Exactly.... Even if they had managed to get half a season done, league revenue would have dipped at least to 1.5 billion next year, if not lower.. Long term though, linkage would have likely been a boon for the players compaired to a hard cap around 37-38 million...
I expect the offer to be creative from the PA.....
But creative can also mean full of loophole's and clause 7's that sink deals...
A rolling cap is a possiblity...
Or, what I think the NHLPA should have done from the start...
Something like a Hard Cap at 50 million...
2.75 dollar tax per dollar down to 45
2.50 Tax down to 42.5
2 dollar tax down to 40
1.25 tax down to 39
.50 cent tax to 38 million
Floor at 22 million...
All teams below each level of tax collect evenly from the tax bracket they are below.
So if say Colorado and Detroit spend in the 2.75 tax bracket, all other teams split what they(Colorado,Detroit) pay in even...then say Toronto is in the 2.50 tax bracket...they get an even split of the Colorado-Detroit tax, but pay their tax to all teams in the lower tax brackets an even split..Then say the Rangers are in the 2 dollar tax range.. they get revenue from Colorado, Detroit, and Toronto..but pay their tax to all teams below them in the bracket program...and so on down the line....Teams that stay below 38 million don't pay in any tax's, but get a good chunk of revenue through the program..
Owners get a fail safe on the top, as you for sure put Colorado, Detroit, NYR, Toronto and company back down to earth for contracts ..
Players could claim a 'victory' in that they got 50 million for the hard cap vs 42.5...
Both sides allow for a stellar team and a rich owner to spend...spend..spend...but thats ok, as they will lose a ton of cash, and give alot back to the smaller markets...which would prohibit it from happening alot, if at all..