Assuming the owners are losing money, here's the approximation of what sounds fair to me.

1) HRR: Owners want 50/50, Players want it to step down.

A three year step down to 50/50 with the NHL's mechanism (Make Whole) of paying the full amount of the current contracts. (assuming their mechanism did guarantee the player gets 100% of it) Year 1=54%, Year 2=52% Year 3=50%.

The players get this step down in exchange for the owners getting a longer CBA. Since it took 3 years to reach 50%, it should be a 6 year CBA with Years 4-6 at 50%. If the players want it to take 5 years, then it should be a 10 yearCBA.

2) Revenue Sharing: Owners hate it, Players love it.

Owners need to do revenue sharing at a level that makes it highly likely every NHL team can spend to the cap and break even in money. What level that is, I don't know, but the players want that so that they are getting much closer to 100% of their share. Last year the owners spent about $180 million under the cap. This is something the players want, so in exchange the players give the owners their 2 year Entry Level contracts, an added year to UFA eligibility, and 5 year contract limit. Honestly, I believe if the owners agreed to this type of revenue sharing, they could get the players to give them just about anything in the CBA. Short of a share of HRR lower than 50%.

That is how this Predator Fan sees the 2 primary points of contention in the CBA negotiations.