"1. 75% tax on team salaries over $30M and under $25M."
-That's a very limited, very low salary band. It would take some teams years to come into compliance based on current payrolls. I find the 'luxury tax' to be the least of the evils (when compared with caps), but this just sounds too restrictive to me. Make it between $20M and $40M and I might be convinced.
"2. Maximum salaries set at $5M and mimimum salaries at$.5M. All rookies get a flat 3 year minimum salary with no bonuses."
-Not realistic, and would be genuinly harmful to the NHL for a couple of reasons: no incentive for top rookies to come to the NHL; combined with the luxury tax above, essentially prevents teams from making that narrow window reliably; would result in incredible pay jumps after three years for top young players.
"3. 25% revenue sharing on gate receipts and tv/radio revenue."
-Revenue sharing between what parties? Regardless, that's up to owners and the players don't need to be involved in the discussion.
"4. Any player clearing waivers gets the lessor of 25% of his salary or $.5M in the minors."
-Why not just stick with 2-way contracts?
"5. Reduce the league by 4 teams."
-Contraction is, indeed, my number one suggestion as well.
"6. Reduce the number of players to 17 skaters, 2 goalies, and 2 spares."
-What's the logic behind this? Reducing the number of players who can dress by one doesn't seem to do much. How many do you get on IR? Any limits to IR usage? Seems like mandating a depleted roster as well as a very small number of reserves would really screw a team hit by the flu...
"7. All bonuses are to be standardized and paid by the league. (i.e. top 10 in MVP voting, top 10 goal scorer, etc.)"
-Are bonuses included in the $0.5-$5 million numbers? How would you reward a Rod Langway type (who has no significant statistical showings) with bonuses? Where is the league getting the money to pay bonuses to several hundred players?
"8. Allow arbitration anytime. Each party would submit a contract. The arbitrator would pick one or split the two down the middle only."
-Anytime? Even in the middle of a current contract? How would you split "5 years at $2.5 for the first and second years, $2.9 for the third, $3.3 for the fourth, and $3.0 for the fifth year" with "1 year at $3.2"?
"9. Allow UFA at 30 years and at least 10 years in the league. Signing teams would have to give up their own draft choices (capped at one 2nd rounder for highest level) for signing an UFA."
-Is that "UFA at age 30 AND 10 years in the NHL" or "UFA at age 30 OR after 10 NHL seasons"? Why force a team to give up draft picks for signing players at least one other team didn't want? Who would get the draft picks in the case of signing a European or an un-drafted rookie, or someone returning from retirement?
"10. Allow RFA at 26 years and at least 6 years in the league. Awards would be up to two 1st rounders and 1 minor league player. Draft picks could be traded down. (i.e. A 3rd over all pick could be traded for a 22rd over all pick and then given to the team requiring compensation.) The original team would only have the right to match a deal if it was within 25% of their last offer."
-Jeez, I hate this. If you don't want younger players to change teams except by trade, then just eliminate RFA status. Under these rules no one would sign RFAs (sorta like the NHL now). In addition, they'd screw a Dainius Zubrus (entered NHL at 17, hit six years at 23, would have to wait three more years - 9 total - to hit RFA much less UFA). In this situation Anaheim couldn't match Paul Kariya's tiny salary with Colorado because their offer was something like 7x what he got in Denver. Doesn't make sense.
Overall this is just too complicated. It seems like a grab-bag of every possible idea out there and I can't see the driving force behind it. In addition, no one (on either side) would accept this.
I'd recommend identifying the primary two or three issues you see, then going after those in the simplest way possible and ditching the frills. Ockham's razor.
Let's Go Caps!