Re: 2017 Women's World Championships
I agree with this. You can't have a 4 year contract but it can be figured out. Maybe you have to pick a team each year and then that team gets a 1 year deal or month to month. One interesting point (to me anyway) in this debate is the issue of support of girls hockey equal to boys. Why do we have the NTDP for boys and not for girls and why do we have the NTDP for boys at all when the Olympic teams are picked from the NHL? What purpose does it really serve other than sucking up a lot of available funding? It seems to me that a more logical argument can be made that there should be an NTDP for girls and not boys. Given that the support given to men's & women's hockey is a subsidy from a quasi governmental entity, there would seem to be a strong legal ground that funding should be at least equal or equal opportunity.
You could have continuous contract that pays month to month. Once cut or replaced financial support ends. I'm sure the players would agree to that. Canada has found a way to give their players $1,500 per month all year every year and substantially more during Olympic year.
I think asking USA Hockey to get more on par with Hockey Canada Women's hockey is not too much to ask although Canadian government helps out with their athletes' compensation.
I agree with this. You can't have a 4 year contract but it can be figured out. Maybe you have to pick a team each year and then that team gets a 1 year deal or month to month. One interesting point (to me anyway) in this debate is the issue of support of girls hockey equal to boys. Why do we have the NTDP for boys and not for girls and why do we have the NTDP for boys at all when the Olympic teams are picked from the NHL? What purpose does it really serve other than sucking up a lot of available funding? It seems to me that a more logical argument can be made that there should be an NTDP for girls and not boys. Given that the support given to men's & women's hockey is a subsidy from a quasi governmental entity, there would seem to be a strong legal ground that funding should be at least equal or equal opportunity.