A deal buried under posturing
Once you got past the burbling emotion of Gary Bettman’s aria in New York last week, which deputy commissioner Bill Daly occasionally turned into a duet, it was a rich tale. It was a tale of deceit and disingenuousness, of betrayal and intransigence, of villains and the gracious barons trying to reform them. What a story.
It wasn’t all true, of course, because most stories never are. But it was, like many stories, revealing.
Bettman spoke after NHL Players’ Association executive director Don Fehr had met with deputy commissioner Daly and legal heavy Bob Batterman, after which Fehr delivered a carefully disingenuous speech aimed squarely at his own constituents saying the two sides were so close they could practically smell the hockey gloves. None of these things was a coincidence.
Then came Gary, raging like Lear. For something delivered from behind a fauxwood podium at the Westin Times Square, it sounded apocalyptic. Upon further reflection, the story should probably be annotated.
Bettman’s story went like this: Much progress was made during direct owner-player talks on Tuesday and Wednesday, which is certainly true. And then late Wednesday night, Bettman said, “that sense of optimism ... almost inexplicably disappeared Wednesday afternoon when the four owners returned to the bargaining process.”
Essentially, he made it sound as if the ghost of Don Fehr had entered the room, rattling his chains. Bettman then spoke angrily of the refusal by the players to — what, genuflect? — when the owners made a $100-million US increase to cover existing contracts, bringing the total to $300-million US, minus $50-million US earmarked for player pensions.
“The union’s response was shockingly silent, so to speak, in terms of reaction,” said Bettman, airing his grievances. “There was almost no direct reaction — it was, ‘Thank you, we’ll take $100-million US, an approximate $100-million US.’ The owners were beside themselves. Some of them I had never seen that emotional. They said they don’t know what happened, but this process is over — clearly the union doesn’t want to make a deal.”
So, Bettman said, the owners then specified three conditions — a 10-year CBA, five-year term limits on contracts (seven for resigning your own players), and no buyouts or caps on escrow — and told the players that it was a yes or no, non-negotiable offer. When the players attempted to negotiate off that proposal on Thursday, Bettman didn’t even bother showing up for the meeting. The NHL pulled all advancements off the table.
“This collective bargaining agreement is a total package, OK?” railed Bettman. “Dollars are one element; the way the system works, player contracting, is another element ... The characterization that I just heard transmitted to us, that we were close, that reminds me of the last time the union said we were close, and we were a billion dollars apart.”
Cue the lightning, the gloom, and a chill in the air. Except they are not a billion dollars apart. They are, other than escrow and buyouts issues, zero dollars apart, based on the offers made this week.
They are two years apart on the length of the CBA, three years apart on term limits for contracts, and there is other housekeeping here and there. But that’s it. That’s the gap. And that’s just one reason that Bettman’s song was an empty one. Yes, it was said that Pittsburgh’s Ron Burkle and his merry band of moderates — Toronto’s Larry Tanenbaum, Tampa’s Jeff Vinik, and Winnipeg’s Mark Chipman, the last of whom was believed to be involved partly to moderate union hard-ass and Jets defenceman Ron Hainsey — had to wear down Boston hardliner Jeremy Jacobs to add the money, believing it could be a magic bullet. And maybe Jacobs is back in charge of the process.
But it’s all a charade, as much of this negotiation has been. Of course Fehr tried to negotiate off the proposal, because the NHL decided to render the proposal non-negotiable on the same night they told that bringing Fehr back into the room “could be a dealbreaker” after two long days of talks. If you were leading a union, what would be your response? Accept their terms?
Of course not. One reason Bettman and Daly were so angry, aside from the theatrical element, is Fehr has spent this entire negotiation refusing to bargain on their terms. They offer a percentage split; he offers something based on guaranteed dollars. They try to stick; he tries to move. So of course the players didn’t jump at the $100-million US. They have been negotiating with billionaires, and they were not going to make a deal without their leader in the room, because it would be like accepting a plea bargain while your lawyer waits outside. And they know that a 48-game season is the minimum, and that means there are a few weeks left to save a season. There should be a deal this week. There should have been a deal last week. There should be peace and justice in the world, but people keep getting in the way. The league is trying to crack the players like a walnut, because this is how player unions break. Fehr is holding them together, so the owners are trying to undermine Fehr. Even Bettman acknowledged, in a relatively unguarded moment, that it was just “hard bargaining.” That’s how deals are made.
Maybe this gets pushed right to the brink, where there will be no room for an unstable interaction, no room for human error. But it’s much more likely that this is how it begins to end.