"Bettman maintained that ownership is willing to wait as long as necessary to get a deal done that works for the NHL in the long term."
I love the double speak. What he really means is that he is willing to wait until the players agree to his terms. He's going to be waiting for a long time.
""I say this - and I hate when I say it - we lose less money when we are not playing," he added"
Funny, that's NOT what the LA owner said. And right after that he got fined and did not say a word. IF there is so much money being lost, why is no one allowed to examine the books except for Levitt, who was PAID by the league?
"The damage we will suffer if we don't fix it, now that we have the opportunity to do it, is incalculable"
What abot teh incalculable damage that will be caused to the NHL if there is no season? What about the incalcuable damage that will be cuased to your reputation if you are known as the "Man who killed hockey"?
even if the nhlpa looked at the books, they would only be getting the section of the books that the nhl allowed them to see...
it isn't like they were going to give them the cablevision's books so the nhlpa could calculate the rangers revenue, they were going to determine the rangers revenue and then show it to the nhlpa. but the thing that most people question are the hidden revenues and things that teams like the rangers can stick in other areas like msg network, etc. those figures wouldn't have existed on the books the league allowed the players to see, so how would that prove anything either way??
unless the nhlpa was questioning the leagues math and wanted to recalculate the numbers, then i don't think it would make a difference if the league reported their numbers or if the league presented their numbers to the players and let them view the breakdown. because if the players don't trust the numbers and think revenue is being hidden they will still think that afterwards
the lack of trust between the 2 sides is so bad that they wouldn't believe the numbers even if they saw them...
that's for sure (him being the ex-head of the SEC), but there are benefits to having hockey for many. Bettman says the league is better off financially without a season. The Rangers lead the league in losses, coming in at a whopping $40 million. If that is true, how does Cablevision state this in a public filing: 'Unless a successor CBA is reached by the expiration date, or the parties agree to extend the term of the CBA, it is possible that the 2004/05 season may not begin as scheduled and this in turn may result in a shortened or canceled season which could negatively impact operating results'. I'm thinking that without that huge loss, year-over-year comparisons should be positive, unless there is revenue that is not included in the Rangers' stand-alone P&L. Unless there are expenses in the Rangers' stand-alone P&L that don't belong. And this represents nearly 20% of the league's entire losses, which Bettman cites as being the biggest problem with the CBA (the losses). So if 20% of the losses aren't really losses, what about the other 80%? What's the real problem in the league?