Remember back in February when the owners said they were willing to accept the NHLPA`s offer under the condition that if any one of four "triggers" that the owners named were exceeded then the players offer would be terminated and the CBA would automatically switch to the owners terms. The NHLPA rejected the idea and were immediately blasted by pro-owner fans on hockey boards everywhere: "Brilliant. They rejected their own proposal" "This proves the NHLPA knows their proposal is bad for the league`s health." "God bless Jeremy Jacobs and Bill Wirtz!!" Etc. etc. The players stance was that the league`s "triggers" wouldn`t necessarily prove the CBA wasn`t working. Even Joe Sakic, one of the most respected players around, said on TSN that Bettman`s triggers were a joke. One of the triggers was as follows: "That the average payroll of the top three teams couldn`t exceed the average payroll of the bottom three teams by more than 33%" All the pro-owner fans agreed with this. "If the top three were more than 33% higher than the bottom three then that would make parity and competitive balance non-existent. The difference has to be under 33%. This is all about helping the teams at the bottom." One poster even stated that he thought 33% was too high and the trigger should have been set lower. Fast forward to present time. It looks like there`s a new CBA under the owners terms. The details are not yet official but from all accounts it looks like there will be a floor of $22M and a cap of $34-$36M. All the pro-owner fans love this deal. BUT WAIT!!!! By those numbers; the difference between the top three and bottom three could be from 50%-64%. I thought anything over 34% would prove the league wasn`t healthy. Please explain the math. This was supposed to be about helping the teams at the bottom, right?