View Single Post
12-26-2012, 07:04 PM
Registered User
Budsfan's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,839
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
I have no problem with a longer CBA, and in fact when the owners finally decide to negotiate and relinquish some of their present demands and a deal gets done that both sides can live with lock them in for 100 years.

As a Leaf fan I realize that current Owners CBA demands all negatively effect the Leafs ability to build a team, and neuter their financial muscle, so the NHLPA has to continue to hold strong and not surrender or even better "blow it all up' and then I really like Leafs chances to find new star players among the 800+ UFAs.
I have a problem with a CBA contract that is too long and unless they have a stipulation, that should a problem within the CBA arise, that one side or the other could file to reopen a segment, that is causing a concern, to one side or the other, just as the player contract length, has caused a problem in the current negotiations but was not part of the last CBA.

I would think that hockey would not be disrupted by a total renegotiation of the entire CBA and that hockey could go on until resolvement of an issue however if an agreement cannot be reached, the CBA could be dissolved after 5 years, by a say 80% of the owners or players voting to do so.

In this way the players and owners would be entering into more of a partnership, instead of having two factions arguing about money, with hockey and fans being held hostage.

Few contracts like the CBA, can stand the test of time but having a way to tweak an agreement would maybe ensure that there would not be any more hockey stoppages going forward.

Budsfan is online now