View Single Post
09-28-2012, 01:54 PM
Registered User
deanwormer's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,071
vCash: 437
Originally Posted by lstcyr View Post
"He said 7 teams have lost at least $23mm each last year, 6 teams made a bunch of money (Toronto being the highest at $161mm), and then the rest losing or breaking even."

I understand the frustration as I want the season to start also. But the statement above is just plain BS. As an accountant, I can tell you that I can make any company look like they're losing money no matter what they're really making. Without knowing the details of what's being counted toward the expenses or whether all of the revenue is showing up on the team's books, it's impossible to tell whether a team is really "making money" or not. IMHO, more of the responsibility for this disaster rests with the owners who see this as an opportunity to get more money from the players without fixing the real problems in the league structure. Players have a very short (except for a few) playing career and they should be rewarded for it based upon their performance. No one's going to a game to see management sit on their butts.
without getting into arguing the accounting drivel (reformed CPA here) your statement itself is contradicting on it's face; you say that the teams can't be losing money like that and it's BS and then go on to describe how the "accounting matters". That means - you have no way of knowing if it's BS or not, because it's all in the accounting.

of course the responsibility rests with the owners - they signed the stupid (or at least approved) the contracts that are a huge part of the problem. Our personal "rooting interests" aside, the Weber thing was ridiculous. I'd argue the Suter/Parise contracts are, too, as are several others previously signed. It's not Phoenix or FL or Carolina doing those though, it's the big-market (or at least hockey-rich) markets.

The players are right about one thing - the owner's need to be more "equality minded" if they want a competitive league. Maybe that's not what Toronto and Montreal want; wouldn't blame them given how competitive they've been the last 20 years. But it's absurd to hand out a guaranteed 57% of the revenue to the "workers", too.

So look at other major sports and tell me where you have small markets that can consistently compete? Not the occasional build for a year-or-two and then rebuild, but actually have a chance to consistently put a competitive team on the field. Right - football. Big differences: TV contracts and salaries. They don't get local TV, they have that sweet national deal where everyone shares equally because they know that the league popularity rests on the fact that the whole nation is interested and it's because if you run your team well you can be competitive. Salaries are what - 50%? Pushing the players to 47-50% without the markets squaring up other revenue isn't gonna' "fix" the problem. It may be the best the owners are willing to do; and it's still more than fair, IMHO, to the players. But like ILIILI said so well - I don't care, I'm fed up.

deanwormer is offline   Reply With Quote