That was certainly the goal.
Apparently, this CBA is the first business plan ever that hasn't worked out exactly as planned/envisioned and has run into kinks, obstacles and economic circumstances over the course of time since its inception, thus necessitating changes to that plan.
I agree, and Alzner gets credit for admitting it. Which is why my opinion has since the NHL's first proposal is that now that we've had time to see what works and what doesn't the players here need to fight for something that can become permanent. Look at the last CBA as the Beta edition, and this one needs to be the finished product. Minor revisions are acceptable but they can't let themselves be pushed into a position where upon every CBA expiration the league locks them out and holds their jobs hostage unless they give up more.
That's why 50/50 is a good settling point. Reality may be far more complex but the 50/50 mark comes with a strong psychological association of being 'fair'. If the players stay above it the owners are going to feel slighted and will always be trying to knock it down. If the players fall below it the owners well get greedy and say well you were earning 48% before, why not give us 46% this time so you don't lose a year. That's never going to end though, if they got it once then they'll always ask for more. 50/50 on the other hand while it's not a guarantee is their best and only chance for reaching a permanent fixture.
Now the point of negotiation is to make it clear that they're the ones making concessions here, and the league can't expect add additional losses to their freedom of movement as well. 3 year rookie contracts and 7 years till UFA isn't what's causing the league financial problems.
