Linkage at 55% offered by Owners ..What does it mean ??

[Drury_Sakic]

The NBA and NFL somehow managed to agree on the "what", so is it so unrealistic to think the league and PA also can?

I don't dispute that..

But with Bob and Gary headhunters in charge, it aint happening.


Plus the NFL has that MASSIVE TV contract to help out... and the NBA has a bigger money base..


In the current situation, I don't see the NHL coming to a revenue agreement.

 

[ti-vite]

Why was there anything beyond this in the thread?

Too simple.

 

[Ismellofhockey]

The flaw is much much bigger ..

How do the Players get THEIR 55% of the PIE ??

If you and your best friend went into business together as partners and your arrangement was 55% returns for you .. That would make your partners 45% .. Correct ??

So every dollar you earned in Business .. You would get .55 cents ..Correct ??

This is what the NHL is offering 55% linkage to the players .. Correct??

Now tell me if the league sets the Ceiling for the Hard Cap at 55% linkage to league Revenue . . (using last years numbers (because linkage will correct to actual each year)

$2.1 Bil Rev /30 teams = 70 mil per team X 55% linkage = 38.5 mil Hard Cap.

Or if you want to look at it the same way

$2.1 Bil X 55% (players cut) = $ 1.155 bil to be spent on players salaries ..Correct ?? (based on last years numbers)

If the NHL makes the Hard Cap Ceiling the 55% or 38.5 mil ..

Question : How do the players get their 55% share ??

Answer : The only way is if all 30 teams spent every penny up to the Hard Cap figure .. 38.5 m x 30 teams = 1.155 Bil ..


Now what happens when Pittsburgh, and Atlanta, Nashville all spend less ??.. The players get cheated out of their 55% fair share is what happens ...

**** How come people can't see this?? ****

If Pittsburgh has a salary of 30 mil then they are only giving the players 30 cents of every dollar and so on .. Sure the Toronto, Philly, NYR, Detroit will spend up to the cap and give the players the .55 cents on the dollar what about all the other teams ?? .. If Pittsburgh spent only 30 mil then the league has to allow Detroit to spend 47 mil to compensate so together 47+30 = $77 mil / 2 teams = 38.5 Mil

For the Players to get their 55% .. Team spending on salaries has to equal 55% of league revenues..

To me that would mean the Average Spending per team = 55% not the TOP ..

Please tell me how the players will get their fair share of the Pie if linkage is set to 55%??

Wow, great detective work!
Except that linkage also means there is a salary floor meaning teams HAVE to spend a minimum amount thereby garanteeing a certain percentage of the pie to the players.

 

[Russian Fan]

The problem I have with the owners is they want to FIX EVERYTHING & RIGHT AWAY & you won't get it with the NHLPA's approval. Show some good faith. The owners said it was 75% of the revenue are players salaries. Don't go for the home run , try to establish some confidence with the other side (which Goodenow & Bettman havn't done so far) & try to get a smaller lenght of CBA with something that even if it's not perfect for the owners, it would work for most of the teams. After that 3-4 years of CBA which you sign an agreement between both parties to audit the teams on specified revenues, there could be some trust. A 42,5 or 45M$ cap would work for 3/4 of the franchises without linkage & for those who can't spend more than let's say 35M$ .....STICK TO YOUR BUDGET ! A 10M$ gap is better than a 50M$ gap from the last CBA.

Trust need to be made & it won't be with a 1-side agreement where fans thinks everything should be blame on the players.

My thoughts.

 

[tantalum]

The problem I have with the owners is they want to FIX EVERYTHING & RIGHT AWAY & you won't get it with the NHLPA's approval. Show some good faith. The owners said it was 75% of the revenue are players salaries. Don't go for the home run , try to establish some confidence with the other side (which Goodenow & Bettman havn't done so far) & try to get a smaller lenght of CBA with something that even if it's not perfect for the owners, it would work for most of the teams. After that 3-4 years of CBA which you sign an agreement between both parties to audit the teams on specified revenues, there could be some trust. A 42,5 or 45M$ cap would work for 3/4 of the franchises without linkage & for those who can't spend more than let's say 35M$ .....STICK TO YOUR BUDGET ! A 10M$ gap is better than a 50M$ gap from the last CBA.

Trust need to be made & it won't be with a 1-side agreement where fans thinks everything should be blame on the players.

My thoughts.

They did try. The players wanted no part of negotiation until the old CBA expired. They wanted no part of negotiation of a linkage system before damage was done to the business. They wanted no part of a realistic unlinked cap such as $42.5 which is why there is no NHL hockey on TV tonight. They wanted no part in actually finding out and verifying the numbers themselves or participating with the NHL in that venture. The PA backed themselves into a corner such that the owners have no real choice but to fix it all right now. It's past the point of trying a luxury tax (two years ago maybe, even a punitive on in the summer might have got past the owners) or other fixes. Don't blame the owners for the PA slitting their own throat.

 

[Phanuthier*]

The flaw is much much bigger ..

How do the Players get THEIR 55% of the PIE ??

If you and your best friend went into business together as partners and your arrangement was 55% returns for you .. That would make your partners 45% .. Correct ??

So every dollar you earned in Business .. You would get .55 cents ..Correct ??

This is what the NHL is offering 55% linkage to the players .. Correct??

Now tell me if the league sets the Ceiling for the Hard Cap at 55% linkage to league Revenue . . (using last years numbers (because linkage will correct to actual each year)

$2.1 Bil Rev /30 teams = 70 mil per team X 55% linkage = 38.5 mil Hard Cap.

Or if you want to look at it the same way

$2.1 Bil X 55% (players cut) = $ 1.155 bil to be spent on players salaries ..Correct ?? (based on last years numbers)

If the NHL makes the Hard Cap Ceiling the 55% or 38.5 mil ..

Question : How do the players get their 55% share ??

Answer : The only way is if all 30 teams spent every penny up to the Hard Cap figure .. 38.5 m x 30 teams = 1.155 Bil ..


Now what happens when Pittsburgh, and Atlanta, Nashville all spend less ??.. The players get cheated out of their 55% fair share is what happens ...

**** How come people can't see this?? ****

If Pittsburgh has a salary of 30 mil then they are only giving the players 30 cents of every dollar and so on .. Sure the Toronto, Philly, NYR, Detroit will spend up to the cap and give the players the .55 cents on the dollar what about all the other teams ?? .. If Pittsburgh spent only 30 mil then the league has to allow Detroit to spend 47 mil to compensate so together 47+30 = $77 mil / 2 teams = 38.5 Mil

For the Players to get their 55% .. Team spending on salaries has to equal 55% of league revenues..

To me that would mean the Average Spending per team = 55% not the TOP ..

Please tell me how the players will get their fair share of the Pie if linkage is set to 55%??

A very obvious flaw in your logic - the NHL does not make money (and under the new system, it would almost be negligable). The players get 55%, and the rest of the 45% would go towards taxes, building costs and maintainance, other staff within the organization (GMs, coaches, scouts, training staff), facilities (ie. the gym), cost of promotions ect.

So your litle analogy about how the owners are screwing the players in their business plan is complete crap. In this "partnership" the league doesn't make money - it loses it. Meanwhile, 23 individuals for each team get to figure out how to split $42.5 million every year.

 

[Phanuthier*]

first of all.. I'd like to remind you that the players had a chance to take a hard cap of $42.5 million

moving on, the owners are not complete idiots. if you can recall they offered the players a salary range between 34.6-38.6 million meaning all teams would have to fall in this range thereby guaranteeing the players 54-55% of all league revenue. this creates a direct linkage -- if the league makes more money so do the players.

furthermore, when there was no cap if all the teams decided to spend $20 mill then the players would only get roughly 35% of league revenues? this is a guarantee that works both ways meaning that the leauge and players would be partners.

what the players proposed in late feb was that they would have a cap and linkage only on the upside. meaning if the league made more $$ then the cap would go up but if the league made less then the cap would stay the same.

conclusion: it's pretty clear the players aren't interested in becoming partners and having any responsibility if the league fails financially.

Take note, Messenger.

 

[Mess]

A very obvious flaw in your logic - the NHL does not make money (and under the new system, it would almost be negligable). The players get 55%, and the rest of the 45% would go towards taxes, building costs and maintainance, other staff within the organization (GMs, coaches, scouts, training staff), facilities (ie. the gym), cost of promotions ect.

So your litle analogy about how the owners are screwing the players in their business plan is complete crap. In this "partnership" the league doesn't make money - it loses it. Meanwhile, 23 individuals for each team get to figure out how to split $42.5 million every year.

That makes no sense at all ..

Certainly the owners have other costs, but that is irrelevant to this discussion .. If their portion 45% didn't cover it then then shouldn't be offering the 55% ..

55% is a meaningless number if a team only intends to give the players 30 % ...

What difference does the number make that the linkage and partneship is set at if each owner can simply ignore it and not honour it ... Thats why revenue sharing is involved to help the smaller market teams out to cover cost .. but each and every team is responsible for spending 55% of TOTAL LEAGUE REVENUES not TOTAL TEAM REVENUES ..

That is the only way the players get every penny of the Partnership money that is due..

 

[Mess]

Take note, Messenger.

Even if that is all true ....

The NHL and NHLPA are negotiating on a deal NOW ... Both sides made mistakes getting to here ...

The still does not change the fact that everything agreed upon like 55% linkage as discussed must be honoured in this legal binding agreement ..

The 42.5 mil means nothing .. that offer had no Salary Floor .. All that was is the MOST money any team could spend ... That figure is optional not manditory ... nothing stopping a team from spending 18 mil like the Pens did last season .. Then what does the 42.5 mean to players on the Pens ??

The NHL has to come up with a method that gives the players 55% of all Revenues MANDITORY .. .. by use of a Hard Cap ..that means that the MAXimum and MINimum has to be the same number .. other wise 55% means nothing nor does 42.5 mil

 

[Munchausen]

That is the only way the players get every penny of the Partnership money that is due..

The only reason they'll never see it is because they never wanted it in the first place. If the players had agreed to the 55% linkage, they would have been able to spend all the following negotiating sessions talking about how to make sure the players see every penny of it. Instead, they just said no to linkage. It's the players who screemed to have the linkage removed from the table. Can't have it both ways. Either you agree to a 55% linked deal and make sure the players get their due, or you refuse linkage and therefore, are at the mercy of what the owners want to spend.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Are you serious with this ? The owners want the players to take all the cut here because they cannot trust each others because some are too competitives & others just want a franchise.

Very ironic of you.

Very non sequitur of you.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I still am not getting it. 55% is 55%. If teams bring in an aggregate $2.1 Billion for instance the players get 55% of that. If teams bring in $800 million the players get 55% of that. How they divide that figure among themselves and verification of the owners' numbers is a matter for the CBA. But I am missing the problem here or how this team or that spending lower than the cap will lessen the aggregate amount that players recieve.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Even if that is all true ....

The NHL and NHLPA are negotiating on a deal NOW ... Both sides made mistakes getting to here ...

The still does not change the fact that everything agreed upon like 55% linkage as discussed must be honoured in this legal binding agreement ..

The 42.5 mil means nothing .. that offer had no Salary Floor .. All that was is the MOST money any team could spend ... That figure is optional not manditory ... nothing stopping a team from spending 18 mil like the Pens did last season .. Then what does the 42.5 mean to players on the Pens ??

The NHL has to come up with a method that gives the players 55% of all Revenues MANDITORY .. .. by use of a Hard Cap ..that means that the MAXimum and MINimum has to be the same number .. other wise 55% means nothing nor does 42.5 mil

I think that is one of the reasons the PA has not looked at ALL about the possiblity of linkage, because it is unrealistic to think you can get EVERY team to spend their part and get up to the 55%, hell even 50%


For linkage, a KICK ass revenue sharing system needs to be in place, but from what I have seen neither side has a plan that is relevent to solve linkage problems..

Again, from what I have read, the league wants the cap to top OUT at 55% of revenue, and they simply assume that teams will spend towards the cap max(like in the NFL, NBA)... that assumtion is wrong, but its their arguement.

 

[tantalum]

The NHL has to come up with a method that gives the players 55% of all Revenues MANDITORY .. .. by use of a Hard Cap ..that means that the MAXimum and MINimum has to be the same number .. other wise 55% means nothing nor does 42.5 mil

Truly you are mind boggling sometimes. The numbers need not be the same. A range of payrolls is perfectly acceptable though the range spread can not be too large. That guarantee of percentage is EXACTLY what the NHL was did in their offers!

From the December offer:

"An agreed upon appropriate percentage of each Club's Player payroll will automatically be escrowed to ensure compliance with the 54% allocation.

Following the end of each League Year, the League's Hockey-Related Revenues will be audited by an independent auditor jointly selected by the NHL and NHLPA, and the escrowed funds will be distributed either to the Players; or to the Clubs; or to both Players and Clubs in order to ensure that the Players receive 54% of the League's Hockey-Related Revenues.

If, for whatever reason, NHL Clubs contract to spend less than 54 percent of the League's Hockey-Related Revenues, the Clubs would be required to contribute additional dollars to a pool to be distributed to the Players to ensure that they receive their full 54% Share."

From the Feb 2 offer:

" -- The parties agree that the new Player Compensation System shall ensure that total League-wide Player Compensation in any year of the new CBA will not: (1) be below 53% of the League's revenues, or (2) exceed 55% of the League's revenues.

-- 15% of each Club's Player Payroll will automatically be escrowed every season to ensure compliance with the 55% high-end of the Player Compensation Range.

-- Accounting will be performed at the end of each League Year, and the escrowed funds will be distributed either to the Players; or to the Clubs; or to both Players and Clubs in order to ensure that Clubs have paid no more than the agreed upon 55% of League Revenues.

-- If NHL Clubs as a group spend less than 53% of the League's Revenues, the Clubs will be required to contribute additional dollars to a pool to be distributed to the Players to ensure that they receive the agreed upon 53% of League Revenues."

The league guaranteed those amounts in their offers. The numbers could have been brought up closer to the 55-58% range I'd imagine based on these numbers being essentially opening numbers and the $42.5 unlinked cap.

 

[Munchausen]

I think that is one of the reasons the PA has not looked at ALL about the possiblity of linkage, because it is unrealistic to think you can get EVERY team to spend their part and get up to the 55%, hell even 50%


For linkage, a KICK ass revenue sharing system needs to be in place, but from what I have seen neither side has a plan that is relevent to solve linkage problems..

Again, from what I have read, the league wants the cap to top OUT at 55% of revenue, and they simply assume that teams will spend towards the cap max(like in the NFL, NBA)... that assumtion is wrong, but its their arguement.

The 55% isn't on a team by team basis (if it was, every team would have the exact same payroll), it's on a league wide basis. That means the players get 55% of total league revenues. In other words, a fixed share of the pie. I don't see what's wrong with this concept.

 

[kerrly]

Even if that is all true ....

The NHL and NHLPA are negotiating on a deal NOW ... Both sides made mistakes getting to here ...

The still does not change the fact that everything agreed upon like 55% linkage as discussed must be honoured in this legal binding agreement ..

The 42.5 mil means nothing .. that offer had no Salary Floor .. All that was is the MOST money any team could spend ... That figure is optional not manditory ... nothing stopping a team from spending 18 mil like the Pens did last season .. Then what does the 42.5 mean to players on the Pens ??

The NHL has to come up with a method that gives the players 55% of all Revenues MANDITORY .. .. by use of a Hard Cap ..that means that the MAXimum and MINimum has to be the same number .. other wise 55% means nothing nor does 42.5 mil

The $42.5m number did not have a floor because the NHL did away with linkage in that offer. If its such a big deal that the NHLPA get its mandatory 55% why not negotiate linkage between 54% and 59%, that way they are almost certain to get that number over the league average, or even try to negotiate it at 55% to 59%, then they for surely get it. If the players don't want linkage then don't expect them to get the benefits from it. The salary floor was taken out because with the payrolls not being linked, it allows teams to spend as minimal as they want to prevent themselves from losing money from decreased revenues. With linakge, a floor can be instituted without this risk. Very simple concept.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I think that is one of the reasons the PA has not looked at ALL about the possiblity of linkage, because it is unrealistic to think you can get EVERY team to spend their part and get up to the 55%, hell even 50%


For linkage, a KICK ass revenue sharing system needs to be in place, but from what I have seen neither side has a plan that is relevent to solve linkage problems..

Again, from what I have read, the league wants the cap to top OUT at 55% of revenue, and they simply assume that teams will spend towards the cap max(like in the NFL, NBA)... that assumtion is wrong, but its their arguement.

How? I would actually assume the opposite. 55% linked assures significant revenue sharing. Assume that some teams will bring in far more than the Cap, some less, the players get 55% of aggregate revenues no matter what. That means that teams who bring in far more need to share revenues that are not spent on the Cap as they can not spend it on their own players and the $$$ have to go to the players at that 55% clip. Or am I missing something

 

[kdb209]

That makes no sense at all ..

Certainly the owners have other costs, but that is irrelevant to this discussion .. If their portion 45% didn't cover it then then shouldn't be offering the 55% ..

55% is a meaningless number if a team only intends to give the players 30 % ...

What difference does the number make that the linkage and partneship is set at if each owner can simply ignore it and not honour it ... Thats why revenue sharing is involved to help the smaller market teams out to cover cost .. but each and every team is responsible for spending 55% of TOTAL LEAGUE REVENUES not TOTAL TEAM REVENUES ..

That is the only way the players get every penny of the Partnership money that is due..

Not every team has to spend exactly 55% as long as the league average is. That's why the last linked proposal from the league has a sallary range with escrow accounts to guarantee the league wide 53%-55% number.

Support
Just to support my previous comments. Look at the proposal of Feb 2.

http://www.nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlproposal020205.html

Point number 8 covers what I was trying to explain.

Point number 9 covers how they came to the conclusion of the ranges, and how those will be adjusted(or as I said forecasted).

And Point 11 ensures that the players recieve a lot of compensation if the league somehow turns profitable.

I know a lot of people on these (and other) boards get lazy and do not follow links, so:

8. LEAGUE-WIDE PLAYER COMPENSATION "RANGE"

-- The parties agree that the new Player Compensation System shall ensure that total League-wide Player Compensation in any year of the new CBA will not: (1) be below 53% of the League's revenues, or (2) exceed 55% of the League's revenues.

-- 15% of each Club's Player Payroll will automatically be escrowed every season to ensure compliance with the 55% high-end of the Player Compensation Range.

-- Accounting will be performed at the end of each League Year, and the escrowed funds will be distributed either to the Players; or to the Clubs; or to both Players and Clubs in order to ensure that Clubs have paid no more than the agreed upon 55% of League Revenues.

-- If NHL Clubs as a group spend less than 53% of the League's Revenues, the Clubs will be required to contribute additional dollars to a pool to be distributed to the Players to ensure that they receive the agreed upon 53% of League Revenues.

9. FLOATING TEAM PAYROLL "RANGE"

-- The parties agree that the applicable Payroll Range for each team in any given year should be representative of the League as a whole, and should not necessarily be engineered either toward the lower payroll teams as a group, or to the higher payroll teams as a group.

-- To effectuate this philosophy, the following Floating Team Payroll "Range" is being proposed.

-- For purposes of establishing the starting Team Payroll Range, each of the top five and bottom five Clubs (ranked in terms of Total Team Payroll for the 2003-04 season) will be entirely excluded from the analysis (Teams 1-5 and Teams 26-30).

-- The low-end of the Floating Team Payroll Range will be established by averaging the Total Team Payrolls (as adjusted to reflect the 24% Salary Rollback) of the ten (10) Clubs ranked immediately below the League mid-point (Teams 16-25). Using that calculation in Year 1, each Club will be obligated to spend no less than $29.8 million on Team Payroll (or $32 million in total Team Player Compensation).

-- The high-end of the Floating Team Payroll Range will be established by averaging the Total Team Payrolls (as adjusted to reflect the 24% Salary Rollback) of the ten (10) Clubs ranked immediately above the League mid-point (Teams 6-15). Using that calculation in Year 1, no Club will be permitted to spend more than $40 million on Team Payroll (or $42.2 million in total Team Player Compensation).

-- The mid-point of the Floating Team Payroll Range will be adjusted on an annual basis to reflect changes in League-wide revenue, with corresponding changes to both the low-end and the high-end of the Floating Team Payroll Range.

-- Enhanced and meaningful revenue sharing pursuant to which all 30 Clubs (assuming an appropriate level of business performance within their respective markets) would be provided the ability to afford a League-representative Team Payroll, which would be established at a point within the prescribed Floating Team Payroll Range.

11. PROFIT SHARING

-- The parties agree that the objective of the new CBA is to make the National Hockey League, as a whole, healthy and profitable through the establishment of an economic partnership with its Players.

-- Profit Sharing with the Players on a 50 (Players)/50 (Clubs) basis over and above a League-wide profit threshold to be negotiated.

12. JOINT AUDIT CONTROLS FOR CALCULATION OF CLUB REVENUES

-- Each year's accounting will be performed by an independent accounting firm jointly selected by the NHL and the NHLPA.

-- Mandatory $2 million fine and loss of 1st Round Draft Pick for first Club offense for failure to disclose required financial information.

-- Mandatory $5 million fine and loss of three (3) 1st Round Draft Picks for second Club offense for failure to disclosed required financial information.

 

[kerrly]

How? I would actually assume the opposite. 55% linked assures significant revenue sharing. Assume that some teams will bring in far more than the Cap, some less, the players get 55% of aggregate revenues no matter what. That means that teams who bring in far more need to share revenues that are not spent on the Cap as they can not spend it on their own players and the $$$ have to go to the players at that 55% clip. Or am I missing something

The league has offered in previous proposals with linkage to provide revenue sharing sufficient enough that every team will be able to meet the salary floor.

 

[Bauer83]

I think that is one of the reasons the PA has not looked at ALL about the possiblity of linkage, because it is unrealistic to think you can get EVERY team to spend their part and get up to the 55%, hell even 50%


For linkage, a KICK ass revenue sharing system needs to be in place, but from what I have seen neither side has a plan that is relevent to solve linkage problems..

Again, from what I have read, the league wants the cap to top OUT at 55% of revenue, and they simply assume that teams will spend towards the cap max(like in the NFL, NBA)... that assumtion is wrong, but its their arguement.

Read the february 2nd proposal please. The league stated, and would be legally obliged to make sure all teams spent within 53 to 55% percent. They have no choice.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

but how does that relate to setting a cap number..

from what I just read, each team will put extra money into an account..

and if the league does not meet the 53% level, it will be distributited back to the players..

But how does that work with a cap... Assumably Colorado, Detroit, and others will do their part in spending.. and Pit and such will spend less.... at a certain cap number, it likely works out...but how do you set that cap number...

More info is needed regarding the 53-55% and the cap number...

 

[Bauer83]

but how does that relate to setting a cap number..

from what I just read, each team will put extra money into an account..

and if the league does not meet the 53% level, it will be distributited back to the players..

But how does that work with a cap... Assumably Colorado, Detroit, and others will do their part in spending.. and Pit and such will spend less.... at a certain cap number, it likely works out...but how do you set that cap number...

More info is needed regarding the 53-55% and the cap number...

Read point 9 please. It states how they develop the cap range. These cap range formulas is what will put in near the 53-55% range.

 

[Russian Fan]

They did try. The players wanted no part of negotiation until the old CBA expired. They wanted no part of negotiation of a linkage system before damage was done to the business. They wanted no part of a realistic unlinked cap such as $42.5 which is why there is no NHL hockey on TV tonight. They wanted no part in actually finding out and verifying the numbers themselves or participating with the NHL in that venture. The PA backed themselves into a corner such that the owners have no real choice but to fix it all right now. It's past the point of trying a luxury tax (two years ago maybe, even a punitive on in the summer might have got past the owners) or other fixes. Don't blame the owners for the PA slitting their own throat.

Come on stop the NHLCBAnews rhetoric, your brainwashed. I don't read any NHLPAnews to get an opinion.

Owners want the players to get linked on the revenue
Owners want the players to get capped on the rookie salary with NO BONUS
Owners want QO DOWN
Owners want the UFA to stay the same or go at 30
Owners DONT WANT stable revenue sharing.

Every important of the CBA , they want the PA to crumble & beg down on their knees.

Did you read my post or when you didn,t agree on the 1st word you saw, you push the reply button. If you read it again, you'll see that I did go down on BOTH SIDE.

So stop this rhetoric about how the owners should do whatever it takes to get it FIXED becuase it takes 2 to negotiate.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Read point 9 please. It states how they develop the cap range. These cap range formulas is what will put in near the 53-55% range.

OK.. but still it seem a bit of a streatch on HOW that exactly is going to happen...

How are they going to make it posssible for Pit to maintain a 29 million payroll?

 

[Russian Fan]

The league has offered in previous proposals with linkage to provide revenue sharing sufficient enough that every team will be able to meet the salary floor.

I don't want to comment on your post but I'm wonderin if Gary Bettman consequential to his position WOULD GUARANTEE IN THE CBA that there's wont be any contraction. Because if he says something to the fans that he believe so much that each 30 franchises would be financially stable, then he should put inside the CBA that the NHL OWNERS CAN'T CONTRACT or FOLD any team during the lenght of the CBA.

This is just an assumption but I'm pretty sure the answer would be like a politician.