Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat
This would have to be negotiated, I'm sure.
Most likely, a year of the contract would be lost as opposed to it sliding a year since that's what happened in 04-05 but there was no CBA in 04-05 so I wouldn't necessarily call that a precedent.
What I wonder is, the MOU in the new CBA says that the NHLPA needs to approve if the schedule is less than 82 games. NHLPA will not approve 0 games I'm sure so I don't know if the NHL can even cancel the season. Them writing that ability out of the CBA really backed them into a corner.
This makes me think that they'll just try and play as few games as possible since they lose money each game they play. Most think that means a 48-game season but also don't forget that in the last-ditch effort to save the 04-05 season, a 32-game season was on the table at one point.
What would be interesting is if the PA (or the NHL) played hardball on wanting the full 82 games. If that happened, you could see the season starting in May or June when full or mostly full fans is a possibility. That would mess up the calendar for years to come. If the NHLPA is guaranteed 72% of their salary no matter what, they might be fine with a 32-game season played in front of fans for most of it.
Lots of possible outcomes in this one, still!
|
Where do you see the bolded? They revised 16.5, but nothing else in the scheduling section, including the key phrase below:
16.3 ..."the final
decision making authority shall remain with the League."