THE NHL / STEVE SPRINGER : Alumni and Owners Are at Odds Over Surplus Pension Funds

They have been called the Heroes of Hockey by the NHL.

But last weekend at the league’s All-Star game in Chicago, they became the anti-heroes to some in the NHL. They are former players who were invited to Chicago to play in the Heroes of Hockey old-timers’ game Friday.

However, they became involved in a much more serious battle with considerably higher stakes--somewhere between $24 million and $26 million, depending on whose figures you use.

According to members of a newly formed NHL alumni organization, that is the amount of surplus pension funds misused by the owners.

“The basic issue,” said Dennis Owchar, a former Pittsburgh Penguin acting as a spokesman for the alumni, “is pension money that belongs to the players.

“These monies have been redirected by the owners. Some of it, approximately $4.5 million, has come back to us; approximately $12 million has gone to fund the pension given to the active players in the latest collective bargaining agreement and the other roughly $10 million has been given back to the owners by themselves.

“The surplus--or dividend as the owners are now calling it--is money that should belong to us.”

The other side seems a bit confused as to the nature of those funds.

Ken Sawyer, the NHL’s vice president of finance, told the Edmonton Journal: “We obviously believe it is our money. The employers paid the full load. They were guaranteeing the benefit and paying the full cost.”

Sawyer might want to talk to his employer, NHL President John Ziegler, who had a totally different view.

“The charges are absolutely false,” Ziegler said of the alumni’s claim that the owners had kept $10 million of the surplus. “There were no pension profits. The NHL had been overcharged by its insurance company when it purchased guaranteed annuities for the players. After a prolonged negotiation, a partial refund was realized.

“Since the players had advised that litigation will be commenced, it’s not appropriate to comment further.”

Owchar maintained that there is a surplus. “When the pension plan was originally set up,” he said, “the monies were given a 3% annual interest rate. So it was obvious that there would be a surplus there. Then, because of very high interest rates in the late 1970s and early ‘80s, we built up an incredible surplus.”

The retired players think they should each receive a percentage of the surplus equal to the percentage of the pension fund they are now getting.

Already frustrated in their dealings with the league, the alumni were frustrated anew when they attempted to enlist the aid of current players in their struggle.

Entering a scheduled NHL Players Assn. meeting Friday at a Chicago hotel, several alumni were told to leave, that there was no time to present their case. The alumni stormed out, believing that the current players weren’t interested in their problems.

Not so, said Bob Goodenow, deputy director of the players’ association. “We respect and support them,” he said of the alumni. “But we had an obligation to the (current) players. We had an agenda already set. This was not the time nor the place to deal with other matters. We are going to meet with their counsel. We are going to make any information they want available and let the sun shine where it may.”

According to Alan Eagleson, outgoing executive director of the players’ association, the disputed money is still there. “Not one nickel has been taken out of the surplus,” he said. “They have to satisfy a judge that they are entitled to it.”

All sides seemed to agree that the final decision in this dispute will be made in court.

It would be difficult for the owners to make a final ruling because most of them weren’t around when the pension system was installed. That was back in the days when the NHL was a six-team league. There are now 21 clubs.

“I would feel uncomfortable making a a decision,” conceded Bruce McNall, who has been sole owner of the Kings for 2 1/2 years. “But it probably wouldn’t come to that. The courts will probably decide. You hate to see litigation, but whatever happens, happens.”

When have we heard this before?

The Edmonton Oilers’ owner and his star, an NHL most valuable player, can’t agree on a new contract.

There are reports that the player will be traded. The owner heatedly denies them, maintaining he will never trade this man.

The Wayne Gretzky story?

That’s old news, but it’s back in the headlines with a new name: Mark Messier.

Winner of the Hart Trophy as MVP last season after leading the Oilers to the Stanley Cup, Messier says he is underpaid. His argument is bolstered by a newly released list of player salaries. Messier is ninth at $962,000 a season.

The top eight--Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Brett Hull, Steve Yzerman, Denis Savard, Patrick Roy, Ray Bourque and Scott Stevens--are all more than $1 million.

Messier wants $2 million, which would put him third behind Gretzky and Lemieux.

Oiler owner Peter Pocklington says he can’t afford that, then adds: “Mark Messier has never been for sale and will not be for sale in the future.”

Believe him? Once upon a time, Gretzky did.