Goodnow gonzo

[Hasbro]

That's because unlike "Saint Bob who didn't collect a cent during the lockout",

Finaly someone in hockey getting paid what he's worth.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I believe you are talking about parity now which I had stated in an earlier post that the League had rejected up until now.

Without parity, cost certainty isn't possible.

So again I ask. What was this lockout about again?

Simply you stating the league rejected parity does not make it so.

Your assertion is ridiculous. The league wanted a salary cap in '94 but were not prepared to go to the wall for it. Anyone with an ounce of common sense realizes that more parity is a byproduct of cost certainty, not the reverse. In asking for a salary cap/cost certainty, they are realizing that more parity will result.

The lockout was about preventing more teams and eventually the entire league from going bankrupt.

Next silly question?

Do you even have a point? You seem to relish in the idea that "people are not answering my question", when you are missing the point that I tried to make earlier that you are asking the wrong (and irrelevant) questions.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

I believe you are talking about parity now which I had stated in an earlier post that the League had rejected up until now.

You can state in earlier posts that the sky is a mottled shade of pink and elephants routinely fly into jet engines, but it doesn't make it so. "Parity", as you try to use it, didn't become a significant problem until relatively recently when team budgets started hitting numbers revenues league-wide obviously were nowhere near to being justified. Couple that with the fact it was getting worse and the NHLPA was manipulating the process through centralized control of salaries to ensure that it would continue to get worse as long as they could manage to do it.

A little less greed on the part of the players and a little more sense in getting the problem solved before the old CBA ended would have saved the players a lot of money. They clearly established, however, that they aren't much more than sheep, not worthy of much respect in any sense other than their skill at batting around a frozen piece of rubber.

Without parity, cost certainty isn't possible.

So again I ask. What was this lockout about again?

The same thing you've been told a hundred times before. The lockout, from the owners point of view, was about creating a league landscape where the teams are spending on salary what the league revenues as a whole justify rather than just what the highest spending teams justify.

Now you can stick your fingers in your ear some more or you can sit down, read what has been said, and stop claiming no one is answering your stupid question.

 

[FlyerFan]

Simply you stating the league rejected parity does not make it so.

Your assertion is ridiculous. The league wanted a salary cap in '94 but were not prepared to go to the wall for it. Anyone with an ounce of common sense realizes that more parity is a byproduct of cost certainty, not the reverse. In asking for a salary cap/cost certainty, they are realizing that more parity will result.

The lockout was about preventing more teams and eventually the entire league from going bankrupt.

Next silly question?

Do you even have a point? You seem to relish in the idea that "people are not answering my question", when you are missing the point that I tried to make earlier that you are asking the wrong (and irrelevant) questions.

"Not prepared to go to the wall for it" is a nice euphemism for "rejected"

As for parity being a by-product of cost certainty, they are BOTH by-products of an economic system that is conducive for them. In '94 Gary Bettman proposed such a system but the League reject... No wait I'm sorry, they were "not prepared to go to the wall for it". There now, that sounds much, much better

This lockout was over ushering in an economic system that would achieve cost certainty and this time the League "WAS prepared to go to the wall for it".

I didn't ask a silly question. I asked a RHETORICAL question.

My point is we have a 12 page (and running) pro-owner dominated thread (and board for that matter) that demonizes Bob Goodenow, vilifies posters with an opposing view, and conveniently ignores the sins of the League.

 

[FLYLine27*]

I miss Goodenow. Bring him back! That picture of him and Gary at a hockey game...Bob with that happy look on his face, it was always on tsn.ca....sigh, memories.