Shorter seasons = smaller contracts?

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Brodeur, Feb 1, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brodeur

    Brodeur Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    17,178
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    San Diego
    I remember there being mutual interest between the owners and players into cutting the regular season to somewhere around 70 games. It would seem natural that if the players are playing 10% fewer games, that they would see a 10% decrease in salary offers.

    For example, say Scott Niedermayer was worth 8 million on the open market last summer. Would he still be worth 8 million if the season was only 72 games long? Or is he only worth 7 million now? I suppose that would be a minor way to help a team with potential cap problems.

    Although I haven't heard any mention of a shortened season in any of the recent proposals. And it seemed like the NHL was moving towards shootouts as well.
     
  2. OilKiller

    OilKiller Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    546
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Don't even say the word shootout...ugghhh :mad:

    I personally could not handle games decided by a shootout.
     
  3. Sixty Six

    Sixty Six Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,073
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Home Page:
    The problem i see with this, is out of the 4 major NA sports leagues, the NHL relies most heavily on gate receipts. If there are less games being played their is less money coming in. All in all i think it wouldn't affect it that much and even though the teams are spending less they are making less. It in no way would affect linkage in the CBA if there is to be one though because if you lose 10% of player cost and 10% of revenue that would equal out. This is just my opinion however
     
  4. Brodeur

    Brodeur Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    17,178
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    San Diego
    Agreed in entirety. I was just wondering if there's a big difference between who a team could afford with 40 million for a 72 game schedule versus what a team could afford with 40 million for an 82 game schedule.

    But I would assume the NHL is basing their cost certainty numbers off the previous 82 game seasons.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"