View Single Post
Old
09-16-2004, 09:34 PM
  #36
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,978
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathFromAbove
You are correct in that the NHL is set-up as a franchise. However, it is illegal for the franchisor (and it is francisor, not franchisee) to dictate the salary paid to the employees of the various franchisees. The NHL (being the franchisor) cannot dictate to the member teams (being franchisees) the salary they will pay their players. It is a violation of anti-trust law whether you are the NHL or McDonalds.


Post lockout-CBA disolving-NLPHA disolving. Would these be legal

1) Franchisor to require the franchisees to meet criteria to enter a competition (payroll under $40m)? McDonalds might have criteria that certain uniforms must be met, certain signage. The teams can sign as many players as they like, for as much as they want to spend on them. That seems like a reasonable thing for a franchisor-franchisee relationship.

2) same as above except that if the spend too much they get put into a different comp.

3) teams hiring hockey players from a 3rd party labour company. Teams pay an amount to this company, say $31m, which them agrees to provide them with some hockey talent. The same way one might rent auditors or accountants from KPMG.

me2 is offline