View Single Post
Old
11-22-2012, 03:42 AM
  #34
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
I would imagine its for EVERYTHING else.
In a free market without unions, the elite would cash in huge. Bonuses, vacation homes, the works could all be worked in there to bring in the names.

Its the rest of the roster that would pay the price... every depth piece would be youngen working @ 6 digits....
Everything else takes a hit to accomdate... flights, hotels, meals, training limits.. gone. all the mandatory perks gone... Pension plans? forget about it.. Benefits? maybe... well probably. they're pretty cheap plans out there....full coverage @ $200-300/month for each player and their families.

Parity and competition has been mentioned. Large markets would be fine... Stars would be fine.

But make mo mistake.... the majority of teams would be on a budget... and that would mean a limited middle class wouldn't it... put out for a couple of names, then fill the best you can.


The idea that unions in CBA negotiations has run its course is massive hyperbole... Only in ONE aspect is it limiting - the elite player's mega salary.

CBAs may be used via lockouts to reduce player cost in salary... but it would be an extreme tunnel visionary conclusion to make that thats all they are about..
Essentially that would be conceding that not only are unions useless... they are detrimental to the players and the system.

Simply ridiculous.
Don't ya think?
Can you please explain the market forces that lead you to your conclusion that elite players will make out awesomely but average players will hurt?

What is it about having a union that gives the middle class hockey player clout?

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote