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.

Bad proposals

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-18-2004, 09:05 AM
  #1
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 17,753
vCash: 500
Bad proposals

I think all of these are just as bad as the players proposal. I'm still with the owners in that I believe the system is broken and must be fixed but the only one of these that comes remotely close to a fair system is the hard cap. I think the best system is somewhere in between the hard cap and the players offer. The problem is neither side is ready to give a little to the other side. Reminds me of that country song about the tree that stood the longest was the one that was strong enough to bend. I know, I know, stupid Nashville fan and their country music quotes.....

Owners proposals

triggrman is online now  
Old
11-18-2004, 10:16 PM
  #2
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Q: Bill, how can the numbers from Forbes magazine and the Levitt Report be so different?

Bill Daly: This is not a new phenomenon (Forbes has been publishing similarly inaccurate reports for years), and, in light of the lack of information upon which the estimates were based, is not surprising. Forbes did not have access to any of the relevant financial information one would need to determine Club operating results. As a result, the magazine made speculative "guesses," which are factually inaccurate.
http://nhlcbanews.com/dalymail/daly_mailbag111504.html

 
Old
11-18-2004, 10:59 PM
  #3
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,344
vCash: 500
IMO neither report is accurate, and the number fall somehwere in between. If I had to guess the true number are slightly closer to Forbes than the Levitt report.

Accountants and CFO's get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the numbers say what the players/owners want.

Before real numbers can be determined, there are a large number of philosophical questions that need to be answered.

Questions such as:

How much of the building naming rights get listed under hockey revenue ???
How much of the revenue from luxury suite rental gets listed under hockey revenue ???

How is it treated if for example:

L.A. Kings "lost" $30 million over the course of 6 years, but the value of the franchise went up by $60 million ???

There are a ton of other question like this that need to be determined long before true revenues/expenses can be determined.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
11-18-2004, 11:52 PM
  #4
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
IMO neither report is accurate, and the number fall somehwere in between. If I had to guess the true number are slightly closer to Forbes than the Levitt report.

Accountants and CFO's get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the numbers say what the players/owners want.

Before real numbers can be determined, there are a large number of philosophical questions that need to be answered.

Questions such as:

How much of the building naming rights get listed under hockey revenue ???
How much of the revenue from luxury suite rental gets listed under hockey revenue ???

How is it treated if for example:

L.A. Kings "lost" $30 million over the course of 6 years, but the value of the franchise went up by $60 million ???

There are a ton of other question like this that need to be determined long before true revenues/expenses can be determined.

The players and owners never need to agree on what is or isn't revenue. Both sides simply need to negotiate a definition that is acceptable to both and adjust their target % based on how far off they believe the numbers are from reality. Once each side has their target, they can then negotiate to a settlement that falls somewhere between their targets or trade off a lower/higher % for favourable terms in other areas of the CBA.

The give and take that is possible while negotiating under the umbrella of "cost certainty" allows for a multitude of possible outcomes, many of which could end up heavily favouring the players.

Of course, this assumes that the PA will be smart enough to come to the table.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 12:02 AM
  #5
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
The players and owners never need to agree on what is or isn't revenue. Both sides simply need to negotiate a definition that is acceptable to both and adjust their target % based on how far off they believe the numbers are from reality. Once each side has their target, they can then negotiate to a settlement that falls somewhere between their targets or trade off a lower/higher % for favourable terms in other areas of the CBA.

The give and take that is possible while negotiating under the umbrella of "cost certainty" allows for a multitude of possible outcomes, many of which could end up heavily favouring the players.

Of course, this assumes that the PA will be smart enough to come to the table.
If they don't define what revenues are/aren't then they can't negotiatie with the owners. the owners are looking to give the players 53% of revenues

The question is 53% of what ???


Now if you were goint to use a luxury tax system then defining what is, and what isn't considered hockey revenue would be far less important.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 01:25 AM
  #6
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
If they don't define what revenues are/aren't then they can't negotiatie with the owners. the owners are looking to give the players 53% of revenues

The question is 53% of what ???


Now if you were goint to use a luxury tax system then defining what is, and what isn't considered hockey revenue would be far less important.
The owners have spelled out their STARTING point for NEGOTIATIONS. No one on the owners side, not even in Bettman's wildest dreams, thinks they will come out the other end getting a system that uses their exact definition and their desired % if the players are smart enough to come to the table.

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 01:51 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.