We've discussed how the NHL's CBA proposal would affect the New York Islanders after reports of the proposal filtered out Tuesday night.
But on one of the more interesting aspects emerged after the NHL decided to post the entire thing online and distribute to media with an explanatory addendum.
Namely, not only would teams like the Islanders be eligible for revenue sharing for the first time (previously their metro market size excluded them), but the proposal would eliminate some of the hurdles that previously kept even eligible markets from receiving revenue sharing:
All Clubs in the NHL except the top 10 Revenue Grossing Clubs will now be eligible for Revenue Sharing, including Clubs in large media markets who were previously ineligible (such as Anaheim, New Jersey and the New York Islanders, among others).
Further, our proposal eliminates some of the current "business performance" thresholds that had the effect of materially reducing the amounts a Club might otherwise qualify to receive in revenue sharing. Instead, under-performing Clubs will be expected to enhance their business planning capabilities, will be provided on-site assistance to meet enhanced business objectives and will be provided with much greater counseling as to "best practices" in business operations.
Now, how would the revenue sharing pool work? That's not entirely clear just yet, though naturally the NHL calls its proposal to help teams over the next two years "historic" and "unprecedented."
Here's what else the NHL's proposal said:
The Revenue Sharing pool will be redistributed to those Clubs who are in the most need in order to enable those teams to have sufficient resources on hand to compete for and compensate Players within the Payroll Range, and otherwise to provide a basis for their continued financial stability. In this regard, we are proposing to commit for the next two years revenue sharing payments to recipient Clubs that are equivalent to or greater than what those Clubs will receive on account of the 2011/12 season. The effect should be to continue -- and even improve -- the historic and unprecedented quality of play and level of competitive balance we have jointly been able to achieve during the period of the recently expired CBA.
Of course, all of this could be moot. The NHL has good publicity reasons to make a "save the 82-game season" push now, and the NHLPA will have to look at it and decide how seriously they want to engage on these terms, which still represent concessions from the previous CBA.
That said, it's an interesting window into how the NHL is looking at addressing some of its long-running problems.