The facts are quite clear. This is a pretty good analysis of the proposals and situation.
Yes, that is a pretty good analysis, and not even anywhere close to what you described in the post I responded to. It basically amounts to around 4% less than they were getting, give or take a little depending on actual growth. $750M+ is a pretty huge concession. Especially considering the league as a whole was already profitable.
So what would you consider a "fair" offer from the players? Seems to me like you just expect the players to keep giving and giving until the owners agree.
Every single number available to us says that what the players are offering is fair, and should push the NHL profit margin above both the NBA and MLB, even though the NHL has lower revenue. If the $16M payroll spread doesn't work for enough teams then it should be the sole responsibility of the owners to adjust the system to accommodate the poor teams. You can't expect the players to accept a less than fair split just because the owners don't want to acknowledge the huge revenue disparity.
The attempt to argue that the lockout contrvenes Quebec labour laws failed, but there is another attempt by the PA; from CBC:
Lawyers for players from Alberta’s two NHL teams told a labour relations board hearing panel today it has no choice but to declare the lockout illegal under provincial law. “The lockout action is contrary to the laws of this province and no one gets to choose whether these laws apply to them in this province,” Bob Blair, the players’ lawyer told the panel. “The law is the law is the law.” ...
It's funny how Rutherford is able to hand out these contracts (Semin, Skinner, Ruutu, and Staal) while Karmanos asks for a 24% rollback in salaries. They're already spending $7 million more than last year.