NHL is on thin ice

TORONTO -- There was plenty of rejection to go around yesterday.

First, the National Hockey League owners -- via commissioner Gary Bettman -- voted a unanimous thumbs down on the Players Association's extensive proposal put forth last Thursday. Then, the NHLPA said thanks but no thanks to the league's counterproposal, which predictably included what the union said it would never accept -- players' salaries tied to revenues.

So, there you have it. In a nutshell, the union said it will never agree to any form of salary cap and the owners won't take anything less.

After meeting for an hour yesterday afternoon -- followed by a 2 1/2-hour private caucus by the union's negotiating committee -- the sides reconvened briefly only to do what they've been doing during the lockout -- agreeing to disagree.

The impasse continues with no end in sight and both parties said there are no plans at this point for future bargaining sessions. In turning down the union's ideas, Bettman acknowledged its proposal was substantial but said it was merely a start and not a basis for a new agreement.

"The players' proposal to reduce current contracts was a big-time significant and meaningful move," said Bettman. "It is essential that we have reductions of that order and magnitude to simply get us back to a point where the business stops bleeding. The union had proposed, in effect, to reset the dial [by dropping salaries by 24 percent across the board] and for that, we are most appreciative.

"It is important to note that the 24 percent rollback is a recognition by the Players Association that our player costs were simply too high and that a $1.8 million average annual salary was not appropriate or sustainable under our level of revenues. For the business to be viable, the average salary should be about $1.3 million. The union, by its offer, has finally acknowledged the magnitude of our losses."

However, Bettman said the rest of the latest proposal was only a modification of the current system, and owners believe a radical change is needed.

"It is dramatic in its immediate short-term impact but it is fatally flawed as a system going forward," he said.

As for the league's counterproposal, Bettman said the owners accepted the rollback idea but restructured it in a graduated form:

Any player making lessthan $800,000 would stay the same.

Players making $800,000 to $1.49 million would face a salary reduction of 15 percent.

Players making $1.5 million to $1.99 million would face a reduction of 20 percent.

Players making $2 million to $3.99 million would face a reduction of 24 percent.

Players making $4 million to $4.99 million would face a reduction of 30 percent.

Players making $5 million or more would face a reduction of 35 percent.

Also, the owners want to eliminate arbitration, which they deemed inflationary, as well as all bonuses for entry-level contracts, and add a fourth year to those deals. With regard to the union's payroll tax proposal, which would tax clubs going over the union's threshold $45 million figure, Bettman said it would never work. The owners see payrolls being more in the range of between $34.6 million and $38.6 million, which translates to 54 percent of projected revenues. The commissioner said a luxury/payroll tax will not be considered, period.

"It is meaningless even under the projections made by the union," he said.

NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow said,

"The league took what it liked from our proposal, made major changes and slapped a salary cap on top of it. " Put simply, our proposal provides the basis for a negotiated agreement. The NHL's does not. We have tried to go to every leverage point where they were having difficulty and seriously address it. It's laden with tools for them to use to balance out the equation between clubs and players throughout a player's entire career."

But clearly, the owners don't believe it -- as constituted -- is nearly enough. As a result, the 2004-05 season is more in jeopardy than ever, with both sides taking another timeout in the process.

"We're not preparing any counterproposal," said Goodenow, when told that Bettman has said the ball is in the union's court. "My comments toward the end of the session were that both sides should sit back and look at all the factors involving Gary's lockout and the future will unfold. There's nothing specific set and there's certainly no initiative here by this committee to take a step at the present time."