View Single Post
12-21-2012, 06:58 PM
Registered User
Roulin's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
You covered a lot of ground! Interesting points, but I mostly disagree.

Originally Posted by DumFries View Post
First off, I have never seen anywhere or anyone disband a union for purposes of negotiation. A union is there to protect employees. NHL players should be happy they have a union since most workers don't. Already these players are making millions. I would never make these sums of money during my lifetime.
The fact that the BOG is trying to intimidate the union into staying together should speak volumes. At some point, owners figured out that collective bargaining helps them more than it does players. Now players may be starting to realize that as well.

Originally Posted by DumFries View Post
I don't know much about labor laws but if the players dissolve their union, doesn't this mean that they are free as air including RFAs? If players are willing to go this far, and wait to see what some greedy owners of this league would offer them, because everyone just wants a season, I think the whole thing would be a slap to the fans.
IMO the fans have already been slapped. The fact that there is a lengthy work stoppage every time a CBA expires sucks. It's a terrible system for us hockey addicts. Ditching collective bargaining altogether may be the best hope we have to see uninterrupted hockey in the future.

Originally Posted by DumFries View Post
If some greedy owners do go ahead and sign the players, the NHL will lose plenty of franchises. First off, the American teams, Rangers for say, would probably snatch the Crosby's and Malkin's, giving them 40 million a year. Profitable teams could just default and dissolve. The death of the sport will ensue.
The Penguins have made a ton of money off Crosby and Malkin. Way more than they've spent on these two players. If the Pittsburgh organization factors in merch sales and playoff revenues, they should be willing to give both players substancial raises if other teams start bidding. Luckily for them, Crosby just signed at a bargain salary until 2025.

Originally Posted by DumFries View Post
Already a whole year was lost in 2004 to implement a salary cap. Many teams benefited from the implementation of such a system. Teams like Edmonton, Ottawa and Calgary were able to compete. And we all know most NHL profits are generated by canadian teams. The salary cap not only allowed for parity in this league, it also was great for players. They saw their salaries explode. They make 10 times more than they did in 2004. Why kill the salary cap?
IMO the Shanahan rules, the strength of the Canadian dollar and the emergence of an exciting group of young stars have all contributed more to increased revenues than the cap.

Originally Posted by DumFries View Post
If the owners would regroup and form a new league with their own rules, players will sign for far less than they make now. So why kill the league and a sport for a million more?
A new league without the history, arena deals or tv contracts the NHL enjoys? I'd love to see a competing North American league, but I don't see it happening. I hope I'm proven wrong.

Another issue with your scenario, specifically the "form a new league with their own rules" part - I doubt players in the new league would decide to unionize. If they didn't, teams in the new league would be subject to antitrust law. Maybe a way around this would be to have a league under a single ownership group, so the teams would not be run as separate businesses? Not sure if this is possible or not.

Last edited by Roulin: 12-21-2012 at 07:09 PM.
Roulin is offline