Wetcoaster
Guest
He is not correct that a salary cap must always be collectively bargained if that is what he actually said. Conway knows his stuff so I suspect that the person misunderstood what he was saying.NYR469 said:i'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that he is 100% correct and a salary cap MUST be collectively bargained or it violates anti-trust laws. so the league can threaten impasse and implementation, but they can't really use it.
but why has no one brought this up?? is the media simply buying bettman's story as gospel?? unless there is some kind of loophole would some lawyer on the nhlpa side come out and clear it up (unless the nhlpa wants everyone to think the owners have that on the backburner)??
a few weeks ago this we first brought to my attention by hockeyrodent.com, so i tried emailing people from various leagues looking for clarification. most of them turned up with no responses, but i didn't get one response from the PHPA (which represents the players in the AHL & ECHL) and he said that the above (that a salary cap can't be implemented) is true and as far as he knew there was no loopholes, but suggested a labor lawyer might be able to provide more insight on loopholes to the anti-trust laws.
i've been trying to find someone with a legal background to clear this up but the best i can tell what conway said is true.
The NHL would have a cap as part of an imposed CBA (i.e the NHL's last best final offer) after an impasse declaration as a temporary measure so it can be done without the NHLPA accepting it and in compliance with antitrust law as long as the labour dispute continues. However if the NHLPA then decertifies, the imposed CBA evaporates and the NHL is then subject to the vagaries of antitrust law and all that may entail as happened with the NFL.