This was in the recent Hockey News and it made alot of sense.
If the players all take a 5% pay cut and rookie contracts are capped (as well as another year added onto the entry level contract), wouldn’t the % spent on player’s salaries be significantly lower. Not to mention, that with around 60% (maybe more, maybe less, I’m not sure) of players being free agents this summer, the market would essentially correct itself and average salaries will take a huge dip.
These things together would definitely lower the % of revenue teams spend on players salaries within the 60% range that the owners so desperately need for cost certainty. Any thoughts?
[QUOTE=iagreewithidiots]Oh no the owners dont have to pay. They can all refuse to pay big money, drive down contracts, and have the players slap a collusion lawsuit on them.
That's right, Mr IAgreeWithIdiots! and this idiot knows for sure that some know nothing Judge will hand down a decision forcing owners to forfiet every dime to the poor workers/players as soon as asked. This begs the question, are players unions really unions at all? How can they be when they are essentially controlled by agents who make whopping sums spanking the system through the courts...this is hardly what the AF of L and CIO, the Garment Workers and Farmers fought and died for lo- those many years ago...the unions are essentially cartels and should be busted forthwith and reassigned as trade associations or guilds responsible for quality of performance as well as workers rights...
Lock the players out, replace them on the ice, and rewrite the rules from scratch...do it now, or do it later.