Do Not Let This Cup Pass
By ANIL ADYANTHAYA
Published: February 18, 2005
rookline, Mass.
THE National Hockey League took a giant step on its inexorable march toward oblivion this week. Still, while Commissioner Gary Bettman has canceled the current season because of a labor dispute, there is hope for hockey's future. It is in the hands of the trustees who control the Stanley Cup, the oldest and most prestigious trophy in North American sports.
Advertisement
The trustees, Brian O'Neill and Ian Morrison, have "absolute power over all matters regarding the Stanley Cup," according to the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto. They should invoke that power and award the Cup to this year's champion of the American Hockey League, which is the best league in North America now that the N.H.L. is gone for the year.
By awarding the Cup to the A.H.L. champion, the trustees can preserve the Cup's pre-eminence by demonstrating that athletic achievement, not financial success, remains the sport's holy grail. This can only help to restore the N.H.L.'s legitimacy if and when it resumes play.
Contrary to what many may assume, the Stanley Cup is not a creation of the N.H.L. The Cup was first awarded in 1893, while the N.H.L. did not play its first game until 1917. Lord Stanley, who was then the governor general of Canada, donated the Cup to further the sport of hockey in Canada. In bestowing the Cup, Lord Stanley wrote:
"There does not appear to be any such outward sign of a championship at present, and considering the general interest which matches now elicit, and the importance of having the game played fairly and under rules generally recognized, I am willing to give a cup which shall be held from year to year by the winning team." Lord Stanley, who returned to England before the first Cup was awarded, appointed trustees to oversee the trophy.
Rare among professional sports trophies, the Cup is engraved with the winning players' names, and the players can take the Cup home for a day. This latter tradition has spawned countless stories - it once spent the night in an Ottawa canal and Pamela Anderson has sipped from it - and significant generosity. Over the last three years, according to the N.H.L., approximately $4 million in charitable donations has been raised in connection with Cup appearances.
For the first years of its history, the Cup was awarded to amateur teams, and the trustees often determined which teams would play for it. As hockey grew in popularity, professional teams emerged, and beginning in 1917, the Cup went to the winner of a challenge series between the champions of the N.H.L. and rival professional leagues. Not until 1927 did the Cup go to the winner of the N.H.L. championship. And it continued to do so for the next 77 years.
Now that the N.H.L.'s season has been canceled, Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Morrison should award the Cup to the 2005 champion of the best remaining North American league. They clearly have the power to do so (as a Canadian group calling itself "Free Stanley" has documented exhaustively on its Web site). By awarding the Cup to the A.H.L. champion, they will be fulfilling Lord Stanley's wish that it "shall be held from year to year by the winning team." What's more, awarding the Cup in 2005 will mean that the game of hockey itself transcends the monetary issues that divide the N.H.L.
So, Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Morrison, how about it? Granted, the A.H.L. champion already gets something called the Calder Cup, but surely no hockey team on earth would pass up the opportunity to play for the Stanley Cup. By awarding it this year, the trustees can show that hockey has a prize larger than any league. What other sport can say that
2/18/05
Blogger Help : What is BlogThis! ?
Hockey Tries to Determine What's Next
By JOE LAPOINTE
Published: February 18, 2005
he day after the cancellation of the 2004-5 National Hockey League season, people on each side of the labor dispute tried to figure out how a 2005-6 season could be held.
Commissioner Gary Bettman promised Wednesday that there would be a next season, and he did not rule out the option of starting it by declaring an impasse in collective bargaining and putting new terms of employment in effect.
Advertisement
Such a move may prompt a strike by the players, the use of replacements and the filing of charges of unfair labor practices before the National Labor Relations Board. Under those circumstances, some players may be tempted to cross picket lines.
The prospect of the impasse strategy drew differing opinions from experts in labor law, including the labor board chairman who ruled in favor of baseball players when they charged owners with unfair labor practices after they declared an impasse during the 1994-95 strike.
"At this particular point, there is no ground for impasse," said William Gould, professor emeritus of law at Stanford, who was the chairman of the N.L.R.B from 1994 to 1998, referring to the hockey dispute. But he also said that the current board helped management in recent years by not seeking court injunctions.
Gould said compromises by the owners and the players early in the week suggested "there was still movement."
"The owners would not be in a position at this moment to say there is impasse," he said.
Some people in hockey said pressure was being applied to management and labor to make one final attempt to compromise so that a fragment of this season and the playoffs could be saved.
Pat Brisson, an IMG agent whose office in Santa Monica, Calif., has 62 N.H.L. clients, said yesterday that three owners told him that they had urged Bettman to try to negotiate later this week. He refused to name the owners.
Brisson said his clients and other players made the same request to Bob Goodenow, the executive director of the union, and Trevor Linden, the Vancouver player who is the union's president.
"There is conversation and agitation on both sides," Brisson said. "We had momentum and Gary pulled the rug out. The players' association made a lot of concessions. This could have been resolved."
Bill Daly, executive vice president for the N.H.L., denied that the owners had tried to influence Bettman. "We are getting zero remorse or pressure from our member clubs," Daly said in an e-mail message.
Brisson, and others in hockey, suggested that a salary-cap figure somewhere between the $42.5 million the owners offered and the $49 million the players demanded might have appealed to each side. But the bargaining stopped just before midnight Tuesday, well before Bettman's deadline of 11 a.m. Wednesday.
Daly said that "even $42.5 million was a stretch" for a salary cap without additional guarantees for cost containment, but he admitted that he had "heard rumblings" on the union side about resuming negotiations. "But it's all meaningless unless we hear back from the union," he said.
In an e-mail message late yesterday, Ted Saskin, the senior director of the union, wrote: "All the players understand the basis upon which Gary canceled the season. As a result, there is no expectation among the players that there would be any further negotiations."
Immediately after Bettman announced the cancellation Wednesday, communications began by telephone and e-mail among players, owners and those in management. Goodenow said at his news conference that a couple of owners had told him they would have accepted the last union offer, but he refused to name them.
Wayne Gretzky, part owner of the Phoenix Coyotes, told a Toronto radio station that "there seems to be a bit of a panic mode" on the hockey grapevine, but added, "As far as any kind of formal conversations, that is not true."
Referring to comments he had heard from players, Gretzky said they wanted to play.
Steve Yzerman, the captain of the Detroit Red Wings, told The Hockey News that he had hope for more talks. "I don't know if it's necessarily tonight, tomorrow morning, Friday night or Saturday," Yzerman said. "I know the season has been canceled, but it's not too late to uncancel it."
Charles Craver, professor of labor law at George Washington University, said the owners might succeed if they declared an impasse.
"They are at a point where their positions are irreconcilable," he said. "But you never know. I would not give up hope for the next week or so. They may get back to the bargaining table and realize, 'This is absolute insanity,' and they may save the season."
Craver also said such a strategy might work for the owners because some N.H.L. and minor league players would cross a picket line. "If they want to break the union," he said of the owners, "everything they are doing has been done well."
Mike Asensio, a labor relations lawyer in Columbus, Ohio, who works on the management side of these issues, said such a strategy could be risky, not because the players could prove the owners bargained in bad faith, but because they could argue that no impasse was reached.
When the labor board ruled in favor of the baseball players in 1995, during the Clinton administration, Democrats held a majority. Now Republicans make up a 2-1 majority of the board members.
Gould said the key in the 1994-95 baseball strike was that the N.L.R.B. sought an injunction in federal court against the owners. Under the current board, far fewer of those injunctions are sought, he said. "The players union would not have a lot going for it, even if it were to prevail on the impasse issue," Gould said
By JOE LAPOINTE
Published: February 18, 2005
he day after the cancellation of the 2004-5 National Hockey League season, people on each side of the labor dispute tried to figure out how a 2005-6 season could be held.
Commissioner Gary Bettman promised Wednesday that there would be a next season, and he did not rule out the option of starting it by declaring an impasse in collective bargaining and putting new terms of employment in effect.
Advertisement
Such a move may prompt a strike by the players, the use of replacements and the filing of charges of unfair labor practices before the National Labor Relations Board. Under those circumstances, some players may be tempted to cross picket lines.
The prospect of the impasse strategy drew differing opinions from experts in labor law, including the labor board chairman who ruled in favor of baseball players when they charged owners with unfair labor practices after they declared an impasse during the 1994-95 strike.
"At this particular point, there is no ground for impasse," said William Gould, professor emeritus of law at Stanford, who was the chairman of the N.L.R.B from 1994 to 1998, referring to the hockey dispute. But he also said that the current board helped management in recent years by not seeking court injunctions.
Gould said compromises by the owners and the players early in the week suggested "there was still movement."
"The owners would not be in a position at this moment to say there is impasse," he said.
Some people in hockey said pressure was being applied to management and labor to make one final attempt to compromise so that a fragment of this season and the playoffs could be saved.
Pat Brisson, an IMG agent whose office in Santa Monica, Calif., has 62 N.H.L. clients, said yesterday that three owners told him that they had urged Bettman to try to negotiate later this week. He refused to name the owners.
Brisson said his clients and other players made the same request to Bob Goodenow, the executive director of the union, and Trevor Linden, the Vancouver player who is the union's president.
"There is conversation and agitation on both sides," Brisson said. "We had momentum and Gary pulled the rug out. The players' association made a lot of concessions. This could have been resolved."
Bill Daly, executive vice president for the N.H.L., denied that the owners had tried to influence Bettman. "We are getting zero remorse or pressure from our member clubs," Daly said in an e-mail message.
Brisson, and others in hockey, suggested that a salary-cap figure somewhere between the $42.5 million the owners offered and the $49 million the players demanded might have appealed to each side. But the bargaining stopped just before midnight Tuesday, well before Bettman's deadline of 11 a.m. Wednesday.
Daly said that "even $42.5 million was a stretch" for a salary cap without additional guarantees for cost containment, but he admitted that he had "heard rumblings" on the union side about resuming negotiations. "But it's all meaningless unless we hear back from the union," he said.
In an e-mail message late yesterday, Ted Saskin, the senior director of the union, wrote: "All the players understand the basis upon which Gary canceled the season. As a result, there is no expectation among the players that there would be any further negotiations."
Immediately after Bettman announced the cancellation Wednesday, communications began by telephone and e-mail among players, owners and those in management. Goodenow said at his news conference that a couple of owners had told him they would have accepted the last union offer, but he refused to name them.
Wayne Gretzky, part owner of the Phoenix Coyotes, told a Toronto radio station that "there seems to be a bit of a panic mode" on the hockey grapevine, but added, "As far as any kind of formal conversations, that is not true."
Referring to comments he had heard from players, Gretzky said they wanted to play.
Steve Yzerman, the captain of the Detroit Red Wings, told The Hockey News that he had hope for more talks. "I don't know if it's necessarily tonight, tomorrow morning, Friday night or Saturday," Yzerman said. "I know the season has been canceled, but it's not too late to uncancel it."
Charles Craver, professor of labor law at George Washington University, said the owners might succeed if they declared an impasse.
"They are at a point where their positions are irreconcilable," he said. "But you never know. I would not give up hope for the next week or so. They may get back to the bargaining table and realize, 'This is absolute insanity,' and they may save the season."
Craver also said such a strategy might work for the owners because some N.H.L. and minor league players would cross a picket line. "If they want to break the union," he said of the owners, "everything they are doing has been done well."
Mike Asensio, a labor relations lawyer in Columbus, Ohio, who works on the management side of these issues, said such a strategy could be risky, not because the players could prove the owners bargained in bad faith, but because they could argue that no impasse was reached.
When the labor board ruled in favor of the baseball players in 1995, during the Clinton administration, Democrats held a majority. Now Republicans make up a 2-1 majority of the board members.
Gould said the key in the 1994-95 baseball strike was that the N.L.R.B. sought an injunction in federal court against the owners. Under the current board, far fewer of those injunctions are sought, he said. "The players union would not have a lot going for it, even if it were to prevail on the impasse issue," Gould said
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)