NHL LABOR Commissioner serious about fixing finances

Revenue-sharing is the great divide.
By TIM PANACCIO
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
PHILADELPHIA -- Even though their collective-bargaining agreement doesn't expire till September 2004, both the league and the NHL Players Association are lining up their defenses.
Recently, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman all but conceded that there would be a lockout by owners in the fall of 2004. Some observers say it is the only way the league can rein in salaries and payrolls of $50 million to $75 million.
"If the choice is short-term pain versus bleeding to death over time, then we're going to take the short-term pain because we have to fix it," Bettman said. "We owe it to our fans to fix it. If there's any guarantee that you want me to give fans, it's that we're going to fix it. We simply don't have a choice."
Sounds a lot like a lockout.
Owners stance
"If he said it, he said it," Flyers chairman Ed Snider said. "You read it and I read it. But I'm not talking about it. None of us are talking about [the agreement]. That is strictly a league matter, and you have to talk to Gary Bettman about that. It's just something we, as owners, are not talking about."
Bettman also said that something had to be done to strengthen the financial health of the league's Canadian clubs.
The owners are likely to be split between pushing for a salary cap or revenue-sharing. The cap has support, but the level of the cap will be a prickly issue. Revenue-sharing is the great divide.
Teams such as the Flyers, Colorado, Detroit, the Rangers, St. Louis, Toronto and Dallas, all of whom have payrolls in excess of $54 million, are unlikely to accept revenue-sharing, and probably will not accept a salary cap of less than $50 million.
A salary cap isn't going to prevent monetary losses in Canada as long as a Canadian dollar is worth 64 cents in the United States.
Listen to Patrick Laforge, president of the Edmonton Oilers:
"The off-ice costs have been reduced, the season-ticket sales have us in the top six or seven teams in the league, [and] we're maximizing everything we can to fight off a dollar that costs us about $17.5 million a year," LaForge said.
Doesn't make sense
"We were the fifth most profitable team in the league, and we lost money" -- $2 million. "How much sense does that make?"
Let's say a $50 million cap were imposed. The wealthier U.S. clubs would see their profits grow even bigger on a smaller payroll.
The poorer Canadian clubs -- say the Oilers, whose payroll right now is $31 million -- aren't going to be able to afford $50 million unless the currency exchange improves for them. As long as the Oilers pay $1.55 to $1.60 for every U.S. dollar spent, they will lose money, whether there is a salary cap or not.
Bettman will find it difficult to persuade the players association to reduce salaries as a means of helping teams in Canada, let alone the United States. The union has said it was opposed to any kind of cap. It has said revenue-sharing was something the league had to consider.
"The currency issue would not be an issue if this were years ago and it was 90 cents on the dollar," said Bob Goodenow, executive director of the players association. "But it's 64 cents on the dollar, and that makes it an issue. The issue in Canada is the Canadian currency, and we can't solve that.
"The real problem in the NHL right now is the distribution of revenues and how the owners spend their money. Their revenues have increased dramatically. But how do you distribute them? How do you share?"
Bettman has to find a way to sell owners on revenue-sharing, which is complicated by the fact that the NHL does not have a national television contract similar to the NFL's.