Pred's Owner Craig Leipold Talks

[handtrick]

Pred's Owner Craig Leipold Talks.....unfortunately nothing related to the interworkings of this weekend's meetings as they were conducted before this weekend but published today.

Preds owner wasn't thrilled by league's final offer - http://tennessean.com/sports/predators/archives/05/01/65918190.shtml?Element_ID=65918190

"Leipold did vote to support Bettman's final offer, despite the fact he figured it might mean a couple more seasons of losing money for Nashville."

" ''It was very troublesome to me that there was not any linkage in the last offer,'' Leipold told The Tennessean prior to Saturday's unsuccessful flurry of negotiations between the two sides.

''That was a bigger issue than moving the cap up. Coming out of the lockout, we just don't know what the revenue situation is looking like, so I would be uncomfortable that owners would be the only ones taking any kind of a risk. Players are not willing to take any of that risk."

Cheaper tickets may be needed to lure fans[among other items mentioned] -
http://tennessean.com/sports/predators/archives/05/01/65918198.shtml?Element_ID=65918198

Preds have used reserve fund to offset losses -
http://tennessean.com/sports/predators/archives/05/01/65918199.shtml?Element_ID=65918199

"''We're not going anywhere, ever,'' Leipold said. ''So is there any chance the Nashville Predators will not be here next year? No. And if by some chance there's no season next year, is there any chance we'd be gone by the following year? The answer again is absolutely 'No.' ''

Leipold said he tires of media speculation focusing on contraction or movement of franchises in non-traditional markets such as Nashville.

''We have the wherewithal to get through the lockout,'' Leipold said. ''When I hear players from around the league, sometimes even from my own team, question whether or not we'll be in this league a year from now, I am flabbergasted.

''What do they think, that I'm going to turn tail and run? Of course I'm not."

Click to read more...

 

[GKJ]

So he would have done it, even though he didn't want to.







Or maybe you're just another owner whose full of crap? Go ahead. Blame it on re-signing your players. Scott Walker and Steve Sullivan. They're superstars, I'm sure you *HAD* to cave into their demands. :lol


espically since Walker and Vokoun would have been RFA's, in which case you could have waited until AFTER the lockout to sign them.

 

[nomorekids]

So he would have done it, even though he didn't want to.







Or maybe you're just another owner whose full of crap? Go ahead. Blame it on re-signing your players. Scott Walker and Steve Sullivan. They're superstars, I'm sure you *HAD* to cave into their demands. :lol


espically since Walker and Vokoun would have been RFA's, in which case you could have waited until AFTER the lockout to sign them.

Walker is the face of the franchise. He was signed in February because it was a distraction that both sides wanted out of the way. Vokoun and Poile\Leipold were in pretty steady agreement as to what a fair deal was...so he was signed. Everyone that COULD be signed was. Erat and Hall are the only RFAs not signed, and they were both given fair offers, and wanted more. Wisely, they weren't given it.

You should probably be aware of a situation before you go trying to use it to help your case.

 

[GKJ]

You should probably be aware of a situation before you go trying to use it to help your case.

I am well aware of it. If Leipold knew it was going to be a problem now, he shouldn't have done it. He spent money and now he is shivering in his boots that he is going to lose money for 2 years. If you thought $38M was too much, why did you go out and do it?

 

[nomorekids]

I am well aware of it. If Leipold knew it was going to be a problem now, he shouldn't have done it. He spent money and now he is shivering in his boots that he is going to lose money for 2 years. If you thought $38M was too much, why did you go out and do it?

Because if there was going to be a season, the payroll would still be a manageable 30 million dollars. If there WASN'T a season, he didn't owe a dime. I don't see how it would have been wise to leave loose ends, when everyone was hoping for a quick resolution. So the Preds would be in the same situation that Bruins fans were panicking about when we thought the season was saved?

 

[MLH]

I am well aware of it. If Leipold knew it was going to be a problem now, he shouldn't have done it. He spent money and now he is shivering in his boots that he is going to lose money for 2 years. If you thought $38M was too much, why did you go out and do it?

You're probably one of those people that think that salary caps don't act as magnets too, right?

 

[handtrick]

I found this quote interesting.....''We have the wherewithal to get through the lockout,'' Leipold said. ''When I hear players from around the league, sometimes even from my own team, question whether or not we'll be in this league a year from now, I am flabbergasted.

Anybody around the league wanna make a deal for a gritty, former fan favorite, winger.....with a sometimes loose tongue that may be on the owner's bad side at the moment....that has had a sipped a little too much Goodenow flavored Kool-Aid lately....

 

[GKJ]

You're probably one of those people that think that salary caps don't act as magnets too, right?

They don't. They don't in the NFL and they don't in the NBA, as long as you're not an idiot. What makes everyone think they will in the NHL? Don't want to spend $42.5M? Don't do it.

 

[MLH]

They don't. They don't in the NFL and they don't in the NBA, as long as you're not an idiot. What makes everyone think they will in the NHL? Don't want to spend $42.5M? Don't do it.

First of all, every team in the NFL is close to the cap and 27 NBA teams are over it, but there are big revenue differences so we can't tell if that will maintain in the NHL.

So basically small market owners can either let their players walk away from their arbitration awards and get ridiculed or continue the trend that's been so evident in the NHL over the past seven years. Owners have and will continue to spend more then they can afford unless a system is put in place that will police them. Are they morons? Sure. But they're morons that need cost certainty.

 

[mooseOAK*]

I found this quote interesting.....''We have the wherewithal to get through the lockout,'' Leipold said. ''When I hear players from around the league, sometimes even from my own team, question whether or not we'll be in this league a year from now, I am flabbergasted.

Anybody around the league wanna make a deal for a gritty, former fan favorite, winger.....with a sometimes loose tongue that may be on the owner's bad side at the moment....that has had a sipped a little too much Goodenow flavored Kool-Aid lately....

That's the good thing about Scott Walker. He's easily replaceable.

 

[CarlRacki]

They don't. They don't in the NFL and they don't in the NBA, as long as you're not an idiot. What makes everyone think they will in the NHL? Don't want to spend $42.5M? Don't do it.

GKJ,
It's far more complicated than that, and I suspect you know it. Will every team spend $42.5 million with a $42.5 million cap? No, obviously not. But it will place upward pressure on teams, especially those spending significantly less than that.
Why?
First, agents and players will know each team's cap status and adjust salary demands accordingly. Happens in the NFL, happens in the NBA, it'll happen in the NHL.
Second, fans will know their teams' cap status and expect/demand those clubs to pay at or near it.
Third, as is the case now, the larger-market, larger revenue teams will set the salary market for the rest of the league. Other teams will have to keep up with the Joneses or rarely be competitive.
The simple answer is that teams can just say "No." That's true and I imagine some will. But the cost of saying no is losing key players and alienating the fan base. It's easy for Edmonton to point to the payrolls of Detroit, NY, Philly, etc., sand tell their fans "We can't compete." It's much tougher when the separation is $8-10 million instead of $40 million. A guy like Bill Wirtz won't give a hoot, but many owners will.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Because if there was going to be a season, the payroll would still be a manageable 30 million dollars.

so why did he have a problem with a 45 or 49m cap ?

he wasnt going to spend it, like you just said. ahh, point made, the NHL was never in fact going to have all 30 teams at the cap.

dr

 

[nomorekids]

so why did he have a problem with a 45 or 49m cap ?

he wasnt going to spend it, like you just said. ahh, point made, the NHL was never in fact going to have all 30 teams at the cap.

dr

because you'd still have 20 million dollar gaps in payroll. you'd still have a team with 10 million dollars in cap room able to drive up prices to absurd numbers. and like it or not, caps DO serve as magnets, if you're going to have any credibility with your fans.

I work with no less than 5 Philadelphia Eagles fans. I heard at least 5 accounts of why the Eagles lost the Super Bowl, and at least 4 contained "and they won't even spend up to the cap."

ahh, point made

 

[nomorekids]

That's the good thing about Scott Walker. He's easily replaceable.

six months ago, those would have been fighting words for most preds fans.

now, most would be inclined to agree.

funny the effect that a few untimely, moronic comments can have on a guy's popularity.

 

[codswallop]

GKJ,
It's far more complicated than that, and I suspect you know it. Will every team spend $42.5 million with a $42.5 million cap? No, obviously not. But it will place upward pressure on teams, especially those spending significantly less than that.
Why?
First, agents and players will know each team's cap status and adjust salary demands accordingly. Happens in the NFL, happens in the NBA, it'll happen in the NHL.
Second, fans will know their teams' cap status and expect/demand those clubs to pay at or near it.
Third, as is the case now, the larger-market, larger revenue teams will set the salary market for the rest of the league. Other teams will have to keep up with the Joneses or rarely be competitive.
The simple answer is that teams can just say "No." That's true and I imagine some will. But the cost of saying no is losing key players and alienating the fan base. It's easy for Edmonton to point to the payrolls of Detroit, NY, Philly, etc., sand tell their fans "We can't compete." It's much tougher when the separation is $8-10 million instead of $40 million. A guy like Bill Wirtz won't give a hoot, but many owners will.

You hit upon something that at least partially derails many of the arguments that I've heard about keeping a budget and sticking to it.

The NHL, like other pro sports in NA, is a very artificial market. A mixture, and a strange one at that. A fairly large component of this pretty much follows to a "T" what oligopolies are and the principles they follow. One major factor in such cases, a very inherent factor, is that you must consider what your competitors are doing when making any decision for your own company/team. Sticking to your own personal strategies, your own personal budget is a nice thought. But it will not keep you competitive in such a market, not in any case.

For those who don't agree or believe that, it's not speculative on my part. Look it up in a textbook, look it up in real-world examples of such markets. But since the structure of the NHL also has a smattering of a "open market" to it, it does become a bit confusing. So I'm not saying that each team will follow such oligopolistic principles in every instance, but they are very much present and very much a part of the decision making process.

 

[GKJ]

I work with no less than 5 Philadelphia Eagles fans. I heard at least 5 accounts of why the Eagles lost the Super Bowl, and at least 4 contained "and they won't even spend up to the cap."

Those are Eagles fans though. Eagles fans only want to complain about something. If the Eagles would have won the Super Bowl, Eagles fans would still be complaining because the Eagles didn't win by more.



If you're trying to make a point, don't use the fans. Use the team. They may not have won a Super Bowl, but the team has been run better than any team in pro sports over the past 5-6 years.

 

[GKJ]

GKJ,
It's far more complicated than that, and I suspect you know it. Will every team spend $42.5 million with a $42.5 million cap? No, obviously not. But it will place upward pressure on teams, especially those spending significantly less than that.
Why?
First, agents and players will know each team's cap status and adjust salary demands accordingly. Happens in the NFL, happens in the NBA, it'll happen in the NHL.
Second, fans will know their teams' cap status and expect/demand those clubs to pay at or near it.
Third, as is the case now, the larger-market, larger revenue teams will set the salary market for the rest of the league. Other teams will have to keep up with the Joneses or rarely be competitive.
The simple answer is that teams can just say "No." That's true and I imagine some will. But the cost of saying no is losing key players and alienating the fan base. It's easy for Edmonton to point to the payrolls of Detroit, NY, Philly, etc., sand tell their fans "We can't compete." It's much tougher when the separation is $8-10 million instead of $40 million. A guy like Bill Wirtz won't give a hoot, but many owners will.

No, acutally it really is that simple. Fans can demand all they want, they don't run the teams. If every owner listened to their fans, every team in professional sports would be bankrupt. The fans will know when the team truly can't spend more than $37M. Look at the Caps and Rangers. Fans demanded that the team spend, spend, spend, spend and spend. Look at what happened to those teams. The fans who are the real fans are going to continue to support their teams though. The only exceptions are Boston and Chicago. Teams where the fans know the owners make a lot of money and won't spend, as opposed to not being able to spend. Fans support these teams, but they don't support the owners, so they don't come out. Fans can make a demand to a point, more fans aren't rational thinkers because the real ones know why and why a team will or will not spend money.

Then its either an issue where it's fair-weather fans, or the owners just being an idiot. If spending $30M is a serious problem for you, you shouldn't be in the league.

 

[mooseOAK*]

six months ago, those would have been fighting words for most preds fans.

now, most would be inclined to agree.

funny the effect that a few untimely, moronic comments can have on a guy's popularity.

Walker is a guy who benefited immensely from expansion. On a good team he would be a role player but he gets to be a bit of a star on the Predators and was able to get more money than he would have otherwise also.

And then he says that maybe his team shouldn't be around.

 

[CarlRacki]

No, acutally it really is that simple. Fans can demand all they want, they don't run the teams. If every owner listened to their fans, every team in professional sports would be bankrupt. The fans will know when the team truly can't spend more than $37M. Look at the Caps and Rangers. Fans demanded that the team spend, spend, spend, spend and spend. Look at what happened to those teams. The fans who are the real fans are going to continue to support their teams though. The only exceptions are Boston and Chicago. Teams where the fans know the owners make a lot of money and won't spend, as opposed to not being able to spend. Fans support these teams, but they don't support the owners, so they don't come out. Fans can make a demand to a point, more fans aren't rational thinkers because the real ones know why and why a team will or will not spend money.

Then its either an issue where it's fair-weather fans, or the owners just being an idiot. If spending $30M is a serious problem for you, you shouldn't be in the league.

So, you address one of my three points and ultimately admit (with the cited examples of the Caps and Rangers) that fan demands can have an impact on payroll. Thanks for agreeing.

 

[GKJ]

So, you address one of my three points and ultimately admit (with the cited examples of the Caps and Rangers) that fan demands can have an impact on payroll. Thanks for agreeing.

Yes. And where are the Caps and Rangers now?

 

[PecaFan]

Yes. And where are the Caps and Rangers now?

Let's see now. One has a recent Cup after 54 years of waiting, and the other is an oft-cited example of just how competitive the league is, since they recently appeared in the Conference Finals.

By the measures tossed around here, both of those clubs have been far more successful than the so-called "building responsibly" clubs like Ottawa.

 

[Dr Love]

First of all, every team in the NFL is close to the cap

Not true. 1/4 of NFL teams were $7 million or more under the cap in 2004 (as of the start of training camp). Another 1/4 were $5 million under the cap.

I work with no less than 5 Philadelphia Eagles fans. I heard at least 5 accounts of why the Eagles lost the Super Bowl, and at least 4 contained "and they won't even spend up to the cap."

The Eagles are far under the cap because they try to resign impending free agents to new contracts during the season, which allows them to defer a significant portion of the signing bonus to the current year's cap. Of course, it's a gamble, and in the past two years they have tried and failed to do that with Corey Simon. Regardless of one's opinion, it's a relatively decent strategy and at least it's a plan. It's not like they're purposely skimping like the Arizona Cardinals.

 

[Dr Love]

Let's see now. One has a recent Cup after 54 years of waiting, and the other is an oft-cited example of just how competitive the league is, since they recently appeared in the Conference Finals.

By the measures tossed around here, both of those clubs have been far more successful than the so-called "building responsibly" clubs like Ottawa.

Since when are 11 and 15 years "recent"? Perhaps you mean just the Cup Finals in regards to the Caps, which was 7 years ago. And do share how the Caps are "an oft-cited example of just how competitive the league is."

 

[triggrman]

Not true. 1/4 of NFL teams were $7 million or more under the cap in 2004 (as of the start of training camp). Another 1/4 were $5 million under the cap.


The Eagles are far under the cap because they try to resign impending free agents to new contracts during the season, which allows them to defer a significant portion of the signing bonus to the current year's cap. Of course, it's a gamble, and in the past two years they have tried and failed to do that with Corey Simon. Regardless of one's opinion, it's a relatively decent strategy and at least it's a plan. It's not like they're purposely skimping like the Arizona Cardinals.

So all of the NFL is with-in 10% of the max?

 

[Dr Love]

So all of the NFL is with-in 10% of the max?

No, half the NFL is within 6.25%, a quarter is within 8.75% Might not seem like a lot but $5 million is, for example, the median of the top 5 defensive tackles in the leauge in 2004.