HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Forbes, Leavitt - who cares - just an excuse by the players and the PA not to concede

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-23-2004, 01:06 AM
  #26
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan10
See, no matter how you look at it, a salary cap will keep irresponsible organizations irresponsible and with no reprecussions for their irresponsibility. Organizations who are responsible with money, drafting, trading and signing free agents are penalized for being responsible. I'm sorry, but as a Flyers fan, I don't feel the need for my team to keep organizations like Nashville, Florida, Atlanta, Washington, etc....all afloat because their owners at one time or another ran the organizations in the ground or did not draft and trade properly or responsibly.
I've accepted the fact that people around here are gonna spew basically the same rhetoric in every thread no matter what side you believe (it's just packaged a tad differently depending on the topic). Don't like it but I expect it, so there's little real need for anger. But it's generalizations like this that can spark me a bit.

I know the angle you we're going for when you mentioned those four specific teams (not rocket science to figure it out). In the case of Florida and Washington, there has been some questionable management at times. Moreso for the Caps. But throwing Atlanta and Nashville in there makes zero sense given what you said.

These have been two of the lowest payroll teams since they entered the league. Part of that may have been the frugal nature of the owners in regards to the team, but most of it was because they both had the right plan in trying to build up a brand new franchise. And they have both stuck to that plan. Could they both have spent more, definitely. Leopold could afford it and (before their recent troubles at least) AOL/TW certainly could have afforded it. But they didn't. Each team drafted well, and not just the first round blue-chipers either. Made sensible trades and off-season acquisitions; predicated around keeping their youth and bringing in players to help out with that youth. Of course each team has made a bad decision here or there, what team hasn't? But they have been kept to a minimum and in light of some other player movement around the league, the mistakes of Atlanta and Nashville barely even register. Don't know about you, but that sounds like pretty good management to me.

Nashville is just coming off their first playoff appearence, the better times are just starting for them. And Atlanta finally has owners who actually give a damn about the team, and we know they have some great talent to build around. Hockey as a participation sport has exploded in Nashville since the team arrived, and it continues to grow even with the lockout. Atlanta has a population of 4 million, with quite a hefty northern influence in that population (at the least 1/3, don't know the exact numbers). Throw in the converts and add even a hint of success, there's no worries about the fan base.

Bashing a team because of its location has been done to death on these boards. The desperate or the chronically cranky grasping at straws, usually speaking of what they don't realistically understand.

I just thought it was time to go ranting, this topic seemed ripe for it.

cws is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 01:52 AM
  #27
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
I've explained in other threads why saying Toronto has top notch corporate support is laughable. It's a function of the Canadian economy, more than anything else. Canadian companies, by and large, tend to be headquartered in Toronto, even though they make their money all across the company. Why should Toronto get to benefit while other Canadian cities get screwed?
Off topic, but Calgary is now 2nd to TO in terms of corporate headquarters. Just thought I'd mention it.

kruezer is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 02:58 AM
  #28
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kruezer
Off topic, but Calgary is now 2nd to TO in terms of corporate headquarters. Just thought I'd mention it.
Buddy, don't I know it. You can't swing a dead cat in downtown Calgary without hitting 3 or 4 suits stylusing away on their palmpilots.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 07:31 AM
  #29
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Seeing what you;ve seen, how can you now attribute that lack of success to money? Doesnt it seem you were missing something? Calgary did sign Iginla.
They've signed Jerome for now. Will they be able to next time around, and if they do, how many other players will they have to let go to get it done.

Quote:
Calgary did have success.
Calgary had success for ONE season, riding a red-hot goalie. How did Anaheim (the previous year's Calgary) fare this past season? Were they able to keep their team together?

[/quote]TB did sign all their players. Both teams did find free agents that worked and were in their budget.[/quote]

Calgary spent assets to fill a hole that money issues created, in spite of the playoff revenues that you think are the cure-all.

Quote:
Both could keep their players a long time and develop a team as hard to knock off as Colorado, Detroit, and NJ of the last decade.
Colorado and Detroit are large market teams with the ability to make decisions solely on the best possible on-ice line-up. NJ has benefited from having the best goalie of our generation and good scouting/management. For every one NJ there are 10+ teams struggling and losing market share.
Quote:
And if either continues the playoff success, they will match all the bonus playoff revenue those teams had at their disposal to maintain their teams. And until another team young enough and properly developed to greatness comes along they will be the contenders.
Calgary is far more likely to miss the playoffs next year, than return to the cup finals. Tampa has a better talent base, but was lucky to have a virtually injury free season. Market forces will very quickly price their talent out of Florida.

Quote:
In fact these teams have followed the same model that has worked for championship teams for decades now.
The model works great if you have the financial resources to maintain what you have built.

Most teams in the NHL don't have the revenue streams to compete for players with the top markets. When teams, like Boston, decide to "stick to their budget", as most pro-NHLPAers are fond of suggesting they should, they end up losing fans and playing before empty seats.

Calgary just had the maximum playoff revenue possible and instead of maintaining the group or adding peices to improve, made a move that is, at best, parrallel at cost of two assets. Everything went right for them last playoffs and instead of using this money to make sure they have even a reasonable chance of repeating last years run, they, like Anaheim the year before, are left spinning their wheels and crossing their fingers that their goalie will stay on fire.

Quote:
Afraid of striving for greatness? Dont you love watching the great matchups in the playoffs of the greatest teams, even if your team is several years of development away from getting their hopefully? Every team has the equality of opportunity now to develop that team.
Not exactly the sales pitch for developing markets in the US.

The Expos followed the same model and built an fantastic young team, only to watch their stars leave one by one. If the NHL continues down the road taken by MLB the Lightning will follow in their footsteps. Sure you'll get your "great matchups in the playoffs of the greatest teams" between the NHL's equivalent of the Yankees and Bosox, but are those 7 games really worth the 1,000's of other games rendered meaningless by the futility of attempting to compete for all the other franchises.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 07:35 AM
  #30
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpsharkfan
Here is a link to a great article from The Hockey News. It addresses the exact subject of the thread title. Best of all it is not biased.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/en/head...t=954869803932
Excellent article, thanks for the link.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 08:43 AM
  #31
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Nice try on the escape route, too bad it had nothing to do with your quotes.

I never claimed that you said EVERYONE was stupid, just MOST of us poor ignorants, waiting for the wise one to dispense a "red pill".

Guess I'm not logically deprived enough to fall for that poor attempt at misdirection or perhaps your not nearly as clever as you believe.
Yes you are.

You said that I assume people are stupid when I said no such thing. Going back to the weather analogy, if the weather here is, on a whole, rather cold then it doesn't mean that I assume each day is going to be cold.

But enough about that. You're clearly significantly skewing the public's overall intelligence all by yourself.


Quote:
The marketplace for players is set league wide.
Yes.

Quote:
The team's maximum budget is set locally based on the revenue generating ability of their individual market and/or the willingness of the owner to sustain losses over and above the revenue generated.
Yes.

Quote:
"Smart GM's" acting within their budget make decisions which inflate the market value of all "comparable" players.
Name these actions. Otherwise, you're just talking out your behind.

Smart GM's pay the market rate. Otherwise they're just throwing money away for no good reason.

Quote:
When the league wide marketplace places a player beyond the budget of a team, a "smart GM" will be UNABLE TO PAY THE MARKET RATE no matter how smart he is. At that time he is forced to move the asset; usually disrupting team chemisty and leadership by replacing a proven NHL with younger assets he hopes can fill the void.
You've just described a situation that affects every team in the league.

Quote:
We are all aware of this trend and unfortunately, painfully aware that you will continue to be obtuse by ignoring/denying it.
What trend? That teams replace older more expensive players with cheaper younger ones? Rebuilding isn't a trend, its a nature of sports leagues.

Quote:
How often have Tampa and Calgary;

a) made the playoffs in the past 10 years?

b) made it past the first round in the past 10 years?

Now answer the same questions for the Maple Leafs, Red Wings, Avalanche, Blues, Flyers and Rangers.
Tampa: 3 & 2
Calgary: 3 & 1

Why would I answer the same questions about the Avalanche and Blues? I thought this was about big vs small markets, not small vs medium markets?

Toronto: 8 & 5
Detroit: 10 & 8
Flyers: 10 & 6
Rangers: 3 & 3

But lets put in three of the five biggest US markets that you forgot:

LA: 4 & 1
Chicago: 4 & 2
Washington: 6 & 1

And lets put in some small markets you missed:
Ottawa: 8 & 3
Pittsburgh: 7 & 5
Edmonton: 6 & 2


There is very little correlation between market size and success.


Quote:
Funny, even your hero Bob has the boys are offering some wage rollbacks. Guess he hasn't had the pleasure of getting the red pill from you just yet.
There's a difference between negotiating a CBA and dictating a share of revenues.

Quote:
You act is pathetic. Your arguments mainly consist of "white is black/black is white" to get a reaction, followed closely by a series of insults when someone calls you on your BS.
Hardly. I just call people on their lack of logic. You make general statements without any evidence to support your case. When someone calls you on it, you insult them instead of attempting to provide examples.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 09:47 AM
  #32
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
They've signed Jerome for now. Will they be able to next time around, and if they do, how many other players will they have to let go to get it done.
.
well maybe if CGY didnt sign the likes of Lowry, Vernon, Ericksson and other scrubs, they would more than enough resources to pay players other than Jarome Iginla.

CGY has wasted money and draft picks in the last decade and dont deserve any more success than they have had. If OTT can build and maintain a team, if VAN can build and maintain a team, then surely CGY in one of the most prosperus and financially solid cities in all of North America can support a team.

I feel no sorry for CGY.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 09:52 AM
  #33
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
.

...Calgary is far more likely to miss the playoffs next year, than return to the cup finals. .
is it supposed to be easy to get to the finals every year ?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
. Calgary just had the maximum playoff revenue possible and instead of maintaining the group or adding peices to improve, made a move that is, at best, parrallel at cost of two assets. .
why do you equate subtraction with getting worse ? dont other players improve and how can they improve if they arent given ice time ?

CGY is not worse off without Conroy, Gauthier and Saprykin. They will have Langkow, Phanuef and Kobasew step into those roles.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 01:30 PM
  #34
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
Buddy, don't I know it. You can't swing a dead cat in downtown Calgary without hitting 3 or 4 suits stylusing away on their palmpilots.
No kidding eh? The worst part is that that's my future, Yikes.

BTW, the Flames haven't signed Iginla yet, he's currently the teams only RFA, they definetaly want to resign him, but Sutter is waiting to see what the new economic scene will be like, a risky game to play, but it could pay off.

kruezer is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 02:52 PM
  #35
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw7
These have been two of the lowest payroll teams since they entered the league. Part of that may have been the frugal nature of the owners in regards to the team, but most of it was because they both had the right plan in trying to build up a brand new franchise.
I agree completely. The only expansion team in the new group that broke this mold was Columbus and I don't think it is an accident that they are the furthest team from genuine contention. They had the money to spend and they spent it, but adding the likes of Cassels, Marchant, LaChance and Richardson gets in the way of player and team development.

I think we should be very specific about the teams that are losing the money. I think we would look at the Levitt report entirely differently if we knew the individual data. Why don't we? Why did the NHLPA have to sign a nondisclosure agreement about the data that went into the UROs? What is the NHL trying to hide?

I don't think either Atlanta or Nashville is in trouble. They went through growing pains that are normal. It happened in Vancouver, too, years ago. Both these franchises made money on the novelty. Now they have to make money with the product. Both teams are a lot better than even their own fans realize. My best prediction last year was for Nashville to be the NHL surprise team. Both teams may be losing a little, but it isn't much, and the foundation is there.

The three teams that lost the most money were New York, Washington and St. Louis and we all know why they did. Three franchises with questionable fan support are Florida, Anaheim and Carolina. Three other franchises - Islanders, Devils, Penguins - need new rinks.

New York, Washington and St. Louis are all doing what they should have done long ago, which is to cut payroll. The Islanders and Devils are getting new rinks and Pittsburgh is trying to get one. The league does not have financial problems - these teams have financial problems.

And player costs have nothing to do with any of it.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 03:49 PM
  #36
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
You said that I assume people are stupid when I said no such thing. Going back to the weather analogy, if the weather here is, on a whole, rather cold then it doesn't mean that I assume each day is going to be cold.
Dude, just admit what you posted. Really. It's not difficult. You said the vast majority of people are stupid.

To continue your weather analogy, at the end of 365 days of being asked, you won't have said once "Today's cold", yet on the whole, it's cold.

By definition, if on the whole something is X, that means that individually, the vast majority are X.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 04:42 PM
  #37
Coolburn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Florida
Country: Hungary
Posts: 7,715
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Coolburn Send a message via MSN to Coolburn Send a message via Yahoo to Coolburn
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Dude, just admit what you posted. Really. It's not difficult. You said the vast majority of people are stupid.

To continue your weather analogy, at the end of 365 days of being asked, you won't have said once "Today's cold", yet on the whole, it's cold.

By definition, if on the whole something is X, that means that individually, the vast majority are X.
When reading his initial statement, I couldn't help but think of the line from Men in Black...
Quote:
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

Coolburn is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 07:59 PM
  #38
gary69
Registered User
 
gary69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Then and there
Posts: 2,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpsharkfan
Here is a link to a great article from The Hockey News. It addresses the exact subject of the thread title. Best of all it is not biased.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/en/head...t=954869803932
Quite the contrary, it's very biased, or the writer doesn't know what he's talking about or just deliberately chooses to ignore quite a few things. Probably a combination of all the mentioned.

First of all, he chooses to start with an opinion, that it would somehow be the players'/NHLPA's job to run the owner's business for them. And that players and NHLPA should pay for this by hiring accountants, financial experts etc.

I seriously doubt that NHL owners are really incapable of doing this themselves, and want the NHLPA and the players to run their business for them. And even if this writer believes that the owners somehow allowed the NHLPA/players to familiarize themselves with all the business, including non-hockey related, of the owners (necessary e.g. for tax purposes etc.), how on earth he can believe that NHLPA and their hired guns could do a better job of running an NHL franchise than the current owners.

This writer is either a fool, ignorant or knowingly distorting things.

Just to quote Tom Benjamin's words on the "Still believe Forbes" -thread:

"The whole idea that any of this - tracking revenues, tracking other costs, deciding a fair profit for the owner and a fair share for the players - is the province of the employees or collective bargaining is nuts.

Every single team can track revenues, track other costs - another huge can of worms - decide a fair profit for the owners, and stick to a budget for players. There is absolutely no reason to do any of this stuff. It is all a management responsibility. What are club presidents and general managers doing for their million dollar salaries if they don't do this?

There is no reason for a "Unified Report of Operations" except to try to set up a system that will transfer money from the players to the owners by fiat. The players would be crazy to go along and they won't go along. "

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.p...64#post2141664


Last edited by gary69: 11-23-2004 at 09:20 PM.
gary69 is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 10:06 PM
  #39
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
BRG--The public is, on a whole, pretty damn stupid.
Quote:
Thunderstruck--Given that you assume that people, other than yourself, are "generally stupid"
Quote:
BRG--I don't assume that people are stupid. I do believe that the public in general is pretty ignorant. If the public in general was smart I doubt that fast food would be on every street corner, pop culture wouldn't be controlled by media manipulation and the NHL wouldn't have widespread support for its lockout.
Your words are clear and so is their meaning; as is the fact that I in no way misrepresented your position.

Keep up the spin job though. It provides me with more opportunities to remind all your fellow poster of your unfounded and unwarranted arrogance by posting these quotes over and over again. I still get a chuckle out of you making an ass out of yourself and then helping me remind everyone of this fact, so I'm pretty sure most of our fellow posters could use a few more laughs at your expense.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 10:28 PM
  #40
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Your words are clear and so is their meaning; as is the fact that I in no way misrepresented your position.
My words are clear but you're either too stupid to understand or you're a liar. But now I'm doing what I should have done a long time again. Your posts are worthless and so are you.

*plonk*

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 01:25 AM
  #41
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I agree completely. The only expansion team in the new group that broke this mold was Columbus and I don't think it is an accident that they are the furthest team from genuine contention. They had the money to spend and they spent it, but adding the likes of Cassels, Marchant, LaChance and Richardson gets in the way of player and team development.
Columbus was a bit over-anxious. A bit unfortunate for the fans there, a dedicated and supportive group from all accounts. I believe that they could have easily gone through five or so years of growing pains with the fans they have. Hopefully they won't be set back too much. It's an under-rated hockey market there.

Quote:
I think we should be very specific about the teams that are losing the money. I think we would look at the Levitt report entirely differently if we knew the individual data. Why don't we? Why did the NHLPA have to sign a nondisclosure agreement about the data that went into the UROs? What is the NHL trying to hide?
Non-disclosure agreements are common when someone from outside of an organization is allowed to look at such documents. The party signing the non-disclosure understands this. Of course the teams could be hiding something, but most often its a preventative measure. Some completely legal and justified info may be harmful to the company if the whole world hears of it.

It's hard to read into this any more than is on the surface, we just don't know enough to draw any conclusions. If someone is hell-bent on trying to discredit one side or the other, then of course it's easy for them to read something into this. But that holds zero credibility.

Quote:
I don't think either Atlanta or Nashville is in trouble. They went through growing pains that are normal. It happened in Vancouver, too, years ago. Both these franchises made money on the novelty. Now they have to make money with the product. Both teams are a lot better than even their own fans realize. My best prediction last year was for Nashville to be the NHL surprise team. Both teams may be losing a little, but it isn't much, and the foundation is there.

The three teams that lost the most money were New York, Washington and St. Louis and we all know why they did. Three franchises with questionable fan support are Florida, Anaheim and Carolina. Three other franchises - Islanders, Devils, Penguins - need new rinks.

New York, Washington and St. Louis are all doing what they should have done long ago, which is to cut payroll. The Islanders and Devils are getting new rinks and Pittsburgh is trying to get one. The league does not have financial problems - these teams have financial problems.

And player costs have nothing to do with any of it.

Tom

My thinking is that player costs are a part of the problem. Not the entire problem, as some people seem to think. They are a factor, along with dozens of others. Some factors are team specific, some factors are league specific, some cross into both realms.

I just believe it's unrealistic to try and pin this debate between the sides on one single factor, or even a few factors. Granted, some are whoppers and carry a good deal of weight. And for some factors, any CBA would be powerless to help.

Sometimes we all get too wrapped up on one issue, we lose site of the others. "Can't see the forest for the trees" kind of deal. Our problem is that we'll never be able to see the whole forest, because we won't know what or where all of the trees are.

cws is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 02:14 AM
  #42
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
My words are clear but you're either too stupid to understand or you're a liar. But now I'm doing what I should have done a long time again. Your posts are worthless and so are you.

*plonk*
if you have to resort to calling people whose opinions differ than yours 'stupid' or 'ignorant' then it defeats any position you hold on the matter or anything you say on the matter. If you have a differing opinion, which many of us do, then speak it without using the childish name calling, that way your posts may actually be read instead of skipped over as another child-like rant. Same goes for everyone, just using an example here no offense intended

garry1221 is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 07:59 AM
  #43
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
My words are clear but you're either too stupid to understand or you're a liar. But now I'm doing what I should have done a long time again. Your posts are worthless and so are you.

*plonk*
That's right, resort to name calling and character assasination when someone calls you on your obvious BS.

Funny and predictable; you really know how to entertain.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 05:49 PM
  #44
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,658
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary69
Quite the contrary, it's very biased, or the writer doesn't know what he's talking about or just deliberately chooses to ignore quite a few things. Probably a combination of all the mentioned.

First of all, he chooses to start with an opinion, that it would somehow be the players'/NHLPA's job to run the owner's business for them. And that players and NHLPA should pay for this by hiring accountants, financial experts etc.

I seriously doubt that NHL owners are really incapable of doing this themselves, and want the NHLPA and the players to run their business for them. And even if this writer believes that the owners somehow allowed the NHLPA/players to familiarize themselves with all the business, including non-hockey related, of the owners (necessary e.g. for tax purposes etc.), how on earth he can believe that NHLPA and their hired guns could do a better job of running an NHL franchise than the current owners.
Where exactly did you get this from the article? At no point did he suggest the NHLPA runs the business, tells the owner how to run the business or has any input into running the business what so ever.

Quote:
But please, letís put to bed once and for all the crock that itís too complicated a business. Defining things such as third-party revenue and allocating a fair share of that revenue toward the business that generated it is what lawyers and accountants are paid to do. Itís what ďnegotiationsĒ are for.

In other words, if you believe that Blackhawks owner Bill Wirtz is misallocating suite revenue as Forbes insists he is Ė and if itís part of your agenda to properly define revenue in order to get a fair piece of the pie Ė all you have to do is put the accountants on the case. They can write the terms so it wonít happen again.
All this means is that the NHLPA hire some lawyers/accountants to write a better URO. Or perhaps put an observer or two in to monitor the companies books. Nothing to do with taking over the company and running it.

me2 is offline  
Old
11-25-2004, 02:12 PM
  #45
gary69
Registered User
 
gary69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Then and there
Posts: 2,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Where exactly did you get this from the article? At no point did he suggest the NHLPA runs the business, tells the owner how to run the business or has any input into running the business what so ever.



All this means is that the NHLPA hire some lawyers/accountants to write a better URO. Or perhaps put an observer or two in to monitor the companies books. Nothing to do with taking over the company and running it.
I know you just pretend to be ignorant like the writer of the article, so I shoudn't really bother, but ok, I'll answer nevertheless.

The very moment the writer suggest players hiring accountants/lawyers to take a look at the books to determine revenues etc., he is BIASED against the players who have no interest in how owners determine revenues, they have GMs and financial experts to do this. Not when the sole purpose of this is for players to confirm that the numbers of predetermined UROs or selective books of the owners have been calculated correctly i.e. 1+1 equals 2.

Players have no interest in this kind of "partnership", where they are expected to be only the "silent" partners, who pick up the bills with no questions asked. Not when they weren't DIRECTLY responsible for running the some owners' business to their allegely current state of misery. If owners insist that the players have to get involved in this business side as a precondition for the new CBA, and the players would somehow agree against their better judgement, surely it would have to happen in a meaningful way also from a players point of view i.e. the players/NHLPA would have to have a say how the owners' business is/has been run.

gary69 is offline  
Old
11-25-2004, 03:58 PM
  #46
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary69
If owners insist that the players have to get involved in this business side as a precondition for the new CBA, and the players would somehow agree against their better judgement, surely it would have to happen in a meaningful way also from a players point of view i.e. the players/NHLPA would have to have a say how the owners' business is/has been run.
I think it goes beyond this. Suppose the players did decide to go along with this idiotic idea of defining revenues and after hacking everything out, they manage to define them. Okay, so what is a fair player share?

You can't just pick a number out of a hat. You have to examine all the other costs. How much is the GM getting? What is a reasonable profit? How come some teams spend $15 million more than payroll and others spend $40 million over payroll for other costs? You can't decide whether the players should get 65% or 55% unless you negotiate a fair owner's profit and you agree that all the other costs are reasonable. The entire business has to be audited, not just revenues.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-25-2004, 04:46 PM
  #47
gary69
Registered User
 
gary69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Then and there
Posts: 2,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The entire business has to be audited, not just revenues.

Tom
That's my take too, I even said in my previous post that non-hockey business would also have to be opened to NHLPA/players just to ensure the best possible financial outcome for owners.

This just doesn't make sense, surely it's better for owners to do this themselves.

gary69 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.