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.

Haggerty: Jacobs should be held responsible

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-29-2012, 03:31 PM
  #101
Human
cynic
 
Human's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Bandwagon
Posts: 4,366
vCash: 500
so don't tell me the other owners didn't know he's a ****** when they elected him as Chairman of the Board of Governors... I don't buy that. they elected him there because he's the exact type they wanted.

Human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 03:33 PM
  #102
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 14,732
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human View Post
so don't tell me the other owners didn't know he's a ****** when they elected him as Chairman of the Board of Governors... I don't buy that. they elected him there because he's the exact type they wanted.
They elected him as a thank you from the last lockout which was his baby (as is this one).

Morris Wanchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 04:01 PM
  #103
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 53,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
Matthew Sekeres ‏@mattsekeres
Am told by 2 NHL sources that #Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs forced employees to pay tax on 2011 Stanley Cup rings. About $7K per ring. Cont...

Matthew Sekeres ‏@mattsekeres
Some support staff couldn't afford the tax up front, so players stepped up and covered the cost so they could get rings too.

SXM HNIC Radio calls this posturing. (May or may not be true)

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 04:09 PM
  #104
WinterEmpire
Praise Dalpe
 
WinterEmpire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
SXM HNIC Radio calls this posturing. (May or may not be true)
posturing by who exactly? Matt Sekeres is only a local vancouver radio guy. I doubt he has a huge interest or influence in this.

WinterEmpire is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 04:36 PM
  #105
Section337
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 4,051
vCash: 500
In Canada, companies have cut back service awards because of the taxable benefit thing and a toaster is a heck of a lot cheaper than a Stanley Cup ring. If it is a similar taxable rule in Massachusets, how can a company give a ring (that is seen as a taxable benefit) and then pay for the taxes (which would be another taxable benefit)?

Section337 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 04:39 PM
  #106
crazyforhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
Matthew Sekeres ‏@mattsekeres
Am told by 2 NHL sources that #Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs forced employees to pay tax on 2011 Stanley Cup rings. About $7K per ring. Cont...

Matthew Sekeres ‏@mattsekeres
Some support staff couldn't afford the tax up front, so players stepped up and covered the cost so they could get rings too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by topher42 View Post
I wonder if the IRS will now look at which players paid the taxes for those employees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
Jacobs will force them to.
No but he will claim the tax expenditure and put it in his tax savings....and then he will put it into BOS Bruin ezpeniture to devalue his actual profit



and then he will build a pyramid put all his wealth in there for when he dies.......



probably those same employees dont realize that they signed some form giving Jacobs control....so they will be thrown in to the pyramid to serve Jacobs in the afterlife

crazyforhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 07:24 PM
  #107
Alicat
Charge!
 
Alicat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: BOSTON
Country: United States
Posts: 19,591
vCash: 500
If they were given as gifts then anything over $13k is taxed by the Federal Govt at 35%. You would also be taxed the same amount by the Commonwealth of MA.

The rings were around $30k each and employees were taxed on $17K. Jacobs was following the law.

__________________
"I choose to focus on the things I CAN do and am passionate about." - Sam Berns

I am Boston Strong
6.15.11
4.15.13

Alicat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 07:39 PM
  #108
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
JMO, but this is all about revenue sharing and the Bruins bottom line.

Sometime in the recent past Bettman told the owners that the revenue sharing pool was going to be enlarged. So Jacobs said fine, you want me to contribute more money to revenue sharing, then I'm talking that amount out of the players hides.
To be fair though I don't think this is that unpredictable of a response.

Why should the Torontos/Bostons/Phillys/Montreals of the NHL in effect subsidize all these money losing franchises just so they can turn around and offer 20+ roster spots to players?

If I'm Boston, why should I give away a huge chunk of my profit so that a team like Columbus can go around throwing big dollars at a guy like Wisniewski?

Is Columbus doing anything to help my bottom line?

I'm not saying it's right/wrong, but I understand why some of the bigger teams may balk at having to give away more and more of their profit just so 10-15 unhealthy teams can continue to operate.

If the PA is the one benefitting from all the extra player jobs these "in trouble" franchises continue to provide, sure, they should have to "pay in" to the system too with CBA concessions specifically dropping their share of HRR to 50%.


Last edited by Soundwave: 11-29-2012 at 08:03 PM.
Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 08:01 PM
  #109
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,854
vCash: 500
Also I don't think the exchange with the Winnipeg Jets was out of line.

The Jet *are* the new kids on the block. The other teams have lived with this CBA for the full previous 7 years.

Winnipeg should have to wait its turn here, other teams are not going to accept a CBA deal that may be unfavourable/ill-advised in the long run just because Winnipeg was anxious to keep their newfound momentum going.

The guy may not have the best people skills, but I think a lot of this is just looking for a new scapegoat since everyone is getting bored of blaming Bettman for everything all the time.

Also downplaying the success the Bruins franchise has had the last several years by pointing to one awkward on-camera exchange that Jacobs had with Cam Neely for a minute or two is just stupid.


Last edited by Soundwave: 11-29-2012 at 08:08 PM.
Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 08:08 PM
  #110
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 44,600
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Also I don't think the exchange with the Winnipeg Jets was out of line.

The Jet *are* the new kids on the block. The other teams have lived with this CBA for the full previous 7 years.

Winnipeg should have to wait its turn here, other teams are not going to accept a CBA deal that may be unfavourable/ill-advised in the long run just because Winnipeg was anxious to keep their newfound momentum going.

The guy may not have the best people skills, but I think a lot of this is just looking for a new scapegoat since everyone is getting bored of blaming Bettman for everything all the time.
Why not? The reason a number of teams are losing money is due to poor fan support. Why should a team who's fans wholeheartedly support it suffer, just so teams with poor fan support can get a few extra dollars out of the players?

__________________
May 17, 2014: The day nightlife changes in Vancouver...ask me how.
y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 08:14 PM
  #111
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Why not? The reason a number of teams are losing money is due to poor fan support. Why should a team who's fans wholeheartedly support it suffer, just so teams with poor fan support can get a few extra dollars out of the players?
Winnipeg's priorities are obviously a little skewed here because of course they want to get back to it straight away given that they've only had one season back.

But a strong deal for the owners will benefit them as well in the long run, unless they want to also keep subsidizing a broken system where 1/3-1/2 of the league is filled with teams constantly struggling to make money. They don't have perspective on the situation because they've only been back operating as a business for one year (and had a good year).

Of course the players love this system, they want all the franchises to stay put because it gives them a wider pool of teams to compete for their services come UFA day, more jobs all around for their membership, etc. etc.

They just don't want to pay "in" to that system though. They want the owners of the Toronto Maple Leafs and Boston Bruins and (yes) Winnipeg Jets to take their profits and give a big chunk of that away so that player X can go sign a big fat contract in Phoenix or where ever.

If I'm the owner of the Bruins, sure, I can see the guys point. If I'm giving away a good chunk of my profit to subsidize these other teams via revenue sharing, then the players need to pay in too.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 08:53 PM
  #112
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Section337 View Post
In Canada, companies have cut back service awards because of the taxable benefit thing and a toaster is a heck of a lot cheaper than a Stanley Cup ring. If it is a similar taxable rule in Massachusets, how can a company give a ring (that is seen as a taxable benefit) and then pay for the taxes (which would be another taxable benefit)?
You give the employee a seperate $ bonus that after taxes are paid on the bonus money leaves enough to cover the taxes on the gift. Not uncommon in my experience.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 10:02 PM
  #113
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
The point being, that this is being at least stretched. Not covering the tax on the rings is the ordinary order of things. Covering those taxes is above and beyond. So if you want to allege that Jacobs didn't do something he doesn't have to do and isn't legally obligated to do, that might have been nice if he had, sure. But don't make it sound like he's out there with his own hand in his employees' wallets

The bigger issue is why in the world we as a nation are taxing gifts in the first place and setting people up to be this badly screwed.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 10:10 PM
  #114
Alicat
Charge!
 
Alicat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: BOSTON
Country: United States
Posts: 19,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
The point being, that this is being at least stretched. Not covering the tax on the rings is the ordinary order of things. Covering those taxes is above and beyond. So if you want to allege that Jacobs didn't do something he doesn't have to do and isn't legally obligated to do, that might have been nice if he had, sure. But don't make it sound like he's out there with his own hand in his employees' wallets

The bigger issue is why in the world we as a nation are taxing gifts in the first place and setting people up to be this badly screwed.
Ask the Federal Government.

Alicat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 10:18 PM
  #115
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Not covering the tax on the rings is the ordinary order of things.

No it isn't. A neighbor used to work for the Wings so I asked his wife tonight (he wasn't home) and she said they didn't have to pay it so the team must have covered it. Also, a friend of mine's brother worked for the Devils so I popped her an email to ask about it and she said her brother didn't have to cover the tax (she said he could never have afforded to as he was putting every penny he could spare into paying off his student loans at the time).

colchar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 10:32 PM
  #116
Alicat
Charge!
 
Alicat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: BOSTON
Country: United States
Posts: 19,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
No it isn't. A neighbor used to work for the Wings so I asked his wife tonight (he wasn't home) and she said they didn't have to pay it so the team must have covered it. Also, a friend of mine's brother worked for the Devils so I popped her an email to ask about it and she said her brother didn't have to cover the tax (she said he could never have afforded to as he was putting every penny he could spare into paying off his student loans at the time).
Each state is different. There's a reason MA has the lovely nickname of Taxachusetts.

JJ didn't have to get 500 rings but he did. Story is far from factual.

Alicat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 10:45 PM
  #117
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,709
vCash: 500
If true about jacobs.How is it he can threaten the owner of the jets.Is not part of the thompson family.Worth over 20 billion dollars imagine their connections in the business and political world.

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 11:08 PM
  #118
LeeIFBB
Registered User
 
LeeIFBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Gym
Posts: 1,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Look at the interlinkage. Dolan does the TV for his own Rangers, but also handles Buffalo, NYI and NJ on very lucrative TV deals. Snider is Comcast with the Sharks, Chicago, Washington and Philly. Jacobs has Delaware North which does the concessions for at least a half dozen teams. Leiweke is AEG which is arena management for more than LA. The guys who do for others on the BOG are the most likely to be in the leadership spots of the BOG. Tenure also helps.

Jacobs is easy to identify, but there are other owners who are just as rabid as he even if their names aren't out there front and center. If he were that far off the consensus of the BOG he wouldn't be heading it. Same goes for Bettman or any other individual villain of the moment.
Bottom line.

LeeIFBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 12:45 AM
  #119
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,854
vCash: 500
Yeah people just want to create some kind of singular scapegoat that they can blame everything for because of their own frustration, but I'm not seeing it here.

Jacobs may not be the most pleasant guy, but I'd bet dollars to donughts most NHL owners feel the same way.

This notion that the Torontos and Bostons and Montreals of the league are just fine and dandy with shipping off bigger and bigger chunks of their profit to keep 10-15 other franchises afloat for another 10 years never passed the BS test for me.

Nor does this idea that the NHL BOG is some how held hostage by Bettman and one or two owners. It's nice fantasy, but it's not reality.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 12:49 AM
  #120
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
If true about jacobs.How is it he can threaten the owner of the jets.Is not part of the thompson family.Worth over 20 billion dollars imagine their connections in the business and political world.
One of David Thomson's various companies owns a minority share of the Jets via True North. And you are correct, one of the richest families in the world shouldnt be taking any **** from Jacobs.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 12:52 AM
  #121
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
One of David Thomson's various companies owns a minority share of the Jets via True North. And you are correct, one of the richest families in the world shouldnt be taking any **** from Jacobs.
Winnipeg hasn't earned the right to walk into a CBA negotiations and dictate to other franchises that have either 1) been bleeding money the last 7-8 years or 2) been paying out a good chunk of their profit into revenue sharing and are now being asked to pony up even more.

If Jacobs said it, I'd guarantee just about every other owner in that room was thinking the same thing.

No one in that room is going to accept a crappy or badly compromised deal for the next 7-8 years just because Winnipeg was itching to maintain their 1-year-momenteum.

When the next CBA rolls around and Winnipeg has paid more of their dues and put in a good 7+ years in revenue sharing or just been in the business to have more skin in the game, then sure it will be a different story then.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 12:59 AM
  #122
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Winnipeg hasn't earned the right to walk into a CBA negotiations and dictate to other franchises that have either 1) been bleeding money the last 7-8 years or 2) been paying out a good chunk of their profit into revenue sharing and are now being asked to pony up even more.

If Jacobs said it, I'd guarantee just about every other owner in that room was thinking the same thing.

No one in that room is going to accept a crappy or badly compromised deal for the next 7-8 years just because Winnipeg was itching to maintain their 1-year-momenteum.

When the next CBA rolls around and Winnipeg has paid more of their dues and put in a good 7+ years in revenue sharing or just been in the business to have more skin in the game, then sure it will be a different story then.
I guarantee the Thomson family would disagree vehemently. Earn the right? Thats why the old boys club in the NHL has caused a lot of the problems we see today. Notice how Toronto doesnt seem to have much of a voice in these negotiations. Wonder why?

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 01:01 AM
  #123
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
I guarantee the Thomson family would disagree vehemently.
They can disagree all they want.

If I'm Boston or Montreal or Toronto, I'm telling them to sit down and wait your turn. Being in the league for one whopping year does not entitle you to walk into a CBA meeting and dictate the discussion. It would be like showing up in the last week of a 2 year war and barking out orders to people, that isn't going to fly, you have to earn some credibility first.

A good deal for the owners will benefit Thomson and co. in the long run anyway.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 02:03 AM
  #124
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Yeah people just want to create some kind of singular scapegoat that they can blame everything for because of their own frustration, but I'm not seeing it here.

Jacobs may not be the most pleasant guy, but I'd bet dollars to donughts most NHL owners feel the same way.

This notion that the Torontos and Bostons and Montreals of the league are just fine and dandy with shipping off bigger and bigger chunks of their profit to keep 10-15 other franchises afloat for another 10 years never passed the BS test for me.

Nor does this idea that the NHL BOG is some how held hostage by Bettman and one or two owners. It's nice fantasy, but it's not reality.
If Toronto, Boston and Montreal are making their profits by forcing lesser teams to expend that which they do not have then it is certainly just, ethical and to be expected that those big guys should share the cost of the expenses forced on the lesser lights. The last CBA was a license to print money for TO at the expense of those lesser lights. Less payroll for TO and more payroll for Phoenix, Nashville, etc.

The ethics and narrow view don't fly with the complete picture. It's like telling a bank manager who defrauded a bank that he is getting off free and clear and isn't going to lose his job. And in fact is encouraged to do it again. The big guys know that their hands aren't clean.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 02:37 AM
  #125
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
If Toronto, Boston and Montreal are making their profits by forcing lesser teams to expend that which they do not have then it is certainly just, ethical and to be expected that those big guys should share the cost of the expenses forced on the lesser lights. The last CBA was a license to print money for TO at the expense of those lesser lights. Less payroll for TO and more payroll for Phoenix, Nashville, etc.

The ethics and narrow view don't fly with the complete picture. It's like telling a bank manager who defrauded a bank that he is getting off free and clear and isn't going to lose his job. And in fact is encouraged to do it again. The big guys know that their hands aren't clean.
Toronto, Boston, Montreal, etc. are not making profits by "forcing" lesser teams to expend, not sure how you came to that conclusion. They make money because simply put they're in the handful of rare markets in North America where hockey can generate a high amount of revenue, period.

The players are the ones who win big, because Toronto/Boston/Montreal/etc. subsidize the entire NHL and inflate hockey revenue, but every player from the guys playing for Toronto to the guys on the Blue Jackets, Hurricanes, etc. benefit as the cap rises every year (taking the cap floor up with it).

If you're Toronto, what the heck is Columbus/Carolina/etc. doing for you? They could stop existing tomorrow and you'd still be making the same money.

This is a sweet deal for the players. 30 teams, maybe half pull a profit, but all the players are happy because they're getting their paycheques, and the teams not making money become desperate to pull a profit and are easy to be baited into overspending in a desperate attempt to raise attendance (ie: Columbus overspending on Carter, Wisniewski, in an attempt to keep Nash happy).

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 02:20 PM.

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.