View Single Post
10-17-2012, 03:21 PM
Registered User
Yokai's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,904
vCash: 1243
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
Because if the players didn't consent, a salary cap would be collusion between the franchises. If Nashville has an internal budget but New York doesn't, that isn't collusion - the two teams created their budgets independent of one another.
Couldn't you argue that the NHL is simply one team within a "league" of other international hockey organizations. If a player can't get what he wants in the NHL then he has the full right to go try the SEL, KHL, DEL. Which I would think is similar to someone being able to just sign with a different team within the NHL.

My opinion on this could be completely off as I'm not really clear on anti-trust laws, but since I'm taking a lot of other law classes, this stuff is interesting to discuss.

Originally Posted by Holdurbreathe View Post
It is anti-competitive simply because a salary cap prevents/throttles a player from realizing his real market value.

It is why players have decertified their union when lockouts occur, to enable the filing of anti-trust suits.

Nashville isn't violating the rules of the CBA (Cap ceiling & floor) and if they did you can be assured the NHLPA would be on it in a NY minute.
Again only his market value within that particular league though. The player still has the option to realize their market value in other league the world has to offer.

Last edited by Yokai: 10-17-2012 at 03:30 PM.
Yokai is offline