A way to have averted today's CBA problems

[Rakiet*]

I'm not going to get caught up in comparisons, what I was trying to convey was that the league approves every contract. Why they would approve contracts that are potentially detrimental is beyond me. I wish they had a better handle on that

Just a thought

 

[Epsilon]

I'm not going to get caught up in comparisons, what I was trying to convey was that the league approves every contract. Why they would approve contracts that are potentially detrimental is beyond me. I wish they had a better handle on that

Just a thought

Because they can't. Apparently you've never heard of an antitrust violation.

 

[Rakiet*]

Well the salary categories you described are right now just a figment of your imagination.

As was written, the 'categories' were a thought, an idea, a suggestion. Just read it next time and you don't have to write articles dedicated to legalities.

Unless the league and the PA agree to define those categories (ain't ever going to happen) and explicitly give GB the power to veto contracts based on those guidelines, it doesn't matter if GB thinks a contract "can't be supported by the entire system". There isn't a damn thing he can do about it if it doesn't violate any explicit league rules. He can complain and try to address economic issues in the next CBA (which surprise, surprise, he did), but that's about it.

It's a good thing you're not Betmann - I'd hate to see the league's legal bills.

Great opinion.
And I'd imagine that one would rather get legal bills instead of losing hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

The natural stabalization effect of the cap creates these conditions on its own anyway. Like I said, it wouldn't have as great as an impact, as it would in a league without salary caps.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
Well the salary categories you described are right now just a figment of your imagination.

As was written, the 'categories' were a thought, an idea, a suggestion. Just read it next time and you don't have to write articles dedicated to legalities.

This is the "Business of Hockey" board. You can't really discuss the labor situation in the NHL and blindly ignore "legalities".

Your original premise of coming up with some system of ranking and may have had some merits for discussion, but you seemed to refuse to accept the realities of these "legalities".

You were the one to get defensive about the "you can't do that" arguments and bring up the "my comany, my rules" and flawed McDonalds franchise analogies. When I (and others) pointed out the limitations of these "legalities", you became more defensive, ignoring these facts and pushed for more extra legal powers for the league, refusing to acknowledge that the league just can't do that, further sidetracking the discussion away from your original premise.

 

[HckyFght*]

Another way salaries have been getting jacked up is arbitration. Domi might be worth more to the Maple Leafs because he's a fan favorite. People want to see him play. So he's worth more money to his team. Now another player without the charisma or ability to sell tickets and TV rights on another team, but with similar stats takes his case to court and some know nothing judge gives him Domi's money and poof, now every jerk with x-amout of goals is getting over paid and ownership can do nothing about it. Think of that next time you flatly acuse ownership of stupidly raising salaries. There are lots of pressures forcing salaries upward and a lot of them have to do with labor's relationship to the courts. I would suggest that big time sports unions exist outside the parameters of the kind of union law that supports auto workers, miners and industrial workers. But sports labor law is enjoying benefits that were designed in the 30's for an entirely different situation. That needs to change, and ownership should be working on legislation to make those changes.
-HckyFght

 

[BigE]

A way to have averted today's CBA problems:

Given the players a little education.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Another way salaries have been getting jacked up is arbitration. Domi might be worth more to the Maple Leafs because he's a fan favorite. People want to see him play. So he's worth more money to his team. Now another player without the charisma or ability to sell tickets and TV rights on another team, but with similar stats takes his case to court and some know nothing judge gives him Domi's money and poof, now every jerk with x-amout of goals is getting over paid and ownership can do nothing about it. Think of that next time you flatly acuse ownership of stupidly raising salaries. There are lots of pressures forcing salaries upward and a lot of them have to do with labor's relationship to the courts. I would suggest that big time sports unions exist outside the parameters of the kind of union law that supports auto workers, miners and industrial workers. But sports labor law is enjoying benefits that were designed in the 30's for an entirely different situation. That needs to change, and ownership should be working on legislation to make those changes.
-HckyFght

That is how Domi got his last contract. Clarke signed Brashear for $2 million a season, the next day Domi signed for the same amount.

This lockout, I believe, is about making those changes within the CBA but not the law of the land. A system where the union can set up bidding between teams for their players has to have some sort of control on it.