View Single Post
Old
09-25-2003, 09:22 AM
  #16
discostu
Registered User
 
discostu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathFromAbove
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.
Agreed that the owners wouldn't get off scott-free. Any new league, if it is under one corporate entity would need to offer salaries that exceed that of other leagues (WHA, Europe, etc.), which I'm pretty sure they would be able to for the most part.

Also, if they are under one corporate entity, there is no need for a lockout anymore, since they would be able to institute the salary cap they've been clamouring for, however, the players would then have the option to strike (since I'm assuming all of this is happening during CBA negotiations after the current one expires), so the players would still continue to have some leverage, however, their position would be weakened considerably.

discostu is offline