Here’s an example of why it is critical to know the details of NHL and NHLPA proposals and counter-proposals before attempting to evaluate them … and why use of the term “compromise” is in the eye of the beholder.
A week ago, the NHLPA proposed a change in the way the salary cap ceiling and floor would be calculated. Instead of the ceiling being set at $8 million above the midpoint with the floor set and $8 million below, the union proposed the ceiling be set at 20-percent above the midpoint while the floor would be 20-percent under.
This means, for example, that while a $52 million midpoint would have produced a $60 million ceiling and a $44 million floor under the expired system, the PA proposal would create a $62.4 million ceiling and a $41.6 million floor.
The payroll band — set at a fixed $16 million under the expired CBA — would expand with an increasing midpoint, but such a system would accommodate the needs of large-market revenue powerhouses and small-market, revenue-needy franchises alike.
It was reported the NHL agreed to adopt the NHLPA percentage-based system. This was used as an example of the league moving toward the players and its willingness to compromise in order to negotiate a CBA and end the owners’ lockout.
The Post learned yesterday, however, the NHL percentage-based system would have no impact on the calculation of the cap until the midpoint reaches $80 million. The league has proposed a midpoint of $52 million for next season.
The NHL proposal, as confirmed by both the PA’s Don Fehr and the league’s Bill Daly, would establish the ceiling and floor at either 10-percent above/below the midpoint or the current $8 million — whichever is greater.
Thus, the percentage calculation would not kick in until the midpoint exceeds $80 million.
It doesn’t take a mediator to understand that, as has been commonplace throughout the talks, league movement toward the players is largely, if not all but entirely, illusory.
* Leaders on both sides of the aisle are preparing to convene today in Washington under the auspices of federal mediation, though it is unclear whether the NHL will be any more amenable to backing off its demands for comprehensive contract rights restrictions through third-party voices.