View Single Post
Old
11-18-2012, 08:19 PM
  #25
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Estrada View Post
Decertification is the nuclear option. Expect it to be followed quickly with a major anti-trust lawsuit (on the merits) and taking the cap off the table.
The cap is only applicable under a enforced CBA. Technically, the cap is being treated as status quo but there's nothing to prevent the union from fighting the cap in whatever CBA they sign next.

From what I can gather, anti-trust suits would only be filed if the union disbanded and the league still locked them out. If the league lifted the lockout after the union disbanded, I believe that would make all players UFAs and new contracts would have to be negotiated. If the owners take the chance of lifting the lockout to prevent anti-trust suits, I would think that the large portion of the union will be at a severe disadvantage. There would be no cap ceiling or cap floor, guaranteed contracts would have to be negotiated individually and there would also mean that with so many players up for grabs, I would think more than two handful of players will never play NHL hockey again, coupled with a good chunk of players who will likely look at a decrease in their current pay, while star players will undoubtedly get more on the market. Keep in mind, there won't be any minimum salary...all the rules would be thrown out and it would literally be a free market and I don't believe revenue sharing would be forced upon any of the big league teams either. If the league called their bluff (which I don't think they would) the union might be in trouble. But this is just based on things I've come across, I don't know how accurate my understanding of the situation is. Anyone with a background in law is free to correct me.

If my understand is correct and players were indeed left to fend for themselves, I'd imagine Scott Gomez may be very screwed.

Ari91 is offline