HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Suter Calls Out Leipold re: Contract Roll Backs

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-27-2012, 02:48 PM
  #126
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 14,351
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.
I've seen both pro-owner and pro-player people repeat this nonsense about big contracts causing a lockout and it's no more true when either "side" says it.

Understand, if 100 players were grossly overpaid, all that will do is make the rest of the guys underpaid. Overpayment DOES NOT INCREASE OR DECREASE THE SIZE OF THE PLAYER SHARE. The players got about 1.8 billion last year. Even if Scott Gomez had gotten $1 billion of that, the number doesn't change from $1.8 billion.

Likewise with circumvention contracts. Those circumvent the cap. They do not circumvent the player percentage of revenue. What does that mean, exactly? It means every dollar Suter is compensated over his cap hit gets paid for by his brothers through escrow. That $1.8 billion number doesn't move.


Now, as far as Suter's comments, he's right, but way too late.

*Craig Leipold offering him a dollar amount and telling him there won't be a salary rollback asked for in CBA negotiations isn't the same as, say, Ray Shero giving Crosby X and Crosby assuming X is X.

Leipold sets the details in the league's offers. Shero doesn't and, due to antitrust laws, can't even know the details ahead of time. Far as he knows, Shero's negotiating in good faith, based on a memo from Bettman saying "assume the cap will be $70 million." Meanwhile, Leipold was drafting a rollback while telling Suter there wouldn't be one. He's right to feel betrayed.

*Problem is, the rollback idea was dropped a while ago, in favor of reconciling payouts with HRR% via escrow and growth. So he's taking issue with something that used to exist, but doesn't now. What's worse, bonuses (which is what Suter's contract is structured around) are not subject to escrow, so Suter gets hit by increased escrow (as a percentage of compensation) less hard than every one of his teammates except Parise. And finally, in Bettman's last proposal, there is less escrow in year 4 than there was in the agreement that just expired. So, Suter and his accountant should have jumped for friggin joy when they saw Bettman's last offer. Not sulked about his first one.

*finally, it's not time to be sulking. It's time to get out the calculators and itemize what you lose by doing what.

billybudd is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:50 PM
  #127
MapleLeafsFan4Ever
Go Leafs Go
 
MapleLeafsFan4Ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobo View Post
How is it **** off Suter...

Owners agreed to sign that contract too. Now theyre trying to get out of it. Not at all fair
That's exactly why I have said multiple times that Craig Leipold is a hypocrite. I said before he looked like an idiot the very next week after sining both Parise and Suter to those 13 year $98 million contracts, saying the players need to get paid much less in the next CBA and give back some of their salaries.

MapleLeafsFan4Ever is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:55 PM
  #128
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,856
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Why would ask about total net profit though?

The right question is to break it down team by team. Most of that profit might come from 3 teams or 9 teams...

In other words, the league has us looking at revenues (and thus profits) from a global basis. When you have 30 independently managed and taxed entities, this doesn't really point in the right direction.

*What are central revenue contributions (the NHL national monies)
*What is each team's revenue
*What are their operating costs

The variance between teams would quickly highlight the core economic issues and challenges. You'd also get a clearer picture of franchise valuations, some in decline while others are appreciating.
Because the CBA is negotatiated for the NHL as a whole. You can't target revenue sharing as detailed as you are alluding to. It has to be on a marco scale.

Just making up numbers, but if the NHL makes $200 million profit (with $140 already in revenue sharing), how can you ask for $300 million in revenue sharing? You are just trading profits from one franshise to another, but not gaining anything overall. Why would Toronto want to do that if there isn't a massive national contract to off set their personal losses?

If Toronto gives most of the revenue sharing "loss" and Phoenix gets most of the revenue sharing "profits". What happens when Phoenix signs one of the Toronto's UFAs with "Toronto's" money, I think you can see how it is hard to get the top dogs to agree to increased revenue sharing if the overall pie isn't large enough.

Can you explain how revenue sharing grows the overall business (NHL)? Especilly if it isn't offset by a large national income source. Taking money from local profits doesn't grow the business.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:57 PM
  #129
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 31,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
Leipold is one of the smartest owners in the NHL. He's no slouch.
On what do you base that conclusion?


Quote:
The idea that he lied to Suter or did anything unethical is a farce.

Leipold failed to disclose to Bettman that Boots didn't have the funds needed to close on the sale of the Preds, so he and AEG lent him the money. (Goes against league's due diligence process, and obviously disclosing these matters to the commissioner.) We all know what happened next-- another black eye for the NHL, and unfair tax and cash calls for the rest of the Preds' ownership group.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:58 PM
  #130
Legionnaire11
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Legionnaire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Largo
Country: United States
Posts: 2,840
vCash: 500
I understand if a player had signed 2-3 years ago at a reasonable rate for a reasonable term, who is now being asked to take a reduction.

But the free agents this summer, Parise, Suter, Weber and the flurry of deals signed just before the CBA expired... you can NOT tell me that these mega contracts were not negotiated with the terms and prices that they got without having in mind that a lockout and reduction was a VERY good possibility.

It was definitely planned for Suter, Weber and Parise to get giant signing bonuses up front as protection against any future changes in contracts with the next CBA. They knew it, we knew it... now they want to cry about it?

Legionnaire11 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:00 PM
  #131
Legionnaire11
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Legionnaire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Largo
Country: United States
Posts: 2,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdManIn View Post
I disagree. He may be running Minnesota well (I have no idea), but he was an absolute goof in Nashville. I don't think the market can be blamed, either, considering how the current ownership has been able to continue building the team here. Well... you know... it has been able to. We'll see what the lockout does to that
hasn't he also run other non-hockey ventures into the ground?

If not for marrying into the Johnson fortune, Liepold would have never gotten into the NHL in the first place.

Legionnaire11 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:01 PM
  #132
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
Agreed. All these 6+ year second contracts being signed in September when NHL proposes a max contract length of 5 years.

I know it's a competitive business but the left hand should smack some sense into the right hand. The optics of what happened doesn't help the owners.
ya except length of contract won't be touched, if a player signed for 10 years, he will have a 10 year contract.

so bringing up length of contracts is pointless.

Barrie22 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:05 PM
  #133
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 14,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
On what do you base that conclusion?





Leipold failed to disclose to Bettman that Boots didn't have the funds needed to close on the sale of the Preds, so he and AEG lent him the money. (Goes against league's due diligence process, and obviously disclosing these matters to the commissioner.) We all know what happened next-- another black eye for the NHL, and unfair tax and cash calls for the rest of the Preds' ownership group.
Leipold is a reprehensible piece of crap and was before negotiating with bad faith in the Suter deal. He also lied about the magnitude of his losses with the Preds to try to get the city to fill his pockets.

billybudd is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:10 PM
  #134
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
Not true. Nobody accepts the first offer during a multi-billion dollar negotiation. The problems arise when both side won't talk the "same language". There isn't anywhere for either side to go as long as one asks for linkage and the other doesn't.

Now that 82 games is impossible, the NHLPA's proposals make zero sense. How can you negotiate with the NHLPA without linkage now?
Yes, but the first offer often dictates what course the negotiation will take...and the second the NHL released their offer I knew immediately what turn the negotiation would take...and I was correct.

I agree that de-linkage won't work...but I think both sides have been equally unreasonable in their behaviour and, unlike you, believe the owners also shoulder a large portion of the blame for what has and is going on : shakehead

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:11 PM
  #135
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,512
vCash: 500
Same bad argument for the millionth time, easily deflated:

Three options for owners:

Act responsibly under the last CBA by yourself, lose your star players, become a feeder team, don't compete.

Act responsibly in collusion with other owners. ILLEGAL. Go to jail.

Act responsibly by changing the market structure itself in the new CBA - wholly legal, their only real option, and what they're doing.

Collective action problems 101.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:11 PM
  #136
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 31,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice-Tray View Post
I'm sorry but you seem to use arguments and discard them to suit your needs without any apparent objectivity. This is another example...

The reason why the NHL is including revenue sharing in the CBA is because Bettman and Daly have league-wide financial health going forward as their goal.

The NHLPA was arguing for the first while that the league wanted them to fix all of the league problems by taking a pay cut. The league responded by saying that it wouldn't be just players, it would be both groups of 'haves'; the player salaries, and the profitable owners profits. The players percentage would drop to 50% and revenue sharing would increase to an agreed upon amount that would be acceptable to both parties. The reason why it's in the CBA is to show that players that it's a shared burden.

Does this not make sense to you? Does this not appear to be an attempt at a shared burden for the greater good?
Do you believe $200 MM is enough? The bottom 15 would be eligible, and that roughly means $13 MM/team.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:13 PM
  #137
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
Yes, but the first offer often dictates what course the negotiation will take...and the second the NHL released their offer I knew immediately what turn the negotiation would take...and I was correct.

I agree that de-linkage won't work...but I think both sides have been equally unreasonable in their behaviour and, unlike you, believe the owners also shoulder a large portion of the blame for what has and is going on : shakehead
First offer was textbook. No other major sports league gives more than 50% of revenue to players. NHL saw the players at 57%, wanted to get to 50% tops, and so started at 43%. Their end goal was right in the middle.

Players made a ****show by dramatizing the whole thing as though they were shocked and offended. They're the ones who responded like amateurs.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:15 PM
  #138
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stansfield View Post
None of us would turn down a $98 million contract either, no matter how unethical we thought it was.
And I wouldn't be whining about the possibility of it being reduced when it was clear BEFORE I signed it that it could happen. Suter is an idiot. This deal was signed BECAUSE of the possibility of shorter, smaller deals with the new CBA.

It is really simple, if Suter wanted to get exactly what he signed for, he should have waited until after the new CBA was hammered out. Instead, he chose massive signing bonus and then some uncertainty. Now we are supposed to feel for him and this terrible unfairness that has been thrust upon him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11 View Post
They knew it, we knew it... now they want to cry about it?

Apparently we are supposed to commiserate with them.

craigcaulks* is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:19 PM
  #139
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobo View Post
How is it **** off Suter...

Owners agreed to sign that contract too. Now theyre trying to get out of it. Not at all fair
No one forced Suter to sign it...didn't he get 10M up front? So, he knew what he was doing...

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:26 PM
  #140
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
First offer was textbook. No other major sports league gives more than 50% of revenue to players. NHL saw the players at 57%, wanted to get to 50% tops, and so started at 43%. Their end goal was right in the middle.

Players made a ****show by dramatizing the whole thing as though they were shocked and offended. They're the ones who responded like amateurs.
Not really...in fact for this specific type of negotiation, they added all sorts of unnecessary take-aways and put the players in a position that rather than seeing that there was some sort of common ground to start from and moving in the owners direction, they simply started reading out of a different offer book.

Three months later, no one is playing, hockey is cancelled until at least December (guaranteed, much longer), the ASG and WC will be cancelled, and the sides aren't talking and have no intention of doing so in the immediate future.

The NHL has now withdrawn it's offer - and you know that when it releases its next one it will make the terms significantly worse (because, let's face it, Gary isn't the consensus-building type) and thing will just continue to go downhill.

THe NHL would have had a much easier time getting to the HRR split they wanted it they were not so hamfisted in their negotiation strategy.

As labour negotiations go, this has been a clown show (b/c of the behaviour of both sides) since it started...and I think will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:28 PM
  #141
Ice-Tray
Registered User
 
Ice-Tray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Do you believe $200 MM is enough? The bottom 15 would be eligible, and that roughly means $13 MM/team.
No I don't, but the players only asked for $250 million so they're close at this point. I think that number could be easily negotiated upward. The owners have moved on that and have always claimed that the peripherals are open to negotiation.

Ice-Tray is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:31 PM
  #142
the_fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,883
vCash: 500
But the Wild are still the big players in free agency. Even though there won't be NHL hockey for a while... Oh... And even when a new deal is signed and the NHL is back, the cap will probably be down to like 60. And guess what, the Wild cant afford to keep both Suter and Parise.


LOL.. This whole thing is sad and so funny at the same time

the_fan is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:32 PM
  #143
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,856
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
Yes, but the first offer often dictates what course the negotiation will take...and the second the NHL released their offer I knew immediately what turn the negotiation would take...and I was correct.

I agree that de-linkage won't work...but I think both sides have been equally unreasonable in their behaviour and, unlike you, believe the owners also shoulder a large portion of the blame for what has and is going on : shakehead
You really think the NHLPA and Fehr came up with their de-linked proposals because of the NHL's first offer? You think Fehr was going to offer a linked proposal and changed his mind after the NHL's offer?

How do you think the NHL would have responded if the NHLPA put there offer out first? You don't think their first offer was absurd too?

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:33 PM
  #144
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 31,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
Isn't the mid-point set at 57% of the previous seasons HRR? Which means that every team that spends over the cap mid-point hurts the NHLPA and every team that spends less, helps the NHLPA? Especially if they have lots of salaries that are more than their cap hit.

This is why the 5% escalator hurts the overall group, at least as far as escrow and not getting 100% of your contract.
Right, but it's a trade-off. If players signed shorter term deals, they'd re-set their share relative to their brothers each time. Once the PA chose to use the escalator, it's only fair to keep doing it for each new free agent season.

It pits player against player, as the pie is still only $1.8 billion, for example. When Suter receives $10 MM upfront, he'll take more of the pie vs other players this year. In ten years, he'll get far less and will watch his own share erode with each successive free agency season.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
Because the CBA is negotatiated for the NHL as a whole. You can't target revenue sharing as detailed as you are alluding to. It has to be on a marco scale.
Revenue sharing doesn't even need to be in a CBA. If owners want to redraft their constitution tomorrow and say they'll just split all revenue into 30 pieces, they could do it.

I contend that doing it on your macro scale hides the weaknesses and the strengths. However, we too are locked into framing the options within the NHL's system if you only choose to discuss linkage and revenues. Without linkage, you could look at the individual pieces and not lock anyone into solutions that try give you a systemic pill for a gushing limb, to use a weird analogy. Meanwhile, the other parts of the body don't need any drug or treatment.

Quote:
Just making up numbers, but if the NHL makes $200 million profit (with $140 already in revenue sharing), how can you ask for $300 million in revenue sharing? You are just trading profits from one franshise to another, but not gaining anything overall. Why would Toronto want to do that if there isn't a massive national contract to off set their personal losses?
It would erode their franchise value. It's wealth transfer, plain and simple. However--- taking the players' share down so the weaker teams get a bit more help that way also transfers a massive amount of 'wealth' to Toronto, but from the players.

Why is that fair?

One could also ask the richer teams of the league how much they benefit from having a 30 team league, when there is obvious disparity. If they indeed do benefit from that set up, does it not behoove them to invest in their interests then? All they've done (other than the RS to-date) is to pocket the expansion fee.



Quote:
If Toronto gives most of the revenue sharing "loss" and Phoenix gets most of the revenue sharing "profits". What happens when Phoenix signs one of the Toronto's UFAs with "Toronto's" money, I think you can see how it is hard to get the top dogs to agree to increased revenue sharing if the overall pie isn't large enough.
I've never argued that they should, ~unless~ there is greater benefit to them to have Phoenix than to not have Phoenix.

If there is no benefit to the other teams to keep the weak teams afloat, why do they do it?


Quote:
Can you explain how revenue sharing grows the overall business (NHL)? Especilly if it isn't offset by a large national income source. Taking money from local profits doesn't grow the business.
I can't answer that question. It's not a premise to which I subscribe-- growing the overall business.

That is a strategy the league adopts every time they expand.

Why are they keeping Phoenix afloat right now? If there is no quantifiable or measurable return, they're completely inept as managers.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:33 PM
  #145
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
Not really...in fact for this specific type of negotiation, they added all sorts of unnecessary take-aways and put the players in a position that rather than seeing that there was some sort of common ground to start from and moving in the owners direction, they simply started reading out of a different offer book.

Three months later, no one is playing, hockey is cancelled until at least December (guaranteed, much longer), the ASG and WC will be cancelled, and the sides aren't talking and have no intention of doing so in the immediate future.

The NHL has now withdrawn it's offer - and you know that when it releases its next one it will make the terms significantly worse (because, let's face it, Gary isn't the consensus-building type) and thing will just continue to go downhill.

THe NHL would have had a much easier time getting to the HRR split they wanted it they were not so hamfisted in their negotiation strategy.

As labour negotiations go, this has been a clown show (b/c of the behaviour of both sides) since it started...and I think will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
So your answer is there were other peripherals that the owners slipped in there. Means nothing. Everyone knew they were negotiable, same as we all know they're negotiable now. The PA isn't even bothering to negotiate the peripherals, hasn't even written them into their proposals, because they don't matter. Not until the deal is near closing.

I stand by what I said: first offer was textbook and the players cost themselves by pretending to faint with agony.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:41 PM
  #146
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 31,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
I think everyone knows now that a hard, de-linked cap would have been better 7 years ago. But it is very easy to look backward and see what the mistakes were. And, who knows, the NHLPA could be the ones asking for linkage this time around.
I'm not looking back. My record here will show that I always said the last CBA failed utterly to address the revenue disparity, and that Canadian small market teams only need currency protection. You don't need a cap to address that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11 View Post
I understand if a player had signed 2-3 years ago at a reasonable rate for a reasonable term, who is now being asked to take a reduction.

But the free agents this summer, Parise, Suter, Weber and the flurry of deals signed just before the CBA expired... you can NOT tell me that these mega contracts were not negotiated with the terms and prices that they got without having in mind that a lockout and reduction was a VERY good possibility.

It was definitely planned for Suter, Weber and Parise to get giant signing bonuses up front as protection against any future changes in contracts with the next CBA. They knew it, we knew it... now they want to cry about it?
It is true that the players who received large signing bonuses are going to benefit at the expense of their PA brothers. A new twist to 'shared sacrifice'?

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:47 PM
  #147
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,841
vCash: 500
Someone tell Suter he signed a contract under the terms of the old CBA which just expired.

DuklaNation is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:47 PM
  #148
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 31,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
I've seen both pro-owner and pro-player people repeat this nonsense about big contracts causing a lockout and it's no more true when either "side" says it.

Understand, if 100 players were grossly overpaid, all that will do is make the rest of the guys underpaid. Overpayment DOES NOT INCREASE OR DECREASE THE SIZE OF THE PLAYER SHARE. The players got about 1.8 billion last year. Even if Scott Gomez had gotten $1 billion of that, the number doesn't change from $1.8 billion.

Likewise with circumvention contracts. Those circumvent the cap. They do not circumvent the player percentage of revenue. What does that mean, exactly? It means every dollar Suter is compensated over his cap hit gets paid for by his brothers through escrow. That $1.8 billion number doesn't move.


Now, as far as Suter's comments, he's right, but way too late.

*Craig Leipold offering him a dollar amount and telling him there won't be a salary rollback asked for in CBA negotiations isn't the same as, say, Ray Shero giving Crosby X and Crosby assuming X is X.

Leipold sets the details in the league's offers. Shero doesn't and, due to antitrust laws, can't even know the details ahead of time. Far as he knows, Shero's negotiating in good faith, based on a memo from Bettman saying "assume the cap will be $70 million." Meanwhile, Leipold was drafting a rollback while telling Suter there wouldn't be one. He's right to feel betrayed.


*Problem is, the rollback idea was dropped a while ago, in favor of reconciling payouts with HRR% via escrow and growth. So he's taking issue with something that used to exist, but doesn't now. What's worse, bonuses (which is what Suter's contract is structured around) are not subject to escrow, so Suter gets hit by increased escrow (as a percentage of compensation) less hard than every one of his teammates except Parise. And finally, in Bettman's last proposal, there is less escrow in year 4 than there was in the agreement that just expired. So, Suter and his accountant should have jumped for friggin joy when they saw Bettman's last offer. Not sulked about his first one.

*finally, it's not time to be sulking. It's time to get out the calculators and itemize what you lose by doing what.

That's the critical point, imo. Call the players and owners hypocrites all you like, but guys like Leipold and Snider had insider information, and may have acted on it. To what extent the other GMs/owners knew exact details is unknown ( to me, at least ). IF that's what Suter is implying with the reassurances, he has a point.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice-Tray View Post
No I don't, but the players only asked for $250 million so they're close at this point. I think that number could be easily negotiated upward. The owners have moved on that and have always claimed that the peripherals are open to negotiation.

I honestly believe a reasonable solution would be to identify who needs help and how much, reduce the player share and direct it to the weak areas, and then also asks teams to share in some of the other costs issues. I've suggested a pool to share travel costs because this is highly inequitable burden on some teams simply due to location and alignment.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:54 PM
  #149
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,256
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.
Oh yea, and teams don't keep upping the ante, literally, each offering players more than another. The last I heard, owners still write the cheques.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorOfGandhi View Post
How DARE a free agent cash in on his one-in-a-lifetime opportunity
I believe that professional athletes are overpaid as much as anyone else does. But hey, they have their way of making millions (sports and team owners pay them), just as the owners have their ways of making their billions. A lot of people around here seem to begrudge the players making millions, but have sympathy for those billionaire owners (we all know that being nice got them that billionaire status).

Quote:
Originally Posted by dubey View Post
Nothing wrong with what Suter said

If owners can't afford signing contracts that large, they shouldn't have signed them.
How can any of this be more true than that.

Owners are crying player salaries costing them too much, but they just keep paying the players more and more. How many teams were there last Season that spent close to the Cap Floor???


Last edited by MoreOrr: 10-27-2012 at 04:05 PM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 04:00 PM
  #150
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Oh yea, and teams don't keep upping the anti, literally, each offering players more than another. The last I heard, owners still write the cheques.
Owners have three options:

1. Act "responsibly" alone, meaning you never compete for the top FAs and likely lose your own high end talent (see: Buffalo Sabres letting every good player we had walk from 2007-08).

2. Act responsibly in agreement with other owners - OOPS! Collusion, go to jail.

3. Act responsibly be resetting the market structure in the CBA. Only legal and viable option they have.

So Leipold shouldn't have bothered getting in the FA sweepstakes, so that some other owner could, and Suter could ***** about that owner until that team won the cup in 2014? Great plan.

haseoke39 is offline  
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 07:25 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.