The Iconoclast said:Now that hybrid I would consider. That one makes me think it could work. But to think that a deal of "three years of this, and then we'll do that, but only if this doesn't work", seems to be stupid and poorly thought out. It grasps of desperation and all the creativity of a 16 year old barganing to "go to lake with her friends when she is already grounded". Fix the problem or you'll have a bigger one on your hands. The fans will scrutinize this deal like crazy. If its not well thought out, it will be picked a part and the league will look like a third rate operation (its already down to second rate in my estimation).
I think it's the most logical one. I always saw this type of system as the true compromise that leans in the owners favour as they have always been in the drivers seat on this one...a luxury tax with elevated hard cap at 70% or so (only a few percentage points lower that the player cost ratio now). I mentioned it at the beginning of the lockout and I like it more and more as a way to get it settled as time goes on. I think the NHL is now completely in the drivers seat that they can strive to grandfather in a more strict hard cap through the deal to bring it to 60 some odd%. I also forgot to mention the minimum payroll cap should also be brought in at 45%-50%...something the NHL has already conceeded.
The key to any system working be it pure luxury tax or hard cap or something in between is that the thresholds have to be linked to revenues. There has to be a trigger to IMMEDIATELY react to the financial health of the league. That's the key discussion the players are unwilling to talk about through this whole thing....throwing up the smokescreen of "trust". All they need to do is trust an independent auditor...if they can't do that they are truly beyond reach.
Of course, if revenues increase the NHLPA would be wise to negotiate a percentage of revenue ladder (i.e. at $3 billion a cap at 70% may be doable compared to 63%...or whatever)