HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Don Cherry says . . . Adam Graves says . . . (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=119141)

Habbadasher 12-17-2004 07:56 AM

Don Cherry says . . . Adam Graves says . . .
 
A small article in todays paper states the obvious, the NHLPA will have to cave-in.

Also in the local paper here, Adam Graves says the reason players hate the cap is because the players don't trust the NHL's numbers, but as Brian Burke says "that is an insult to accountants everywhere".

SENSible1* 12-17-2004 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machiavelli
A small article in todays paper states the obvious, the NHLPA will have to cave-in.

Also in the local paper here, Adam Graves says the reason players hate the cap is because the players don't trust the NHL's numbers, but as Brian Burke says "that is an insult to accountants everywhere".


Just another smokescreen from the PA.

The NHL's offer included independant accounts agreeable to BOTH parties.

Is is the PA's claim that NO idependant accountant can sort through the books and find unreported revenue?

Puck 12-17-2004 08:14 AM

After Enron, I would think the word 'crooks' would be considered a compliment.

Brian Burke's mouth is just flapping to keep himself in the limelight. He needs a job. Too bad he's not still the Canucks' GM right now. He'd have to shut-up and quit polluting the noosphere.

shadoz19 12-17-2004 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puck
After Enron, I would think the word 'crooks' would be considered a compliment.
Brian Burke's mouth is just flapping to keep himself in the limelight. He needs a job. Too bad he's not still the Canucks' GM right now. He'd have to shut-up and quit polluting the noosphere.


So you're sayin we can't trust the Levitt report or the Annual reports of every publicly traded company in the U.S. since they are audited by accountants?

ColinM 12-17-2004 08:42 AM

Graves is right though. Accounting is not just about counting dollars, but rather it is a very subjective science. As Paul Beaston once said, "I can turn a $2 million dollar profit into a $4 million dollar lose and have every firm in the country agree with me". Teams in the NHL have been showing negative net income for about as long as the NHL has existed and yet franchise values have continued to increase. Dot.coms went belly-up shortly after it was proven that they were unprofitable and yet hockey teams have lived in this bubble for 75 to 100 years.

Schlep Rock 12-17-2004 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColinM
Graves is right though. Accounting is not just about counting dollars, but rather it is a very subjective science. As Paul Beaston once said, "I can turn a $2 million dollar profit into a $4 million dollar lose and have every firm in the country agree with me". Teams in the NHL have been showing negative net income for about as long as the NHL has existed and yet franchise values have continued to increase. Dot.coms went belly-up shortly after it was proven that they were unprofitable and yet hockey teams have lived in this bubble for 75 to 100 years.

Bingo except both parties can't hide behind this issue. I am almost positive if the NHLPA picked an accountant, the NHL would just say "fine" to prove it has nothing to hide.

Puck 12-17-2004 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadoz19
So you're sayin we can't trust the Levitt report or the Annual reports of every publicly traded company in the U.S. since they are audited by accountants?

Are you an accountant?

Accountants are human and subject to the same weaknesses and temptations as the rest of us. When dealing with large sums of wealth, the temptations would seem to be greater than for the rest of us.

I agree I painted the canvas with a wide stroke of the brush and that would seem unfair. Yet accountants are known for their creative interpretations.

In another thread, the NHLPA has it's own set of numbers now. Maybe they have psychic accountants who can read books from a distance.

Donnie D 12-17-2004 09:03 AM

That's right, the NFL is proof that you can't accurately determine the revenues that would be used in computing the cap. My mistake, the NFL and, for that matter, the NBA have been doing it without a problem for a number of years.

Never mind

officeglen 12-17-2004 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D
That's right, the NFL is proof that you can't accurately determine the revenues that would be used in computing the cap. My mistake, the NFL and, for that matter, the NBA have been doing it without a problem for a number of years.



Except now what is revenue in the NFL is coming into question again. See:
http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3161910

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxsports
So what does Upshaw want for his players? A whopping 65 percent of everything. In the past, the players have made 65 percent of the gross revenues that stemmed predominantly from TV contracts and gate. Now, Upshaw wants 65 percent of the whole shebang TV deal, tickets plus "concessions, parking, local revenues, everything like that."

In addition, Upshaw is seeking a more drastic revenue sharing scale which would allow lower earning teams to be able to pay players with more financial freedom.

"It's about more money for the players," said Upshaw. "That's the bottom line more money."


Kaiped Krusader 12-17-2004 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puck
Are you an accountant?

Accountants are human and subject to the same weaknesses and temptations as the rest of us. When dealing with large sums of wealth, the temptations would seem to be greater than for the rest of us.

What are you talking about? If the league and the PA hire a third-party accountant to look at the books, there would be no "temptation" involved in analyzing the numbers because they'd get a flat fee for their services. If it were one of the two parties' internal accountants, sure the numbers might get distorted or spinned somewhere along the chain of communication. Auditing the accountants' work should fix that problem, though.

And for the record, yes, I'm an accountant.

shadoz19 12-17-2004 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puck
Are you an accountant?

Accountants are human and subject to the same weaknesses and temptations as the rest of us. When dealing with large sums of wealth, the temptations would seem to be greater than for the rest of us.

I agree I painted the canvas with a wide stroke of the brush and that would seem unfair. Yet accountants are known for their creative interpretations.

In another thread, the NHLPA has it's own set of numbers now. Maybe they have psychic accountants who can read books from a distance.


I'm sorry you have that interpretation of accountants. Thank god the sane people of the financial world don't otherwise we'd be in chaos.

i am dave 12-17-2004 09:39 AM

In the words of Peyton Manning...

"Let's go insurance adjusters! Let's go!"

eye 12-17-2004 09:46 AM

The NBA and the NFL have checks and balances in place to cover descrepenies. Just ask the Timberwolves who I believe tried to hide some revenue and were fined plus lost 5 1st round picks.

Let's face it, the NHLPA and more specifically Bob Goodenow just don't want to be embarrassed. Unfortunately, there is no other way out of this mess.

chara 12-17-2004 09:50 AM

Wait a week.

The players will accept a cap. They held out as long as they could testing owner resolve. However, they will introduce new items to the table that the owners will have to concede: free agency (i.e. lower UFA age and lower penalties on RFA), "franchise" player exception to cap, penalties for cap exceeders and the kicker: much reduced rollback (i.e. 10-15% across the board on average).

The owners will get their cap, much reduced arbritration and rookie salary restrictions.

NOT A 100% guarantee but there will be NHL hockey in the new year. Too much to lose otherwise.

FLYLine24* 12-17-2004 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machiavelli
A small article in todays paper states the obvious, the NHLPA will have to cave-in.

Also in the local paper here, Adam Graves says the reason players hate the cap is because the players don't trust the NHL's numbers, but as Brian Burke says "that is an insult to accountants everywhere".

LOL How is it an insult to accountants EVERYWHERE? Did EVERY accountant find out the numbers? NO it was a few....what an idiot Burke is. Just trying to make the Union look worse. That was his poorest attempt.

Puck 12-17-2004 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaiped Krusader
What are you talking about? If the league and the PA hire a third-party accountant to look at the books, there would be no "temptation" involved in analyzing the numbers because they'd get a flat fee for their services. If it were one of the two parties' internal accountants, sure the numbers might get distorted or spinned somewhere along the chain of communication. Auditing the accountants' work should fix that problem, though.

And for the record, yes, I'm an accountant.

I'd be more apt to believe the third-party accountants, those that the NHLPA gets a word in to hire and pay. They would also have to agree on methodology. Wouldn't that be another can of worms? (also decide if luxury suites are team revenues or arena revenues, and if so, what percentage? what happens when the owner also owns the broasdcasting medium and gives himself a sweet deal? what about other side-deals made with the rink? what % goes to the team, the rink, maybe basketball?)

A Good Flying Bird* 12-17-2004 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColinM
Graves is right though. Accounting is not just about counting dollars, but rather it is a very subjective science. As Paul Beaston once said, "I can turn a $2 million dollar profit into a $4 million dollar lose and have every firm in the country agree with me". Teams in the NHL have been showing negative net income for about as long as the NHL has existed and yet franchise values have continued to increase. Dot.coms went belly-up shortly after it was proven that they were unprofitable and yet hockey teams have lived in this bubble for 75 to 100 years.

Let's also remember that many owners own sports teams because it's a good way to lose money.
Tax shelters.
How do we keep these kinds of owners in line?

A Good Flying Bird* 12-17-2004 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadoz19
I'm sorry you have that interpretation of accountants. Thank god the sane people of the financial world don't otherwise we'd be in chaos.

Have you been paying attention to the financial world lately?
After Arthur Anderson, did you see how many companies came out and restated their numbers??

Jason MacIsaac 12-17-2004 10:14 AM

If Graves says they won't accept the cap because they don't trust their numbers.....why doesn't the NHLPA propose a cap based on their own numbers. Atleast both will be on the same page.

Go Flames Go* 12-17-2004 10:38 AM

Just give me the books I will audit them and give you guys the real answers.

shadoz19 12-17-2004 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newsguyone
Have you been paying attention to the financial world lately?
After Arthur Anderson, did you see how many companies came out and restated their numbers??

And you'll note that any company that had Arthur Anderson has new auditors now. Arthur Andersen does not exist anymore. Nothing is perfect but because of a few idiots that brought down an entire firm, all accountants are crooks and their work cannot be relied upon? Thats crap.

I don't doubt the Levitt Report. I'd like to see more detail and more breakdown of the numbers, but they're legit. The only question people should ask is why the NHL used Levitt when they could have used any Big 4 firm. It was purely a PR move.

shadoz19 12-17-2004 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puck
I'd be more apt to believe the third-party accountants, those that the NHLPA gets a word in to hire and pay. They would also have to agree on methodology. Wouldn't that be another can of worms? (also decide if luxury suites are team revenues or arena revenues, and if so, what percentage? what happens when the owner also owns the broasdcasting medium and gives himself a sweet deal? what about other side-deals made with the rink? what % goes to the team, the rink, maybe basketball?)

Audits are performed in accordance with GAAP. In other words, they're uniform.

Go Flames Go* 12-17-2004 10:50 AM

There are rules of ethics in accounting, you do what is right, but you can still twist numbers and things in different ways to create a loss.

When a accountant does the year end Net Income, Owners Equity and Balance Sheet reports they cant just not include numbers because the books wont balance, and if the tems get audited they will get ****ed in the ass.

Habbadasher 12-17-2004 11:49 AM

I have studied accounting, and anyone who has must admit there are differeent ways to depreciate various items, and accoutants have disputes over it, however, if the the other sports can come to an agreement as to what is revenue, and what is not, that would obviously provide a framework for the NHL/NHLPA>

Question: If there a dozen parking lots, privately owned, within 5 minutes walking distance from (insert your arena here), do the players deserve the revenue from those lots?

Of course not, so why should the players share in the revenue if an owner is astute enough to buy/build a lot close, or attached, to the arena?

kerrly 12-17-2004 12:21 PM

The players are the ones that don't believe the NHL's numbers but the NHLPA couldn't even guarantee its predicted league savings on their proposal. The NHLPA is doing this to try and get the public behind them. And its not going to work.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:26 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.