HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Suter Calls Out Leipold re: Contract Roll Backs

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-27-2012, 01:19 PM
  #51
WingedWheel1987
Ken Holland's office
 
WingedWheel1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GPP Michigan
Posts: 7,372
vCash: 500
Suter is such a moron. He knew there was going to be rollbacks.

WingedWheel1987 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:19 PM
  #52
GordieHoweHatTrick
Registered User
 
GordieHoweHatTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
The owners and GMs are trying to compete with other owners and GMs. Suter and Parise made as much money as they did because they were the best FAs this summer. They didn't make 10% extra because owners were calculating on salaries being reduced.

Player demands and agents are as much driving force for inflation as the owners are.


Some of these complaints are bizarre. Kovalchuk insisting he should be a $100M man in the summer of 2011 and having no problem with betraying the very idea of a salary cap when he signed a circumvention contract but if he lose a few percent of his mammoth salary he threatens to go back to Russia.
This is true. It's important to find the root of the problem to find out why we are where we are. A poster mentioned the 5% escalator the players have been utilizing to drive salaries up. I think that's a good start.

GordieHoweHatTrick is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:23 PM
  #53
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,929
vCash: 500
To address the player complaints, I think they're bogged down with having achieved a specific level of revenue together with the league.

Revenues have grown very well. The original deal was that if they exceeded $2.7 billion, their share would be 57%. HRR has grown nearly twice the escalator for the last two seasons-- after the economic collapse. The players seem to want to lock in what came BEFORE.

It's actually not unreasonable even if HRR stays the same (doubtful). That is where the good faith part comes from on the PA side.

Conceding the share on all future contracts gives the owners their assurance that overall the players will get less once we're past the current kerfuffle.

Tweak the numbers, but isn't that a feasible and fair framework-- one exception?

(Putting aside to what extent each side values the noneconomic issues.)

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:27 PM
  #54
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kypredsfan View Post
How convenient: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...7617--nhl.html

**** off Suter. It's because players like you were all about going for the payday that helped cause this mess.
25 million wasn't enough apparently.

If he wants to negotiate, why isn't he in that room.

It seems like a lot of these players want to talk to the media about their issues, it's too bad they don't use that energy to ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE A DEAL!

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:29 PM
  #55
LickTheEnvelope
Decertified Poster
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 25,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
To address the player complaints, I think they're bogged down with having achieved a specific level of revenue together with the league.

Revenues have grown very well. The original deal was that if they exceeded $2.7 billion, their share would be 57%. HRR has grown nearly twice the escalator for the last two seasons-- after the economic collapse. The players seem to want to lock in what came BEFORE.

It's actually not unreasonable even if HRR stays the same (doubtful). That is where the good faith part comes from on the PA side.

Conceding the share on all future contracts gives the owners their assurance that overall the players will get less once we're past the current kerfuffle.

Tweak the numbers, but isn't that a feasible and fair framework-- one exception?

(Putting aside to what extent each side values the noneconomic issues.)
? How so? Everything i've read shows the players refuse to take less than what they are making now. All of their changes are geared to keeping their minimum total $ amount at exactly what it is right now.

LickTheEnvelope is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:29 PM
  #56
Gnashville
Never trade Weber
 
Gnashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 4,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabid Husky View Post
I doubt you are saying **** off Suter if he had signed that deal to stay in Nashville.
He has every right to complain that a contract he signed may not be fulfilled by the Owners once a new CBA is put in place. Dollar amount isn't the problem here, honoring the contract is the issue.
He lied throughout the process and drove up his price. He knew all along where he was going but milked as much money as he could. He knew the cheapskate that Liarpold was and how he lied here about never selling to anyone that would move the team Both him a Liarpold deserve each other.

Gnashville is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:32 PM
  #57
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kypredsfan View Post
How convenient: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...7617--nhl.html

**** off Suter. It's because players like you were all about going for the payday that helped cause this mess.
Why is he wrong to take the most money offered? If your boss or a rival business offered you a ridiculous raise are you saying you wouldn't take it? The GMs are at fault for offering these salaries and the owners are at fault for not keeping their employees, the GMs, in check.

And the hypocrisy of signing a bunch of contracts in the 48hrs leading up to the lockout and then taking the position that you are poor and shouldn't have to pay those contracts is astounding.

colchar is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:33 PM
  #58
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
I love how a player can moan about salary rollbacks when he has just signed a 100+ million dollar contract, after pitching himself to many teams.

Bit of a joke really.


Last edited by ThirdManIn: 10-27-2012 at 01:36 PM. Reason: offensive
Spongolium* is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:34 PM
  #59
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
No one blames him for cashing in. We blame him for whining like a baby about lucrative contracts, given that he just signed one. He looks like an idiot.

Owners are of course at fault for offering him that, and he's a hypocrite for crying about it as if he doesn't like it

Where did he complain about the contracts? He complained about the owners signing them and then not wanting to honor them.

colchar is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:34 PM
  #60
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
The league sets out what it can be but the NHLPA has final say:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2011/...%20to%20%2464m

(This is for last season, but the NHLPA has to trigger this for the cap to increase. They only opted not to once during this last CBA, and decided to trigger it shortly before this CBA was up)

I believe the CBA allows the two parties to negotiate any escalator, or even a negative figure.

More importantly though, the cap is set automatically on the basis of the completed year's revenues (subject to audit) and whatever the players' share will be. Once that figure is derived, the two parties can negotiate an escalator. For obvious reasons, the NHLPA has opted to trigger an escalator, but it doesn't have to be 5%.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:35 PM
  #61
Section337
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 4,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
To address the player complaints, I think they're bogged down with having achieved a specific level of revenue together with the league.

Revenues have grown very well. The original deal was that if they exceeded $2.7 billion, their share would be 57%. HRR has grown nearly twice the escalator for the last two seasons-- after the economic collapse. The players seem to want to lock in what came BEFORE.

It's actually not unreasonable even if HRR stays the same (doubtful). That is where the good faith part comes from on the PA side.

Conceding the share on all future contracts gives the owners their assurance that overall the players will get less once we're past the current kerfuffle.

Tweak the numbers, but isn't that a feasible and fair framework-- one exception?

(Putting aside to what extent each side values the noneconomic issues.)
I agree, this is a revenue argument more than anything and neither side wants to lock in until they feel they are protected from a fall in revenue. What I don't understand is why they both feel they need to lock in anything based on speculation.

I'm sure both sides have already done calculations for all types of revenue amounts, we also know they are not averse to calculations with multiple factors. What I would like to see them negotiate a scale of revenue, salaries and sharing upon which they would negotiate. Of course that wouldn't allow one side to trumpet their victory if they created a flexible framework.

Section337 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:36 PM
  #62
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
Why is he wrong to take the most money offered? If your boss or a rival business offered you a ridiculous raise are you saying you wouldn't take it? The GMs are at fault for offering these salaries and the owners are at fault for not keeping their employees, the GMs, in check.

And the hypocrisy of signing a bunch of contracts in the 48hrs leading up to the lockout and then taking the position that you are poor and shouldn't have to pay those contracts is astounding.

Even Bettman admitted that the optics over the course of the last few weeks leading up to the lockout weren't the best.

Then you get the guys who led that pack sitting on the negotiation committee. I think the players are right to call out their fellow hypocrites.

The saving grace for them may be that they didn't know the details of what was coming, and where the owners will hold the line.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:44 PM
  #63
UsernameWasTaken
HFBoards Sponsor
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
Maybe the NHLPA shouldn't have approved a cap jumped to $70+ mil going into a cba negotiation?

Can play this game all day...
what does that have to do with anything? Teams aren't required to spend to the cap.

I don't see anything wrong with what Suter said. It's nice to see someone actually calling out the own of his team rather than vaguely blaming things on Bettman.

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:45 PM
  #64
onlyalad
Registered User
 
onlyalad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 4,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Was Ryan Suter unaware that the collective bargaining agreement that he negotiated his contract under the parameters of was set to expire? Sounds like he should be upset with his agent, not his owner.

What a ****ing moron.
Did Suter ask for 25% of his money to be paid in a signing bonus? He knew the percent of HHR was going down and his contract shows it. It is like going on splash mountian and then complaining about getting wet even before the last drop

onlyalad is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:46 PM
  #65
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlyalad View Post
Did Suter ask for 25% of his money to be paid in a signing bonus? He knew the percent of HHR was going down and his contract shows it. It is like going on splash mountion and then complaining about getting wet even before the last drop

How do you feel about Leipold?

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:46 PM
  #66
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,162
vCash: 5158
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...

Bourne Endeavor is online now  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:46 PM
  #67
RedBaronIndian
Rest in Peace
 
RedBaronIndian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,605
vCash: 500
Kudos to Suter for not tip-toeing around the questions about his owner and speaking his mind unlike all other players.

RedBaronIndian is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:47 PM
  #68
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Even Bettman admitted that the optics over the course of the last few weeks leading up to the lockout weren't the best.
But that's all it is really...optics. These contracts had to happen, you needed to lock the guys up. It happens every year there is tons of money being thrown out for UFA and RFA. The owners (and players), despite how flawed it was, HAD to operate on the last CBA. I fail to see how those contracts have ANYTHING at all to do with CBA talks...

__________________


Holden Caulfield is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:49 PM
  #69
MtlPenFan
Registered User
 
MtlPenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
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...
BUT IT'S THE OWNER'S FAULT FOR HANDING OUT ALL THESE BAD CONTRACTS AND THROWING THE MARKET OUT OF WHACK!!!

Damned if you do indeed.

MtlPenFan is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:50 PM
  #70
MtlPenFan
Registered User
 
MtlPenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaronIndian View Post
Kudos to Suter for not tip-toeing around the questions about his owner and speaking his mind unlike all other players.
Yeah, it's so much easier to be brave when you already have millions in the bank. What a hero...

MtlPenFan is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:50 PM
  #71
stuffradio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 907
vCash: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
How do you feel about Leipold?
Nobody is giving the owners a pass, but to say poor NHLPA and the NHLPA and players are innocent is ridiculous.

stuffradio is online now  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:51 PM
  #72
5 Minute Major
Registered User
 
5 Minute Major's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Binghamton, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,443
vCash: 500
Really?

What, would Suter have held out for a better contract if he knew this ahead of time?

LOL

5 Minute Major is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:52 PM
  #73
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
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...

Maybe some of them did.

Devellano said there was an unwritten rule about offer sheets.


For anyone who calls out Suter for complaining, are they prepared to call out Leipold? He's orchestrating a lockout to demand rollbacks (a rose by any other name), lowered share, contract limits, and a change in UFA age. (Suter and ZP would have needed to wait one more year. )

There indeed was a rush to circumvent the intent and cap of the last CBA.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:53 PM
  #74
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuffradio View Post
Nobody is giving the owners a pass, but to say poor NHLPA and the NHLPA and players are innocent is ridiculous.

Could have fooled me. I don't see expletive-laced posts about the worst cap-circumventing owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MtlPenFan View Post
BUT IT'S THE OWNER'S FAULT FOR HANDING OUT ALL THESE BAD CONTRACTS AND THROWING THE MARKET OUT OF WHACK!!!

Damned if you do indeed.

Accountability.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:54 PM
  #75
stuffradio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 907
vCash: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Could have fooled me. I don't see expletive-laced posts about the worst cap-circumventing owners.
I'm not giving the owners a pass, and the rest of my statement stands.

stuffradio is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:06 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.