It's only logical that they can (BTW, I was using the 10M figure to make a point, I don't seriously beleive the league would do such a move). They are entilted to regress because the economic situation the league was in when it made that final offer was better the the one it will be in when they make their next offer. If they can convince the NLRB the pie has shrunk from 2B to 1B,
bringing down the cap from 42.5M to say 30M makes perfect sense and it isn't negotiations in bad faith,
only a reflection of the consequences of not having been able to save the season. They can argue they will have a seriously depleted fanbase, they only have to point the finger at MLB to prove that case.
If what you're suggesting was true, that the owners regardless of the fact revenues are melting like ice cream in the desert,
are condemned to only go forward in negotiations, not being able to significantly reduce their previous offer, regardless of the changes in the financial landscape of the NHL, they would probably have caved and accepted the 49M deal offered by the PA, in order to salvage the season (along with season ticket holders, sponsership, TV revenues, etc.).
Furthermore, If that was true, the players would have also conceded significantly less than they did during those negotiations, playing the waiting game, watching the owners' revenues melt and the pressure on them increasing, because the PA would have had all the leverage.
No way the floor gets as low as $20 million, if that's what you are saying by the cap at $30 million. And if you meant that the range would be $30-$40 million but because of revenues the cap the first year will be $30 million, than that is exactly why it does not make perfect sense for the NHL to do it. There are a lot of teams that can't afford to pay their players that much after this lockout and if they are forced to they will fold.
The other huge thing working against the owners here that I have not mentioned so far pertains to the 2nd bold sentance. The owners had the option of suffering the consequences of cancelling the season or not. This is not a strike, it is a lockout. The owners didn't HAVE to cancel the season, they didn't HAVE to destroy their revenues, but they decided they wanted to. And I can guarantee you that in the case of an impasse this is something Goodenow would make very clear to the NLRB, he's already tried to make it very clear to anyone who will listen.
And I never suggested the owners are "condemned" to go forward in negotiations. In fact, I admitted that they probably won't have to. But the problem is with "significantly reducing their offer". In my eyes and I am sure in the eyes of many, if they attempt an impasse with linkage, they have already significantly reduced the offer. If they attempt to lower the linkage range from the $32-$42 that they offered, than they are trying to reduce it even further. They won't be able to go much lower than their 2/2 proposal... bringing linkage back would be bad enough, but understandable. But following that by decreasing the linkage offer as well, that's just not going to work.
And even if for some reason you are convinced the NLRB would let them go to something like a $18-$28 linkage range, which is a huge stretch, is it worth the risk of losing an impasse? Is it worth potentially putting a number of teams out of business and likely having to play under the old CBA while having to negotiate with the union anyway? No, it isn't.
The best deal for the NHL right now, and the one that can be achieved with the least risk involved, is negotiating a $45 million hard cap/no salary floor CBA with the union. In that case the top teams can't spend out of control anymore and all teams, without a salary floor, would be able to get back on their feet after this lockout. And over time the average team salary would be in the mid $30's and the gap between top spenders and lowest spenders would be at most $20 million...but that's something that could be improved upon through revenue sharing. Please tell me how this is not the best deal for the NHL. If you can't tell me how it isn't, than that means it IS the best deal for the NHL. And if you believe that, than you must believe that this deal WILL NOT be achieved through an impasse. Which is why that is NOT the NHL's next move and why the sides will continue to negotiate.