HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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 slams Levitt report

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-11-2004, 10:17 PM
  #1
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Forbes slams Levitt report

Here ya go, according to Forbes Magazine the NHL only lost 93 million in 03/04. Have a read, according to them, most of the money losing teams are losing money for a reason, go figure. Now who looks like a liar?

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1129/124.html

vanlady is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 10:48 PM
  #2
Coffey77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,340
vCash: 500
An interesting read. The NHL hired Levitt to create the report, so it shouldn't be any surprise that he would say that they lost so much money. Still the NHL should be fixed from an entertainment and financial standpoint. Hockey isn't boring to me but to most of the American market it is.

In any case, until both sides start to trust each other, the season is screwed. IMO, there's no hockey this year. I might as well go buy the 1972 Summit Series on DVD to get that hockey fix.

Coffey77 is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 10:56 PM
  #3
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Here ya go, according to Forbes Magazine the NHL only lost 93 million in 03/04. Have a read, according to them, most of the money losing teams are losing money for a reason, go figure. Now who looks like a liar?

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1129/124.html

Quote:
For instance, the NHL included only half of the $17 million the New York Islanders got last year for their cable broadcasts
Quote:
The arena's 212 suites pulled in $15 million last season, none of which is included in the league's numbers.
Quote:
In determining team values we include all collateral revenue sources, such as real estate, broadcasting, cable, sponsorships and concessions.
Quote:
That's why hockey franchises are now worth an average of $163 million, up 3% from last year and 31% higher than when we first valued them six years ago.
Quote:
George and Gordon Gund, who paid a $50 million expansion fee for the San Jose Sharks in 1990, sold their team and the right to operate HP Pavilion to Kevin Compton for $147 million.
Quote:
He used the Kings, which lost $5.3 million last season, to get the go-ahead to build Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles; it was completed in 1999 at a cost of $400 million

That's why you have A LOT of PUBLIC RELATIONS from the OWNERS & that why you have no public relation from the NHLPA because what you see is what you already know.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:33 AM
  #4
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Here ya go, according to Forbes Magazine the NHL only lost 93 million in 03/04. losing money for a reason, go figure. Now who looks like a liar?
Have a read, according to them, most of the money losing teams are
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1129/124.html
Those are still very big numbers. Note that that is before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Those numbers get even bigger. On top of that there is the desire to earn a profit and not just break even.

Wang's cable deal looks indeed rather dodgy. That is hockey revenue.

Its interesting to compare Forbes version of the Kings finances with this version

http://www.letsgokings.com/reportfinal.doc

Though including real estate deals as hockey revenues are very tenuous. If the players want a share of that pie they should put in their own cash. If it goes bad they won't be paying, so they shouldn't be profiting.

You'd think if these numbers were easy enough for Forbes to find then the NHLPA would be take up the call to investigate the books.

me2 is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:39 AM
  #5
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Those are still very big numbers. Note that that is before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Those numbers get even bigger. On top of that there is the desire to earn a profit and not just break even.

Wang's cable deal looks indeed rather dodgy. That is hockey revenue.

Its interesting to compare Forbes version of the Kings finances with this version

http://www.letsgokings.com/reportfinal.doc

Though including real estate deals as hockey revenues are very tenuous. If the players want a share of that pie they should put in their own cash. If it goes bad they won't be paying, so they shouldn't be profiting.

You'd think if these numbers were easy enough for Forbes to find then the NHLPA would be take up the call to investigate the books.
As anyone in accounting and finance will tell you the profit and loss statements are smoke screens. If you want to know the real truth about the financial health of any business you look at the asset valuation. In the case of the NHL they have increased 31% over 6 years. Do you realize that kind of increase puts the NHL at the same level of increases as Microsoft through the 90's. Anyone in finance will tell you that any league that has increased by 31% CANNOT

vanlady is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 12:40 AM
  #6
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Those are still very big numbers. Note that that is before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Those numbers get even bigger. On top of that there is the desire to earn a profit and not just break even.

Wang's cable deal looks indeed rather dodgy. That is hockey revenue.

Its interesting to compare Forbes version of the Kings finances with this version

http://www.letsgokings.com/reportfinal.doc

Though including real estate deals as hockey revenues are very tenuous. If the players want a share of that pie they should put in their own cash. If it goes bad they won't be paying, so they shouldn't be profiting.

You'd think if these numbers were easy enough for Forbes to find then the NHLPA would be take up the call to investigate the books.
As anyone in accounting and finance will tell you the profit and loss statements are smoke screens. If you want to know the real truth about the financial health of any business you look at the asset valuation. In the case of the NHL they have increased 31% over 6 years. Do you realize that kind of increase puts the NHL at the same level of increases as Microsoft through the 90's. Anyone in finance will tell you that any league that has increased by 31% CANNOT be in the financial position that Bettman is telling you, sorry you have been fooled.

Oh and the reason you always include the real estate is simply, owners DO NOT make their money while they own the franchise it is when they sell it. In most cases Like the Sharks owners make the money when they sell the team. Look at San Jose bought for 50 million sold for 147 million.


Last edited by vanlady: 11-12-2004 at 12:45 AM.
vanlady is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 01:04 AM
  #7
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
That's why you have A LOT of PUBLIC RELATIONS from the OWNERS & that why you have no public relation from the NHLPA because what you see is what you already know.
If they already know that why aren't they doing something about it?

Looking at some of these number you can dig further

"The arena's 212 suites pulled in $15 million last season, none of which is included in the league's numbers."


Wirtz owns 1/2 the arena, that brings that number down to $7.5m straight away. On top of that there are non-hockey events, probably many more than hockey events. Bulls play there, that reduces the hockey revenue part from 100% of $7.5m to way less that 50%, probably closer to 33% at best. That $15m is now down to $2.5m. Add in running costs for the rink etc and its getting smaller and smaller not mention Wirtz is entitled to some profit as 1/2 owner.

There is a heck of lot more going on at the United Centre than Hawks games (http://www.unitedcenter.com/). Why should it all count as Hawks revenue.

me2 is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 01:05 AM
  #8
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
As anyone in accounting and finance will tell you the profit and loss statements are smoke screens. If you want to know the real truth about the financial health of any business you look at the asset valuation. In the case of the NHL they have increased 31% over 6 years. Do you realize that kind of increase puts the NHL at the same level of increases as Microsoft through the 90's. Anyone in finance will tell you that any league that has increased by 31% CANNOT be in the financial position that Bettman is telling you, sorry you have been fooled.

Oh and the reason you always include the real estate is simply, owners DO NOT make their money while they own the franchise it is when they sell it. In most cases Like the Sharks owners make the money when they sell the team. Look at San Jose bought for 50 million sold for 147 million.

Sure include franchise value increases but it stupid to include hotels and theatres which is what Forbes was suggesting. If Microsoft Windows makes $1b in profit Microsoft SQL server division doesn't get to claim it.

me2 is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 01:07 AM
  #9
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
If they already know that why aren't they doing something about it?

Looking at some of these number you can dig further

"The arena's 212 suites pulled in $15 million last season, none of which is included in the league's numbers."


Wirtz owns 1/2 the arena, that brings that number down to $7.5m straight away. On top of that there are non-hockey events, probably many more than hockey events. Bulls play there, that reduces the hockey revenue part from 100% of $7.5m to way less that 50%, probably closer to 33% at best. That $15m is now down to $2.5m. Add in running costs for the rink etc and its getting smaller and smaller not mention Wirtz is entitled to some profit as 1/2 owner.

There is a heck of lot more going on at the United Centre than Hawks games (http://www.unitedcenter.com/). Why should it all count as Hawks revenue.
The point is none of that revenue was included. Oh and that 15 million is after expences. The Blackhawks should receive what ever percentage they use. Oh and Why when the only reason Wirtz owns 50% of the arena is the Blackhawks should 100% go into the owners pocket?

vanlady is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 01:14 AM
  #10
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Sure include franchise value increases but it stupid to include hotels and theatres which is what Forbes was suggesting. If Microsoft Windows makes $1b in profit Microsoft SQL server division doesn't get to claim it.
The reason they count the arena is quite simply this, 60% of the owners in the US have been given the arena free of charge from the tax payers of the city. Why, to attract professional sport to the city. Do you not get that the owner of the Kings was handed the keys to his arena for FREE. Same thing in San Jose, Atlanta and Columbus. The whole reason the owner of the Kings got his arena was the KINGS.

vanlady is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 01:17 AM
  #11
gr8haluschak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
As anyone in accounting and finance will tell you the profit and loss statements are smoke screens. If you want to know the real truth about the financial health of any business you look at the asset valuation. In the case of the NHL they have increased 31% over 6 years. Do you realize that kind of increase puts the NHL at the same level of increases as Microsoft through the 90's. Anyone in finance will tell you that any league that has increased by 31% CANNOT be in the financial position that Bettman is telling you, sorry you have been fooled.

Oh and the reason you always include the real estate is simply, owners DO NOT make their money while they own the franchise it is when they sell it. In most cases Like the Sharks owners make the money when they sell the team. Look at San Jose bought for 50 million sold for 147 million.
Well too bad there is one knock on balance sheet valuation and that is it uses very subjective historical (aquistion costs) on what they believe their product is worth, onot what it is actually worth and costs can be detremined in various ways that could make the balance sheet look as good as possible or as bad as possible. As well you say that franchise worths have a 31% growth in 6 years, but is that constant ? or has it peaked at some time and decreased to 31%. So arguments can constantly be made, however, I am thinking that the NHLPA's accountants could not disprove Levitt's numbers because they would have done it already and provided counter numbers.

gr8haluschak is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 01:20 AM
  #12
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
The point is none of that revenue was included. Oh and that 15 million is after expences. The Blackhawks should receive what ever percentage they use. Oh and Why when the only reason Wirtz owns 50% of the arena is the Blackhawks should 100% go into the owners pocket?
It is irrelevant why he owns 50%. He could see the Blackhawks to Portland and still keep 50% share. He is entitled to try and make some money off his 50% ownership of the rink, Hawks or no Hawks.

Lets flip this around. If he makes $7.5m from his half of the $15m this year and there are ZERO hawks games, does that prove the Hawks contributed no net benefit to his rink earnings and therefore deserve 0% of that $7.5m. If on the other hand that $15m falls to $12m due lack of Hawks games, his half is $6m they you can argue the Hawks contribute $1.5m and deserve a share of that $1.5m.

If own a chain of cinemas and then decide to make a movie, should I give all of the profits from the cinemas to the stars of the movie I made?

me2 is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 01:25 AM
  #13
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gr8haluschak
Well too bad there is one knock on balance sheet valuation and that is it uses very subjective historical (aquistion costs) on what they believe their product is worth, onot what it is actually worth and costs can be detremined in various ways that could make the balance sheet look as good as possible or as bad as possible. As well you say that franchise worths have a 31% growth in 6 years, but is that constant ? or has it peaked at some time and decreased to 31%. So arguments can constantly be made, however, I am thinking that the NHLPA's accountants could not disprove Levitt's numbers because they would have done it already and provided counter numbers.
The NHLPA were allowed access to 4 franchises books and found 53 million in unreported revenue, the owners cut off any further audits.

We were given access to the UROs for 30 clubs, but were only able to conduct a thorough review of four NHL clubs. On those four clubs alone we found just over $52 million in hockey related revenues and benefits not reported in the League's voluntary and unaudited URO process. If we are given similar access to all of the other individual teams' financial information, presumably used in the Levitt report, we will be in a position to provide further comment.

Yes franchise growth has been steady, they have all been positive growth years, this years growth was only 3% but that was lower because of the lockout. What does that tell you?

vanlady is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 01:28 AM
  #14
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
It is irrelevant why he owns 50%. He could see the Blackhawks to Portland and still keep 50% share. He is entitled to try and make some money off his 50% ownership of the rink, Hawks or no Hawks.

Lets flip this around. If he makes $7.5m from his half of the $15m this year and there are ZERO hawks games, does that prove the Hawks contributed no net benefit to his rink earnings and therefore deserve 0% of that $7.5m. If on the other hand that $15m falls to $12m due lack of Hawks games, his half is $6m they you can argue the Hawks contribute $1.5m and deserve a share of that $1.5m.

If own a chain of cinemas and then decide to make a movie, should I give all of the profits from the cinemas to the stars of the movie I made?
OK let's flip it around again and use Sabbanne and Oxley accounting rules. Wirtz gets 50% of the arena revenue, the Blackhawks represent 50% of the arena use, should at least not 30% belong to the Hawks thus allowing for a profit for the owner? Sorry but ole Wirtzy boy doesn't get to pocket 100% of the arena revenue.

By the way what is the difference between a bum in a seat in the stands, and a butt in a seat in a luxury box???? They both are watching the game, so why do the Blackhawks not get a single penny for it?


Last edited by vanlady: 11-12-2004 at 01:48 AM.
vanlady is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 02:00 AM
  #15
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Wang's cable deal looks indeed rather dodgy. That is hockey revenue..
So why would players trust a CBA that links Salaries to this BS revenue?

The owners have been caught lieing.

Plain and simple.
Levitt was paid to lie. Bettman, a disgrace to hockey, lied.

There are surely problems with hockey.

But the owners don't have the decency to be honest with the players, media or the fans.


It's the OWNERS that LOCKED OUT the players.
And their pretext for doing so is fraudulent.

There goes their PR advantage.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 02:08 AM
  #16
kurt
the last emperor
 
kurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,554
vCash: 500
Thank god!

I've been sitting on my hands for a long time, waiting for a reputable 3rd party to put their reputation on the line to expose the Leavitt report to be inaccurate. Definitely good fodder for the NHLPA, although this situation may further polarize the groups, as there will be even less trust between the parties.

My main problem with the hard-cap-tied-to-league-revenue concept is the fact that these guys CAN'T be trusted. They'll present the books in a way that protects their interests. Plain and simple.

kurt is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 02:24 AM
  #17
Cully9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurt
My main problem with the hard-cap-tied-to-league-revenue concept is the fact that these guys CAN'T be trusted. They'll present the books in a way that protects their interests. Plain and simple.
And how has that been a problem in the NBA, that has independent auditors set their cap every year, for example?

Cully9 is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 02:27 AM
  #18
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cully9
And how has that been a problem in the NBA, that has independent auditors set their cap every year, for example?
The NBA owners have been able to agree with thier union to define all revenue, and have a very strict set of checks and balances to control their owners. Something the NHL owners will never go for. Oh and before you use the NBA you might want to make sure that they are not talking about a strike to get rid of their cap next year.

vanlady is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 02:59 AM
  #19
Cully9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
The NBA owners have been able to agree with thier union to define all revenue, and have a very strict set of checks and balances to control their owners. Something the NHL owners will never go for. Oh and before you use the NBA you might want to make sure that they are not talking about a strike to get rid of their cap next year.
How do you know what the owners will go for in determining the value of the cap? Just as the PA looks bad when they refuse to stand behind their proposal, the owners would look just as bad if the PA agreed to a cap and then the owners weren't going to discuss the parameters.

As for the NBA, they're not going to be locked out because the players are trying to get rid of the cap. The owners are talking about trying to reduce the maximum length of the contracts under the CBA -- that's been the primary issue -- and the reason that there could be a work stoppage.

Cully9 is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 04:48 AM
  #20
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,940
vCash: 1280
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady

Yes franchise growth has been steady, they have all been positive growth years, this years growth was only 3% but that was lower because of the lockout. What does that tell you?
According to the article Forbes published last year that isn't true.
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/1208/094a.html

Quote:
Despite a $30 million increase in revenues, National Hockey League team values fell 3% from 2002 levels, to an average of $159 million. It's a buyer's market: Players and owners are haggling over a new collective-bargaining agreement to replace the one that expires after this season. Rinks could be dark for weeks if not months next season. Plus the next national TV deal likely won't be as lucrative as the current one, which provides only $6.8 million per team.
The only reason I can come up with for franchise values increasing this year after last year's decline is confidence that the new CBA will insure profitability.

Forbe's also stated at that time:
Quote:
According to bankers, at least 7 of the league's 30 teams are on the block, including California's Mighty Ducks of Anaheim. Says Gordon Saint-Denis, president of the sports advisory firm Triton Sports Associates, "Uncertainty over the league's economic model has lowered the multiple of sales teams are selling for."
I'm sure NHL is over reporting losses. When entering negotiations try to make as strong as a case as possible. Likewise the NHLPA is going to look at the numbers and under report the losses counting everything tangentially related as revenues. The bottom line is there wouldn't be a lockout if everything was peachy.

Acording to the article you cited the average franchise value has increased by 31% over the last 6 years to $163 million. The average value of a team 6 years ago was $112.5 million. The average appreciation was $50.5 million. Forbes reports that the league lost $96 million last season and $123 the season before making the average loss $109.5. In a 30 team league that's an average $3.65 million loss per team per year. Over the course of 6 years it's $21.9 million per team. An owner who bought a team at the average price of $112.5 million six years ago and sold it for $163 million today realizes a $50.5 million gross profit. After deducting the $21.9 million loss incurred over those 6 years, there's a $28.6 million net profit. Investing $112.5 million in a 72 month CD with a 3.75% APY, yields approximately $28 million in interest. That's really conservative too. There's much better deals than that available for the high rollers. Even if we use Forbes numbers, the return on investment isn't acceptable.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 06:31 AM
  #21
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
OK let's flip it around again and use Sabbanne and Oxley accounting rules. Wirtz gets 50% of the arena revenue, the Blackhawks represent 50% of the arena use, should at least not 30% belong to the Hawks thus allowing for a profit for the owner? Sorry but ole Wirtzy boy doesn't get to pocket 100% of the arena revenue.
I doubt the Hawks make up 25% of the events held there. The United Centre is "among the busiest and most lucrative arena's in sports.". This then comes back to what percentage is hockey. Are the Bulls more popular? What other events are run (over 200 per year)?

So what is a fair percentage for the arena ownership to take?

What would be a fair rate to charge the Hawks on a per game basis for rink usage?

Quote:
By the way what is the difference between a bum in a seat in the stands, and a butt in a seat in a luxury box???? They both are watching the game, so why do the Blackhawks not get a single penny for it?
Little but we don't know how that part works. We don't know what Wirtz charges/earns in other areas without looking at the books. We can assume he splits the $15m two-way. If so he obviously thinks its fair that amount should be for arena ownership because that is what he pays the other the other 1/2 owner. If he thought that was unfair he'd filter more through the Hawks. Mind you it doesn't hurt the other owner is the Bulls owner and they are splitting the revenue cancelling each other out to some degree.

Again it prompts the question, what is a fair rate to charge if the Hawks were paying on a per game basis?

According to Forbes the Hawks made $9m last year. So Wirtz must be a great manager. There should be more Wirtz running this league not less. Then again $9m operating income (according to Forbes) isn't much of a return on an enterprise supposedly worth $178m. Poor old Bill Wirtz, he runs his team like a business, makes a profit (at least according to Forbes) and slagged by the fans as a cheapskate.

me2 is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 06:31 AM
  #22
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
The owners have been caught lieing.
Hardly. All we have is a third party who counts differently. They include everything, and a good case can be made that they over-include revenues. Yeah, the owners under-include a bit. So the real result is in the middle somewhere.

But note the real story here is that even with the most optimistic financial reporting, the NHL is still losing hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Folks are running around here trying to paint this as positive news, when it's really just more bad news. This is like the private detective telling you "I'm sorry, I was wrong, you're wife didn't screw around with 200 other guys, it was only 100.". Woohoo! That's great! I knew she could be trusted!

PecaFan is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 06:34 AM
  #23
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
The reason they count the arena is quite simply this, 60% of the owners in the US have been given the arena free of charge from the tax payers of the city. Why, to attract professional sport to the city. Do you not get that the owner of the Kings was handed the keys to his arena for FREE. Same thing in San Jose, Atlanta and Columbus. The whole reason the owner of the Kings got his arena was the KINGS.
And if the Kings owners want to put their money into a hotel and theatre that should remain their money. If he makes $1b from the new hotel complex, the NHL team shouldn't try and claim it. If it bombs and losses $1b you wouldn't expect the players to fork it over out their pockets. If they want in on these non-hockey deals I'm sure the Kings ownership would be looking for financial backers.

me2 is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 06:49 AM
  #24
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
So why would players trust a CBA that links Salaries to this BS revenue?
If there was to be revenues linked to salaries these things would have to be worked out in advance, in any CBA. The NHLPA would require much more transparency and access to the books. That much is a given.

Quote:
There are surely problems with hockey.

But the owners don't have the decency to be honest with the players, media or the fans.
Some owners.

Quote:

It's the OWNERS that LOCKED OUT the players.
And their pretext for doing so is fraudulent.
Based on what? Even Forbes found they lost $98m and Forbes may be much more generous about what is hockey revenue than others. They pretty much implied that. Also note that $98m lost was before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. The players are going to have to account for those extras as well as the $98m. Loans don't just pay the interest on themselves.

Quote:
There goes their PR advantage.

Not that much. Most of this stuff isn't that different from last years Forbes report (the one comparable to the Levitt report on time scale). I think Forbes had $124m last year in loses compared to this years $98m. Owners laughed that one off.

According to Forbes 17 team lost money and 6 teams made $2.3m or less. 17 before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, how many after? At least 23 would be my guess based on Forbes numbers, probably more. But perhaps the NHLPA consider only 23 going backwards a success.

Still at the least this should produce an interesting reply from the NHL. Been boringly quiet from both sides for the last little while.


Last edited by me2: 11-12-2004 at 07:10 AM.
me2 is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 07:02 AM
  #25
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
The NHLPA could have full access to all teams books simply by agreeing to negotiate cost certainty. The owners put it on the table and the players have refused to look at it.

Why?

SENSible1* 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 07:22 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.