Revenue sharing certainly seems to be the key to any of the latest proposals or rumors. Several posters have stated that the league has guaranteed revenue sharing so that all teams may reach the salary floor. However, when the league makes this guarantee it uses a phrase "assuming an appropriate level of business performance within their respective markets". The NHLPA proposal from December 9th sheds some light on the leagues thought of revenue sharing. Here is the link: http://www.nhlpa.com/Proposal/NHLPAcomProposal.pdf The proposal states that teams must meet league established benchmarks in order to be eligible for revenue sharing:"One of the benchmarks you proposed is that a club sell 80% of the seats in their arena" Three small revenue teams were below that level last year Florida, Nashville and Carolina. Do you think that is a fair benchmark? What other benchmarks do you think might exist? Also, the NHLPA proposal states that the NHL offered 65 million in revenue sharing: "While our initial proposals contemplated revenue sharing of 215 million, we have recognized your desire for much more modest levels of revenue redistribution. We are now proposing a plan that is in line with the levels you have previously requested by approximately sharing approximately 65 million." This seems like an awfully low number and the NHLPA actually offers two additional proposals with more revenue sharing. Would you say that this is meaningful? Thoughts?