hmm, dictator, eh? I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that the players actually participated in the process of selecting their NHLPA chief, is my understanding incorrect? If not then 'dictator' doesn't apply. It's loaded term used to incite an emotional reaction which will not help anyone.
Less hyperbole and vitrol from both sides (yeah, I'm aware that we are 'just fans' and don't affect the process one way or another) would be a great thing.
I will not attempt to argue the relative merits of mandatory spending limits imposed on a company by an organizing/regulatory body because that is not why I come to hockey forums. I will suggest that unless both sides calm down (and this includes fans) then not only will they be unable to save the league, there won't be a point to doing so.
One final thought: anyone have any idea what happens to the public funds that went into financing what are essentially privately owned venues in most cases now that the people who got those funds to run their business (again, at taxpayer expense) have chosen to lock out their employees? That's a tremendous waste of my taxpayers money. I'd love to hear Mario tell me all about that new stadium he "must have" in order to survive (and how *I* "must" pay for it with MY freakin' tax dollars which should by all rights to go public education.) Really, Mario, tell me all about it... you want someone to limit your competitors ability to spend their own money on their own team (a salary cap) plus you want limits on the ability of young players to earn a certain amount of money (rookie salary caps) and you want to retain players rights until they're at least 30 (sorry, it amounts to indentured servitude regardless of the salary levels) and then, to top it all of, you want to take my money to buy your company (a team in this case) a new place to operate your business out of?
Here's an idea: No.