The last time the cup was not awarded in a given year was 1919. Not sure of the cause, but no, no blank spot, just a missing year when you look close enough.
Latest rumour floating around is that if the lockout lasts two years, the players union becomes decertified, giving the owners all kinds of leverage, having essentially broken the union. Not sure how much truth there is to that, but it seems plausible.
I don't have any great love for either side. With spectacular spokesmen like Brett Hull, my loathing of the players is ever increasing. The owners seem to take the risk at least, though for most I suspect it is a big tax break to them.
I think a cap coupled with an incentive laden contract is the way for the league to go. No more Alexei Yashin's dogging it after getting the contract and playing where they want. Produce or get paid less. Seems fair to me. I think the cap is necessary for the small markets to survive. Though buying a cup has seldom worked to this point, I disagree with the players' idea of a tax system for revenue sharing. The revenue sharing part I agree with, needs to be there for the entire league to survive. But I disagree with allowing the continuation with no cap. The Rangers, for example, could then go out and get all the top talent they want, leaving a dog like Calgary, even though they're making money via the profit sharing, with no top talent and an ever weakening fan base. There is no such thing as player loyalty to an organization any more. Why would Kiprusoff want to stay in Calgary at 2 mill per when he could go east and get 5 mill per? No brainer really.
Oh well, IHL is just a 10 minute drive away....
