I'm a bit confused on (d) 1 & 2. A player who has received permission to be away can't be suspended but also won't get paid. But then 2 says a player who has received permission won't have his salary reduced (by the 1/275th calculation). So what is 1 talking about when it says they're not entitled to their salary
I'm confused about this as well in fact before I edited my post (d) (1) formed the base of my point and that the Jets would be unable to suspend Buff after granting him a LOA.
Taken on its own (d) 1 would imply that non player granted a leave of absence can't ever be suspended. This flies in the face of what actually occurred (Buff was suspended by an NHL team who surely know the rules) and it would be ridiculous to think a leave of absence doesn't come with some degree of term and conditions. Logic would dictate a player once granted a LOA can't be gone indefinitely.
After reading the document in length I think (b) (iv) is what will apply here.
As for (d) 2, If a leave of absence is not granted the 1/275 equation applies to every day of camp missed and this affects their daily cap hit. NHL players aren't paid for attending training camp. Their salaries begin being totalled the day the NHL season begins. Every day a player is in the NHL the collect a daily salary unique to their contract which is paid in 13 regular season installments beginning in mid October.
Players who missed some/all of camp
without a LOA granted will have the 1/275th rule apply affecting their cheques for the entire season. Those who have
have been granted a LOA will not get paid until they return
BUT when they do will begin receiving their full original salary beginning from the day they returned to active status.
So missing half a pay period would entitle a player to half his money without the penalty of 1/275 applying.