View Single Post
09-12-2004, 11:33 AM
Russian Fan
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Originally Posted by djhn579
Yes I said that. I also said for it has to be negotiated into a CBA. If it wasn't, it would be called collusion, which is illegal.
Do you know what COLLUSION is ?

Even if you do know, which I don't think you know, how to prove it is another story.

Did you hear recently the PLAYERS talking about collusions because NO SUPERSTARS can get a decent contract ? Please you are talking about a BIG WORD to scare without knowing the consequence & the way to prove such things.

Originally Posted by djhn579
Should the players that have been the benificiaries of the imbalance created by a few owners, cave? If the alternative is losing teams (which also means losing NHLPA jobs), yes. And why does it have to be considered caving? The job of any union is to protect workers from unsafe work environments and make sure they are not being unduly exploited (being forced to work for low wages). I don't think the roll of unions was to exploit the present business situation to the point where they will lose jobs. That is not a very smart business practice.
Again 2 teams was supposing to go bankruptcy, did you see some job losses ?

Originally Posted by djhn579
The NHLPA knows that they can exploit the current situation, that's why they don't want a salary cap. They just want more money regardless of what the consequenses are for the fans (lost leams does effect fans, especially in the cities that lose teams...) or the owners. That is called being greedy. They would hardly be underpaid under a salary cap.
You're not mature enough to have a conversation, I'm sorry. believe everything you read in the

Russian Fan is offline