Why Wasn't The NHL Season 2005 Played???

Question

how come there was no 2005 hockey season....

the reason i don't know is cause i live in IRELAND (Europe)

Answer 1

It was the lockout ... the NHLPA couldn't come to an agreement on some things (mainly the salary cap).

Answer 2

Yo, he's from Ireland.

You don't have to tell him what a lockout is, he probably knows better than most of you.

To put a little bit more history and context in there, this wasn't the first lockout.

During the 1994-95 season, we had the same stalemate situation, where union leadership - primarily a guy named Goodenow - and the NHL reached a stalemate about the salary cap. The premise of the cap is to keep smaller, less financially stable franchises from having to compete economically with the big teams' pocketbooks.

It's good in theory and I agree with puckdat that in its purest form it levels the field and insures the survival of all franchises.

The main problem with the cap is that it penalizes rooks coming just in for the inflated salaries of high level players. It means that someone's 4 million a year salary is protected, while the team will pay a newly drafted player less over time. Middling salaried players not under contract may also be affected.

The problem with both lockouts was that Goodenow was a megalomaniac and inflexible, and in the end his strategies hurt the NHLPA more than they helped it.

Towards the end of the 04-05 lockout, some of the players actually attempted to meet privately with the NHL to sort things out, but I'm not clear on who, when and what the outcomes were, except that it was probably far too little too late.

What it demonstrated ultimately is that the time for union reps for the NHL who are not players is over. Back in the past, hockey players might have needed educated, powerful, political men to do their negotiating for them, but as in Irish union history, those men can't always be trusted.

Players are now often intelligent, educated businessmen in their own right, and guys like Goodenow can and should be a thing of the past.

Remember too that the bottom line for the NHL is the almighty buck. To assume that Bettman or anyone else running the league puts hockey ahead of money is naive.

**

And no, Jeff L, there's not going to be a lockout when free agency starts, you ignoramus. There's a CBA (collective bargaining agreement) in place. It's good through the 2010-11 season.
Educate yourself: http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/cba/index.html

Answer 3

Puckdat covered it well. It was a LOCK-OUT. The difference between a LOCK-OUT and Strike is that the lock-out is BY THE OWNERS. It WASN'T the union. It was the OWNERS that locked up the buildings and said nope you can't play. They actually had prepared for it so most teams would be fine for a year, and were supposed to have planned for 2 or longer as I understand. Just in case the Union didn't break. The NHLPA FIRED the Union President after that mess because the union LOST. He tried to offer a 25% rollback but NO salary cap or even a "soft" cap in the form of luxarury tax like Major League Baseball(your team's payroll exceeds a certain amount then you pay a "tax" on it). They ended up with the "hard" cap AND a 25% rollback. They were KILLED by the owners in that sense.

Answer 4

When i first read the question, i though: "what the h**l?" Good thing you explained,i almost had a heart attack. The players DID NOT, repeat, DID NOT go on strike. It was a lockout. Meaning, the NHL wanted the players to accept a salary cap. This means, for most players, their was going to go down. They couldn't come to agreeable terms, so, it wasn't played. I know this has nothing to do with this particular issue, but i find it interesting that the game NHL 2005 was still released, don't you? Either way, you can read the about the whole thing in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004-05_NHL_lockout

So, i hope this helps you out.

Yankees91594

Answer 5

Good thing you explained. It wasn't a strike it was a lockout. Teams were losing money and league needed to restructure finances so a few teams like Pittsburgh and Buffalo anf Florida and Nashville could survive. The lockout ended with a collective bargaining agreement that saw salaries rolled back about 25% and a salary cap put in place for all teams. The cap is now tied to revenue. Weaker teams can draw from a pool of cash o help balance their books now as well. For the most part it helped save the struggling franchises and brought a certain amount of parity to the league. Stanley cup was not awarded for the first time in nearly 90 years.

Answer 6

Over 300 day long lockout that made winter very, very long for hockey fans! New rules in the game, salary caps and a Brettt Hull departure came in the 2005-2006 season. See WIkipedia for more.

Answer 7

Because the NHLPA wanted to make a salery cap but the players did not there by not having a season And the NHL lockout began

Answer 8

I could go on forever, but I'll bitterly summarize it this way:
Evidently we lost a season of OUR sport, so that 2 years later we could watch ridiculous amounts of money being thrown around by the larger markets, while the smaller markets are unable to keep payrolls up to the cap (which might as well not even exist in another 2 years as it will go up again). Thanks guys for the great new CBA...what a waste of a season.

Answer 9

The players were on a strike because of the salary cap in the end they compromised with the NHL and hockey was back!! YAY!!

Answer 10

Because the rich guys, who own the teams, wanted to restrict how much of the revenue-pie the rich guys, who play for the teams, could get. The rich guys, who play for the teams, said "No Way!". The rich guys, who own the teams, said "Yes Way!" and locked the other rich guys out, knowing the union was weak and would eventually crumble because guys with Grade 11 educations making $5,000,000/yr don't have that many high paying jobs waiting for them outside of hockey. The rich guys, who own the teams, were right and they got back to playing hockey the following season.

Answer 11

The players and the union had a major disagreement and the previous contract had run out, so until they could reach an agreement of some kind, the union locked the players out.