Holy crap, I can't believe someone is so willing to brownnose the owners as you are Thunderstruck.
You think the players will accept a cap.
Actually I think it will be shoved down their throats, but the end result will be the same.
You think the NLRB would grant the owners an impasse.
I think that if/when the owners declared impasse they would have ensured that they had a fair chance of success.
You think a cap is good for the sport
I KNOW that a cap is the best system for the long-term health of professional sports leagues. I really couldn't care less that it hurts the players short-term because it gives the league the best chance long term and the players will benefit from the revenue growth.
You think this lockout is to save the small markets.
I think the lockout is designed to give the owners maximum leverage in dealing with the PA. I also think it is designed to ensure the long-term health of the league.
You think the owners shoudl be guaranteed a profit
I want the league to be strong. Owners making profits is simply part of that equation.
How can you be wrong on every issue? Wow.
Considering the source, I'll take your assessment with a whole bag of salt.
Take the NHLPA offer, up the salerie tax it a level that might make a difference
but we all know that the rich teams will just pay it and buy all the top players.
So the true drag on saleries might be in the arbitration process. A 50 goal scorer gets his 8 million but what if thats it, one year at 50 goals and the next year at 25 goals. If the team would have the right to ask for arbitration to reduce his salerie to a 25 goal scorer salerie then this would drag saleries down. In other words not whatever the market will bare but pay for proformance.