FlyerFan said:
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.