob. Just to go on the record here, Gary in a vague way suggested that he might have entertained a $45 million figure on a salary cap. For the record, would you have proposed that and do you propose that at this late moment?

MR. GOODENOW: Joe, what we have done is on the record. I won't forecast. I won't speculate on what would have been done. What Gary did is he gave us a final offer and said this is a take it or leave it offer, and we all know what happened with that.

QUESTION: Is your roll back off the table of 24 percent?

MR. GOODENOW: Yeah, I think, Joe, it's a fresh start, that everything begins anew.

QUESTION: Actually, my question was just answered by Joe Lapointe, but I am curious, Bob. Are you saying that you weren't going to entertain going down any further? Because there has been a lot of speculation that if you had moved to 45, that they would have -- they probably would have gone at that.

MR. GOODENOW: As I said, I don't think it serves any purpose to deal in speculation. The facts are what the facts are. We were given a final offer at that number, and, you know, we dealt with that offer as it was. We made a counterproposal, and as mentioned earlier, the events ground down to a halt, so I don't think it serves any purpose to be speculating on what ifs because the what ifs aren't for real.

QUESTION: How do you get a better deal down the road if everything's back on the table and if there's going to be no hockey until, say, September? People aren't going to be, you know, into the sport as much.

MR. GOODENOW: You know, the situation is with both sides step back and the negotiations begin. You know, does that mean that the leverage changes for one side or the other? I mean, that's what -- everyone can speculate as to what might be the case down the road at whatever point in time down the road. So again, we'll see how things unfold. The players clearly felt that the situation as it was presented to them was not a fair deal, not a deal that they could go forward with and recommend, so we'll see what the future holds.

QUESTION: A question regarding point 7 in your counterproposal, a $49 million cap. You proposed that payroll minimums and maximums be attached to percentage increases in gate receipts and broadcast revenues or hockey related revenues. Is that not in effect upward linkage that the PA was proposing, and the flip side to that is why did the PA not propose to link -- excuse me. Why did the PA not propose to accept downward percentage drops the if there were shrinking revenues.

MR. GOODENOW: The best way to answer that question for you is that agreeing to a limit like that obviously, you know, makes it very difficult, so how do you move the limit as the business grows? You could call it linkage. We call it an indexing, and there were two components. Without getting into the details, there's two ways to try to evaluate what would be an appropriate movement of that number. And the question is -- on the bottom end you asked?

QUESTION: Why then did the PA not propose that payrolls would decrease in percentage if revenues were --

MR. GOODENOW: If we're giving we felt it incumbent on the other side to step forward and provide a base floor to grow the business off of, so the players were committed to having limits on the top, but with a protection level to start with.

QUESTION: Do you think that the league wants to get to an impasse? Is that your personal opinion?

MR. GOODENOW: You know, we've heard a lot. We've seen a lot the way the league's behaved. We've heard a lot of comments. I think what will really happen, we'll know in months to come. They said that they'll review all their available options. That's certainly appropriate and prudent for them to do, so I don't think we can forecast what their actions will actually be. We'll have to see as the days unfold.

QUESTION: Through the players have said in the past few weeks that if things didn't happen today or by this time that they would hope that negotiations would continue through the summer and we could get going again in September. Can you foresee that, or do you think that January 06 is a more viable beginning to the next season?

MR. GOODENOW: Well, I think given the events of today, both sides will likely step back and assess things, and then the process at some point in the future will resume. As to exactly when and what the finish date will be on that, if I knew that answer, I wouldn't be standing here.

QUESTION: Can the game afford to be out until January 06, do you think?

MR. GOODENOW: We don't believe it's good for the game to be missed one day back in September when the owners started their lock out, so any day that this situation continues we think is not good for the game, absolutely not.

QUESTION: I understand you would have legal ramifications open to you were they to use replacement players. What if they were to dissolve the league, call it something else or whatever, come back and use replacement players. Are those options still available to you as an association.

MR. GOODENOW: What you just posed there is a pretty loaded set of dynamics. I don't want to not answer your question, but it's awfully hard to answer it in this fashion. I think again that, you know, whatever the league decides to do, they're, you know, whatever their rights are, they should explore, consider them all, and we'll find out what their steps are going to be in that regard. You know, our position is that we're here to negotiate a fair agreement. We had Ben here. We have made, you know, consecutive steps every step along the way to find a fair agreement. We haven't been able to do that yet. And what steps they may take in the future to put roadblocks in that or make it easier or more difficult, I think we just have to wait to see.

QUESTION: There's been some speculation that you or Gary would have to be removed for a deal to be possibly done. Do you see that in the future?

MR. GOODENOW: Well, I tell you what. I work on behalf of 700 players, and I take direction from them, and, you know, my responsibility is to them. I think that I understand what they're looking for and what their objectives are. I have, over the last 15 years, had a good relationship with the players, but at any point in time, I'd be glad to answer any questions that any of them have at any point in time. But at any point in the future, if circumstances change, and they feel there's a better way to do things, I'll be glad to do that for them or they can make any steps. But right now I can tell you I've not had anybody say anything like that to me at all.

QUESTION: Bob, why, in the last day, didn't you guys just get in a room, just get on the phone? Why do it via proposals rather than discussion?

MR. GOODENOW: I think it was a matter of logistics and reality. After the meetings in New York outside of Buffalo there on Monday -- lose track of the days -- Bill Daly went back to New York and Ted Saskin came back to our office, and both sides worked from their offices, so it wasn't a function of not being in the -- you know, necessarily planning or not planning to be anywhere. It's just the way the events unfolded.

QUESTION: Why not the phone, though? Why not talk it out rather than propose it out?

MR. GOODENOW: Well, we had -- we made a proposal on Monday night. It was rejected, and we were not going to be making the next step because we had offered something that was rejected, and then we received the proposal from the league last night about little before 6 o'clock, and so that letter or that proposal was communicated to us by fax, and we responded within couple hours, and that's just the way the events unfolded.

QUESTION: Yes. Gary said that now that the season's cancelled that, you know, the league's position is now that it needs linkage. I'm wondering if the union -- where the union now stands on the salary cap, whether you still think it's acceptable or you go back to your previous position.

MR. GOODENOW: As I said earlier, I think both sides will start with a fresh slate, and everything that's discussed will be re-evaluated and will be starting anew, so the proposals that were on, you can assume that they're off.

QUESTION: Now unacceptable, or you're still open to it.

MR. GOODENOW: The proposal was made on Monday, is pulled off the table, and it was made for a reason on Monday under certain circumstances. I can tell you right now I don't know if those certain circumstances would arise again in the future.

QUESTION: Bob, I'm wondering right now is your priority an attempt to get back to the negotiating table, or is it a -- or is your priority seeking alternate -- an alternate avenue for your players to play next year in another league?

MR. GOODENOW: Larry, as long as this owners' lock out continues, I can tell you that players will be very responsible in terms of their training and maintaining their skill level, so if they want to play somewhere as locked out individuals, they're entitled to go and do that. We've seen that happen this year already. As far as what I'm going to be doing, as far as getting back to the negotiation table, all I can say is that at some point in time in the future, negotiations will recommence, but exactly when and how and where as for the future, we'll have to wait and see.

QUESTION: If you're in the same spot in two months and players ask for advice whether they should sign contracts with European teams or sign with a different league in North America, what's your advice to them?

MR. GOODENOW: Well, at that point in the future, if a player were to call me for counsel in that regard, I would give them my sense of the status of the negotiations. I would try my best to give them a sense of what might transpire in the short, middle, and long term horizon, and depend on their personal circumstances, family circumstances, health circumstances, then they would decide on their own whether they would be signing with a team or committing for a team somewhere for a full season. That's really to handle on a case by case as the player consults with his agent and advisors.

QUESTION: Bob, can you say with conviction today that the entire membership is 100 percent behind you and your plan, whatever it is, going forward?

MR. GOODENOW: Yes. I can tell you that the membership is behind us. Is it 100 percent? I don't think there's hundred percent agreement on what time of the day it is amongst 700 players, but I can tell you we've got a very healthy association, the discussions we've had on all kinds of issues that I've had with the players the last 15 years have always had different opinions, and it's, I think, one of the strengths of the association, is that the level of communication and discussion and the results the players have when they finally do come to an agreement, so I'm not concerned at all as to where the association is today and the players, et cetera. They've always made the right decisions as far as I'm concerned when they've gotten all the information and had a chance to think about it in an unemotional environment when they what's good for the game, what's good for all these other considerations, I've got ultimate confidence the players will end up in the right spot in the future.

QUESTION: Do you think it's possible that you and Gary Bettman could ever get a deal done, thinking of your relationship.

MR. GOODENOW: Absolutely. I don't know what you mean by thinking of our relationship, but Gary's doing his job on behalf of the owners and I'm representing the players. When you've seen the negotiations and you've seen what's happened in the past, is there an opportunity for a deal? Most absolutely. We just haven't been able to find that right spot.

QUESTION: Bob, was the result of ownership on your end, did you underestimate their resolve in this round of talks?

MR. GOODENOW: No, not at all. I don't think it was ever really an issue of estimating or trying to overor underestimate anybody's resolve. The initiative was to try to find a fair deal. We are very confident, very confident that a fair deal is out there. In fact, I've heard from owners recently that our proposal they know is fair, they'd be glad to play under it, and they know it would work. So we know we're on the right track. If owners want to step up and put together a program with us that allows for their interests to be covered and protected and likewise for the players. We just haven't reached that yet.

QUESTION: Hi, Bob. The past day or so, after the linkage came off and you guys said you would take a salary cap, this was heading towards a deal and unless rhetoric. At what point to you did it become clear that this was not going to get done and the season was going to be cancelled.

MR. GOODENOW: I think it became clear last night when the discussions ground to a halt. That's -- you know, plain and simple, that was the matter.

QUESTION: And what was your reaction when you started thinking this was the outcome.

MR. GOODENOW: We always knew that this was a possibility. We never wanted it to happen, obviously. I mean, players here have offered up immense, immense concessions, trying to find a fair deal, a structure to go forward with, but there was no particular time when things turned a certain way. Just a matter of how the events unfolded yesterday.

QUESTION: Bob, how many owners have told you that the deal was fair and they would take it, and what are their names?

MR. GOODENOW: Well, Joe, there were a couple, and a couple few, a couple many. We have conversations with people at various points in times, and I don't think it serves a purpose to get more specific in that area. But maybe you can tell me some of the ones that you've talked to. How's that.

QUESTION: Well, perhaps. Did the pressure group of players that said let's take a cap, did they spur you guys to drop the no cap position?

MR. GOODENOW: No, I think, Joe, what happened was when the league made their move to get off of linkage on Monday in Buffalo, that was a major step on their side, and we reciprocated with a major step on our side, so that's how the events unfolded and that's what transpired on Monday. It's unfortunate that those steps didn't lead to more momentum, but that's how these negotiations have played themselves out, and there are where they are, and there's nothing that's going to change them right now, and we have to go forward.

QUESTION: Mario Lemieux is an interesting case. I know he was in Toronto speaking with a number of others. How did the association see him or view him as far as input for trust between the players and the owners? I know the books weren't open. Mario said today he offered, nobody came forward.

MR. GOODENOW: Well, first of all, Mario, as we know, is one of the top all-time great players and there's a lot of respect for Mario as a player. Mario is now an owner because of the financial relationship that he had with Pittsburgh from past years and through various contract issues that he's had with the team. As far as the level of trust with Mario, I think if you followed Mario's kind of stayed out of the situation and the negotiations directly. I think that that's his personal choice. You know, as far as trust though is concerned with the numbers, we know that that's an issue, and the issue has been one where, you know, clubs can take and the league has taken various steps and tried to -- from a PR point of view, you know, portray certain things. I think that there's a lot that's been said about that, lot that's been insinuated about that, a lot of it's really untrue. We absolutely have had exchanges with the league. We do understand the economics of the business. To suggest otherwise is totally wrong. And it's inaccurate. So we are responsible negotiators. We do understand the business, and I think that's evidenced by the steps that we've taken and the proposals we've put forward. So it's not really a matter of trust. It's a matter of trying to find the real solution to the respective sides' issues.

QUESTION: In light of the fact that there possibly wouldn't be agreement in time for the draft for this year, are you going to challenge the way the draft would be run, especially in light of Sidney Crosby's presence in it? How do you see the draft unfolding for this year?

MR. GOODENOW: I think remains -- ultimately remains to be seen, but I think the draft, the issue of a draft for this year is a moot point. So to speculate on how it might be conducted, I don't think it's going to matter at all.

Quelle: http://www.nhlpa.com

In diesem Sinne captain ahab
* * * Mitglied des gMAgC * * *
(Gelbes Männchen Auswärtsfahrten Gedächtnis Circle)