I was meaning the soft cap, mid and ceiling would be where they are at now, and adding a new lower cap hard floor.
Maybe we should just drop the floor altogether. ...
There's no way they drop the floor altogether, but they'd have to keep the same range of the cap as it has been or they're proposing. I can see trying to bring it down some or at least fixing it so it doesn't rise until revenues catch up to help teams not making money, but the range either needs to be kept the same or have the ceiling brought closer to the floor.
As far as your soft floor idea, and thinking of the proposed NHL idea to not have unpaid bonuses count for whether or not a team gets to the floor, I had an idea towards that. Have bonuses count like normal (in the cap regardless of floor, ceiling, whatever until they are no longer attainable) but give a higher percentage of revenue sharing for teams that qualify and have reached the floor before bonuses are factored in. That could also be applied to if they hit a number higher than the floor rather than do the bare minimum, a secondary soft cap above what is being proposed now, or have that as the low water mark for even qualifying for revenue sharing.
If you remove the union's option to increase the cap by 5% to account for yearly revenue increases, how will you ensure players' share is fully paid out? (Remember, over the last CBA the average yearly revenue growth rate was over 6%.)
Of course we don't have all of the details of what's being purposed, much less what will ultimately be put into place, but to their credit the NHL did propose tying revenue sharing with HRR. (Reference: http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=643572) That being said, I'm not sure if that would stick at 6%, which is what I think they proposed for the first year of the CBA, or if they created some weird formula to determine how much gets shared. They did say that they were "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." Why that commitment level would only remain in place for 2 years is beyond me.
I think there does have to be an element of tying it in towards actual increase in revenues rather than a fixed percentage, but your point about what happens to how players' contracts are protected if revenue doesn't increase is a good one. The only solution I see for that is a two-tiered approach, with a minimum of something like 3% being a fixed amount the cap must move each year, and for any revenue gains above that then the cap will move an equal amount (or a percentage of or something similar).
Even if 50/50 is a big number that people seem to think both sides agree on now, there are still a lot of numbers tied to that which still need to be figured out. Formulas and definitions tied to each of those numbers are important too, so I don't see it all being ironed out until later in November if they are close.