Still believe Forbes? I know I don't.
View Single Post
11-21-2004, 12:14 PM
Join Date: Aug 2003
Originally Posted by
I find it funny how the consensus on these boards is now that the numbers are in between the two reports. The Forbes report is so fundamentally flawed that it hurts my eyes reading it. But to the subject at hand : I trust the NHL commissioned report to be right on the target as per the owner's definition of revenue.
Now I don't really put myself in a compromising situation since as long as the owners are responsible for the definitions, they can't be wrong ! But that's just it, NHLPA have yet to come up with what they consider the revenue to be. They're only yapping left and right that not all revenues are included in the Levitt report. Well define for us what those are and we can have a constructive debate. In the meantime, the only definition I have and willing to accept is the owner's definition.
To debate the definition of revenue is pointless and ridiculous. There is only one definition of true revenue, and to debate otherwise is redundant. The owners are not responsible for the definition at all, they're responsible for the manipulation of people (such as yourself) into believing that you can pick and choose what is part of your revenue. Quite similarly to when they do end up getting a cap put into the league, they'll be the ones twisting the meaning of "salary" to be able to pay a player more, and remain under the cap.
If you want to believe that the owners have presented the "truth" then go ahead, it's possible that they have, however very unlikely. If someone wants to completely believe the Forbes article, then go for it. But the massive range in numbers can only be explained by manipulation of the date/facts on both parties.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Charge_Seven