CHLPA thoughts

I don't know how many times in the last two months I've said to myself, "I really need to write a blog entry about this crazy CHLPA", and then never did. After the events of the last week though, it's time to put thoughts to paper here. It's going to be long and it's going to ramble in places so I'll apologize for that right now, this is just kind of a brain dump here.

First, because I imagine the tone of this post is going to be very anti-CHLPA by the time I get to the end, I have to say off the top here: I do not think the CHLPA is a bad idea. Quite the contrary, it is a very good idea to have some kind of an advocacy group for major junior hockey players - somebody to look out for their interests and lobby for improvements to the major junior hockey player experience. Right now there is no formal group that does this; every player/family is on their own.

I don't think there's anyone who thinks providing knowledgeable assistance to sometimes naive/inexperienced teenagers is a bad thing.

But I do question whether THIS CHLPA is the group to do that. Their motives, their goals, and their methods seem poorly organized, poorly executed, and just generally amateurish. They're secretive, they're confrontational, and they seem to be advocating things which either (A) don't appear to actually be in the best interests of CHL players, or (B) are in opposition to other things they are advocating. There is no rhyme or reason to this group.

So far, from what we can gather from what they have said and done, the CHLPA's goals seem to be:

1) improvements to the CHL player scholarship program.
       a) administration of the CHL player scholarship program, funded by fans via a ticket surcharge
2) restoration of NCAA amateur status to CHL players
3) seeking to have players paid at least minimum wage for the hours "worked" at practices and games.

Now, it seems to me that #2 and #3 are mutually exclusive of one another. They can't very well fight to have CHLers paid a salary and then seriously think the NCAA is going to even entertain the notion that players who are paid a salary are amateurs. But we'll get there in a bit.

Let's go down these requests:

#1, the improvements to the CHL scholarship program. This is the one idea the CHLPA has come up with which has actually appeared to meet with somewhat widespread approval on various fronts. Currently the CHL scholarship program varies from league to league, but generally provides one year of post-secondary tuition and books in exchange for each year a player plays in the CHL. There are two catches though. One, the player loses the scholarship if he signs a professional contract with an NHL or AHL team. And two, the player must begin using the scholarship within 18 months of completing play in the CHL, or he loses the scholarship.

I think most of us are fine with the player losing the scholarship if he signs an NHL contract. An NHL contract obviously presents the player with the opportunity to make a significant amount of money and so paying for his own education down the road is not unrealistic. But AHL contracts are, by comparison, a pittance of money. Should a player lose his scholarship because he took the opportunity to play a year in the AHL for $50,000? Players who sign and play a year in the ECHL do not lose their scholarship money, so why should AHL contracts carry the same weight when AHL money isn't that significantly more than ECHL money?

And the 18 month limit could really use some extending. This really only allows a player one season of playing pro hockey before he has to choose between minor pro hockey or his education. I don't think players should be allowed to take ten years to make this decision, but something longer than 18 months seems quite reasonable. Why not 36 months?

So when it comes to the player scholarships, on these two things anyway, the CHLPA may have some backers. But where they lose people is on their proposal to remove the scholarship program from the control of the CHL teams, and instead administer and fund it themselves, through a proposed $1.50 surcharge on every ticket sold to a CHL game. So in other words, they want the fans to pay for this.

Last year, by my count, there were just over 8.4 million fans in attendance at CHL regular season games. I have not counted playoff games, although I should. But even at just regular season numbers, 8.4 million tickets at $1.50 apiece means the CHLPA is proposing taking in over $12.6 million per year through this system. That's more than enough money to pay for every single player in the CHL to attend university, which means that is too much money since many players have no interest in going to university after their CHL days are over (some of them want to play pro hockey, and some maybe want to be plumbers or work the family farm, things they don't need college degrees for). So why do they need so much money? And has any consideration been given for the potential effect on attendance of adding $1.50 to the cost of a ticket?

So something doesn't add up here on this funding idea.

Moving on to goal #2, restoration of NCAA eligibility to CHL players....

This is another goal that most everyone can get behind, one with clear benefits to CHL players. The problem here for the CHLPA's involvement is that issues of NCAA eligibility are things to negotiate with the NCAA, not the CHL, which seems to be the CHLPA's intentions. It's the NCAA that declares CHL players to be ineligible for NCAA competition; the CHL itself has nothing to do with the NCAA's rules.

The CHLPA's idea is to have the CHL take the steps to ensure that its players continue to meet NCAA eligibility requirements. The Pipeline Show blog did an excellent article on this earlier this week, which you really should read if you haven't already. Basically, the CHLPA has concluded that there are three issues which currently make CHL players ineligible for the NCAA:

1) the CHL identifies itself as a major junior league, and the NCAA regulations specifically state that major junior leagues are professional leagues.
2) CHL players receive a stipend from their teams which may exceed what is allowed by the NCAA
3) some CHL players have signed professional contracts with NHL teams and been paid signing bonuses

Regarding point #1, the CHLPA seems to believe that if the CHL just stops calling itself a major junior league, that the NCAA will be satisfied. This defies common sense, to believe that if the CHL leagues were to simply call themselves "junior" or something else besides "major junior", that the NCAA is simple-minded enough to accept that as having real meaning.

Regarding point #2, the NCAA allows players to receive what it calls "actual and necessary expenses" but clarification from the NCAA is needed as to whether the amounts that CHL players receive exceed "actual and necessary expenses". If they do, then presumably the CHLPA's position would be that the CHL teams need to reduce or eliminate those stipends. Would CHLers accept smaller or no stipends if it meant they could have NCAA eligibility after playing in the CHL? It means hitting mom and dad up for that $50/week to put gas in the truck and for that date with coach Chadwick's daughter.

It's point #3 that is the real stumbling block for the CHL and its fans. The NCAA considers any league in which some players have been paid money to play hockey to be a professional league, and all players in that league are therefore professionals even if not all the players have been paid. And basically the CHLPA's position is that to restore amateur status to all its players, CHL teams should not allow players who have signed professional contracts to play in the CHL. Basically, a player who signs with the NHL at 18 or 19 would not be allowed to return to the CHL, he would be required to play in the AHL or wherever else his NHL club wanted to place him. This would have the effect of removing 20 or more of the best players out of each league - by my count there are 16 current WHLers who have signed NHL contracts and that number will increase as the season goes on and NHL teams sign more of their prospects. I assume the numbers would be similar in the OHL and QMJHL. Removing two dozen of the league's best players has an effect on the level of competition throughout the entire league; all the other players are made better by being able to compete against the best.

Of course there's a way around this too: NHL teams could simply not sign players yet when they have intentions of returning the player to junior. But that's the NHL's business and outside of anything the CHL/CHLPA can control.

And lastly, goal #3: seeking to have players paid at least minimum wage. The CHLPA has threatened the OHL and its teams with legal action (see this article here), seeking to have players paid minimum wage plus vacation pay and overtime pay, and in fact has already started legal action against one QMJHL team on behalf of one former player (see this excellent article here for more info).

This is by far the most idiotic thing I've heard and the thing that really convinced me that the CHLPA is not to be taken seriously and exists to be a pain in the ass to the CHL and not for its stated purpose of looking out for players.

For starters, as I mentioned above, having players paid even more money would almost certainly invalidate their amateur status. Being paid a salary HAS to exceed the NCAA's tolerance for "actual and necessary expenses". So these two actions against the OHL and the Halifax Mooseheads, if successful in getting minimum wage-level compensation for players, would result in any efforts and changes made towards restoring NCAA eligibility to have been a giant waste of time. To me, taking actions that run counter to other efforts shows the CHLPA has no clear vision of what it is doing other than wanting to be a thorn in the side of the CHL on as many fronts as possible. Forget representing the players; they are not representing the players when some of their efforts will benefit some players while hurting others, while other efforts will reverse the two.

But really, let's take a deeper look at this minimum wage thing. For starters, the notion that the only payment players get for playing in the CHL is their weekly stipend is completely inaccurate. Teams provide many other things to the players at no cost - things that people with "real world" minimum wage jobs do not get.

Billets, for example. Every player in the CHL lives free of charge in a local home, paid for by the team. And meals: the food they eat at those billets is paid for by the team as well. So if the players (or at least the one disgruntled ex-QMJHL guy who's suing) want their time in the CHL to be treated like a real world job and be paid minimum wage, it seems to me like the team is equally justified in telling those players that they can now find their own apartment and pay for their own rent and groceries. How's that wage sounding now?

How about equipment - teams pay for equipment for the players, like those $200+ composite sticks that everyone in the CHL uses. I bet having to pay for those out of their own wages every time one breaks would lead to a resurgence in the popularity of the much-cheaper wooden sticks.

How about the scholarship fund? For every year in the CHL, a player will get one year of tuition and books at university paid for. What's the going rate for a year of tuition and books at a Canadian university these days anyway? $10,000? It naturally varies from school to school and program to program but this is another significant form of compensation that the players "earn" from playing in the league.

I could go on, but the point should be clear: the stipend is not the only form of compensation the players get and all these other things need to be taken into consideration when talking about how the players are "paid". I'm sure that when everything is added up, teams are already spending far more than the minimum wage equivalent, per player, per year. The CHL themselves has estimated their per player costs to the teams at $30,000 to $40,000 per season. That's a lot more than a full year's 40 hr/week work at minimum wage anywhere.

The CHLPA appears to have not thought this lawsuit through.

Which brings me to another issue with the CHLPA: they are not an accredited union anywhere in Canada. They would like to be, but right now they are not. How are they able to threaten legal action on behalf of players whom they do not legally have the right to act for yet?

And lastly now, the issue of the CHLPA's general credibility. As first reported by a few sources yesterday, there is some question about exactly who the CHLPA is. If you haven't already, then you really have to read these articles from the Toronto Sun's Steve Simmons and Joe Warmington, and this video from TSN's Dave Naylor.

If "Derek Clarke" is really Randy Gumbley, as some are speculating, then this thing has to be over. Gumbley has been convicted of hockey-related fraud in the past; why would any of the players want to be associated with him?

But whether or not "Derek Clarke" is really Randy Gumbley or not, it seems there is a fair bit of question about whether more than one person is using the "Derek Clarke" name. That alone is a massive blow to the credibility of the CHLPA. Why use an assumed name unless you're trying to hide something?

And the CHLPA's response to the Gumbley/Clarke situation sure didn't help their cause. "The CHLPA categorically denies that Randy Gumbley has any official position with the CHLPA", they said. The use of the word "official" (as opposed to leaving it at the word "any", for example) leaves open to speculation that Gumbley does, in fact, have something to do with the CHLPA, even if it's in a vague "non-official" capacity.

IMO it is fully reasonable for the CHL to want to know who, exactly, the CHLPA is before engaging in any discussions whatsoever. Look at the NHLPA for an example - on the NHLPA's website they list the name of every person who sits on their Executive Board, their Negotiating Committee, and their Competition Committee. When we talk about "the NHLPA did this", or "the NHLPA did that", there is no question about who the "NHLPA" is in these matters.

So far the CHLPA has given us the name of an Executive Director (Georges Laraque) who has appeared confused at times about who he is working for or with, and a spokesman ("Derek Clarke") who may not actually exist or who at least may be lending his name to other spokespeople.

It's too bad because a properly run CHLPA may actually be able to do some good for the players of the CHL. But as it stands, this current group isn't worth any more of anyone's time, either CHL players or CHL management.