View Single Post
Old
09-25-2003, 09:13 AM
  #14
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by discostu
The purpose of the initial idea is to have a system where the league can mandate a salary cap without doing it via the CBA nor with it being collusion. The only way it can happen is if there is only one corporate entity.
Ya, but the players don't have to play for the NHL if they don't want to. And if they don't like the structure set up by the new NHL Corp., they can play for someone else. The players have been unionized so they would demand a CBA prior to any agreement to play, so it's not like the NHL can do whatever they want.

But this is how it is beneficial to the NHL. The NHL and the players will be bound together by a CBA. Both sides cannot do anything that is inconsistent with the CBA because it becomes a breach of contract dispute. However, whatever is not included in the CBA or specifically forbidden by the CBA, the sides are free to do. So if a salary cap is not mentioned in the CBA, then the NHL can freely institute a salary cap (but be damn straight that the next CBA negotiation will probably fix that).

How is this different from before? If the NHL is 30 different legal entities, the NHL can take no action that restricts competition (e.g. a salary cap) even if it is not already in the CBA because it becomes an anti-trust violation. But if the NHL was a single entity, they do not have to worry about an anti-trust lawsuit.

In summation:

If 30 different entities - any restriction must meet BOTH CBA approval AND anti-trust laws.

If a single entity - any restriction must ONLY be not inconsistent with the CBA (note the intentional double negative).

__________________
Saxon Sports Information and Research
David A. Rainer is offline