Suter Calls Out Leipold re: Contract Roll Backs
View Single Post
10-27-2012, 02:58 PM
Let's Go Hawks!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Originally Posted by
Fun fact. Had the owners all internally agreed not to offer Suter top market value. The NHLPA would be suing them on collusion charges.
Damned if you do...
Independently deciding not to spend beyond your own team's means isn't "collusion".
If your team is a big money loser then don't go offering massive contracts (just because you figure you'll get them scaled back in a few months).
Originally Posted by
On July 1st, the biggest problem was that the owners had no idea what the players end game was and that was completely Fehr's doing by stalling the negotiations. Fehr knew exactly was he was doing by delaying the negotiations, he forced the owners to continue to hand out huge contracts as normal because the owners couldn't give the slightest hint of collusion (Fehr's main tactic).
We will never know what the owner's true end game was because the players proposal de-linked salaries from revenue. That was a complete game changer. Maybe the owners were ready to negotiate to a soft landing, i.e. 54-52-51-50-50-50, but the players made that impossible by de-linking salaries and asking for guaranteed raises. The NHLPA also only presented a 3 year term with an option to go back to 57% linked to revenues if that was worth more than their guaranteed raises that they got the first 3 years. That is a lot to ask of an ownership group that just experience revenue growth that
expected. How long can the goose keep laying those golden eggs? When would the "market" correction occur and revenues stagnate? Could the owners really risk giving raises if revenues ended up flat?
As to the 5% escalator, all that does is increase the escrow payments and reduce the total value of all NHLPA contracts. If they players truely understood how it worked, they wouldn't have used it when revenues were increasing. It only helps the top UFAs and not the group as a whole, especially because you could use ELC bonuses and buy-outs to hit the floor.
The players saw what the owners' first offer was. Had the owners' initial offer been different than it was then we might well have seen a different response from the players. However, the initial offer was so extreme that it didn't give the players much to work with.
The fact that you, in no way, acknowledge the impact the owners' first offer had on the direction the negotiations makes it hard to take your post seriously.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by UsernameWasTaken