Hockey Related Revenue versus Direct Costs
View Single Post
09-14-2012, 12:51 PM
dun worry he's cool
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Originally Posted by
This is the core of the dispute, actually. The numbers that the NHLPA throw around (and the media regurgitates) are disputed by the NHL. The NHL numbers are disputed by the PA.
Kind of. The PA hasn't exactly been disputing the NHL numbers (in fact, they've generally used them themselves). The PA keeps doing "creative accounting" then sharing the outcome (while trying to hide the steps to reach those numbers) and claiming it's truth. I haven't seen an example of them actually saying "This number from the league is wrong" except for the always shaky 'this many teams are losing money.'
Using some made up words (to avoid excessive confusion and to make clear these are examples and not real figures), this is what has been happening:
NHL - Last years FLURB was $1.6BN.
NHLPA - Don't listen to the league's numbers, GLURP for the league as a whole as $2.9BN.
NHL - GLURP is not a useful figure until compared against, SLURM last year was a $2.0BN loss
NHLPA - Our GLURP figure proves that the league had record GRIGS!
They don't really typically dispute whether the numbers the other provides are accurate (except in the case where the PA were projecting explicit growth, then recalculating percentages off of those figures, trying to claim a stepping proposal based on revenue linkage, when their actual proposal was to eliminate linkage entirely). They just spout whatever figure they think most helps their case. However, the league is generally quoting actual current figures while the PA repeatedly "projects" future figures then adjusts other figures based upon that and reports relative changes based upon these ridiculous projections. Also, the PA keeps reporting figures to mean things that they actually don't. They still haven't figured out that Revenue != Profit.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by squidz*