Gary Bettman described much of what was discussed as “nuts and bolts” information, things that NHLPA head Donald Fehr said were mostly agreeable.
“On a lot of things I don’t think there [will] be a big difference in opinion.” Fehr said. “On some other things we have to analyze what the actual affect of moving from A to B would mean for the individual players, our staff and agents that would be working on those matters.
“I don’t think that’s a terribly long process but it’s not a five-minute turnaround either.”
Those nuts and bolts bits might not make waves, but David Shoalts passes along some findings from the NHLPA’s “analysts” that underscore the notion that the two sides could be very far apart.
The players’ proposed takeaway would reportedly roll back to 43 percent, not 46 as originally believed under the initial proposal.
The overall effect, the analysts discovered, would actually shrink the players’ share of the revenue to 43 per cent from 57 once the effect of reducing the HRR was added. Under those numbers, for example, the salary cap last season would have been $50.8-million, rather than $64.3-million, and the floor or minimum payroll would have been $38.8-million rather than $48.3-million.
To the individual player, this meant if he made a salary of $1-million, it would have been cut back to $760,000.