Post by dreamcatcher on Dec 10, 2004 12:12:10 GMT -5
'Impasse,' as a technical, legal term, is defined as a point in time in the bargaining process at which the parties are deadlocked with respect to a particular issue or set of issues. It is, by definition, a temporary state during any negotiation because it can be broken at any time by a change in position by either or both parties. A point of 'impasse' in negotiations, by itself, has no real practical or legal significance unless and until management wants to implement unilaterally the terms of its last proposal as new terms and conditions of employment. Unilateral implementation of new terms and conditions of employment is certainly an option for management in any collective bargaining negotiation at an appropriate point in time.
Should the NHL give the union a counter proposal, including some of the points of the NHLPA'S proposal "tweaked" AND a significant change to the Luxury Tax proposal without speaking to Caps whether soft or hard stance salary caps, such as a $1 for $1 Luxury Tax based on a $30-$35 million dollar threshold, and this proposal were "rejected" by the NHLPA, the owners, by definition, could unilaterally declare an impasse in negotiation, write off this season, and beginning next season, at training camps, with new terms of employment.
You guessed it...hard salary cap.
Will some NHL'ERS play under this? You better believe they will. Most of the younger players, rookies, and european players definetly. The wealthiest players? Likely 90 percent will never play again. Do we care? I mean, within a few years, the NHL would build new stars, new names would be on the lips of hockey fans across North America. I guarantee you one thing. If an impasse were declared and cost certainty implemented as new terms of employment, 1/2 the players in the league WOULD return, more european players, definetly rookies, and I believe relocation would occur with a few teams as well.
Should the NHL give the union a counter proposal, including some of the points of the NHLPA'S proposal "tweaked" AND a significant change to the Luxury Tax proposal without speaking to Caps whether soft or hard stance salary caps, such as a $1 for $1 Luxury Tax based on a $30-$35 million dollar threshold, and this proposal were "rejected" by the NHLPA, the owners, by definition, could unilaterally declare an impasse in negotiation, write off this season, and beginning next season, at training camps, with new terms of employment.
You guessed it...hard salary cap.
Will some NHL'ERS play under this? You better believe they will. Most of the younger players, rookies, and european players definetly. The wealthiest players? Likely 90 percent will never play again. Do we care? I mean, within a few years, the NHL would build new stars, new names would be on the lips of hockey fans across North America. I guarantee you one thing. If an impasse were declared and cost certainty implemented as new terms of employment, 1/2 the players in the league WOULD return, more european players, definetly rookies, and I believe relocation would occur with a few teams as well.