Maybe it's just me, but I'm confused by this story.
If, as the story suggests, each team's salary cap is determined by a percentage of each team's revenue, huge win for the NHLPA, which gets it market. But the story also says it's unrealistic to expect, say, Toronto's and Phoenix's cap numbers to be determined by a fixed percentage of their respective revenues because the gap would be too big. Of course it would, that's what the lockout is basically about.
How can individual club caps be determined by individual club revenues if the range is 22 on the low end and 36 on the high end? And if your answer is the high revenue teams get to spend at the high end of the 22-36 range and the low revenue teams have to spend in the lower regions of it, consider it a huge win for the NHL. Because not only would the league have gotten a respectable range (22-36) but certain teams would be restricted from spending to the top of the range, guaranteeing the league that the cap average would be in the mid-range, or less than $30 million per team.
So which is it, huge win for the players (a pretty wide-range marketplace based on club revenues) or huge win for the NHL (a cap within the cap for some teams)? Very confusing, IMHO, but maybe I'm missing something.
p.s. my personal opinion is they agreed on a macro-economic linked cap system last Friday and have moved on to other issues, but also remember they can re-visit the economic system and re-open negotiations at any time...until it's all done, it's not done...blah,blah, blah...you know the drill.