We've seen a riled-up Jarome Iginla on the ice more than once. Off-ice, though, it's a rarity.

If you want to ignite the Calgary Flames star captain and NHLPA player rep, though, state the offer proposed on Thursday doesn't give enough.

Tell him that despite the 24% rollback of salaries, capping of rookie contracts and bonuses, arbitration changes and limitations on qualifying offers, the proposal can't bring back NHL hockey because there's no cost certainty.

As Brian Burke, opined, the rollback is simply a toll that becomes worth less and less every time you go over the bridge.

"When people say it's a one-time thing, it really gets me going," said Iginla yesterday. "We've addressed all the issues, this isn't just a one-time thing. The one-time thing, the 24%, was a huge shock to us as players but we didn't just do it because we think that's what the owners need to be viable. We did it for the good of the game, for the fans, to show we're ready to play and do what we can so the season won't be lost.

"It's serious. Before we came into this, I don't think many players thought we were going to be giving up as much as we have (offered)."

Now Iginla, his 700-plus NHLPA brethren and the rest of the hockey world are watching and waiting for the next step.

Gary Bettman and the owners will present Bob Goodenow and the players' union a counter-proposal Tuesday in Toronto.

Whether it contains a salary cap, cost certainty linking revenues and players' salaries, or if the owners believe what the PA offered only needs a bit of tweaking remains to be seen.

Iginla said he can't imagine it won't be the right starting point.

"I'm optimistic," he said. "I can't conceive they don't see they can work within this system and make it very, very profitable for the owners. We want it to be profitable for the owners. We've said from Day 1 we knew we had to give back and didn't know to what extent and that we want it to be more profitable for the owners.

"If they get rid of their push for cost certainty, we have to look at (what's in the counter-offer). If it's a hard-cap proposal or another one of their dictatorship proposals like the one of the league doing everybody's contract, it's not going to fly. There's no doubt about that."

Detractors of the players' plan are saying the salary cut only puts the marketplace back to a more reasonable level but doesn't address the systematic issues.

Iginla, who'd have to sign a new contract quickly if a season did start, disagrees, pointing out how the proposed arbitration changes would work in the owners' favour by allowing them to take players to a judge, whose decision would be one way or the other, not somewhere in the middle.

How qualifying offers don't automatically give raises to players earning more than $1 million US. How rookies can no longer earn millions upon millions in bonus money.

How players will simply try to earn back their money as soon as the ink dries on any new deal.

"We can't hold the owners hands," Iginla said. "We've showed them all these ways they don't have to spend more money. Are we supposed to also say no for them? There has to be some responsibility in their hands and we've given them a new marketplace to work within."

All while maintaining the same restrictions on free agency -- essentially keeping control of players until they're age 31.

"None of us were thrilled, nobody wants to lose 24 percent. And it's not only that," Iginla said. "With all the other mechanisms that are going to hold down salaries, it's a lot to swallow but if that's what it takes, that's what it takes."