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.

Larry Brooks criticizes McKenzie/TSN

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-06-2005, 12:33 PM
  #26
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
TSN
SPORTSNET
THE SCORE
THE FAN 590
and another Canadian outlet I'm not familiar with.
The other Canadian outlet was Global. I noticed that as well, and I have to say, that doesn't bode well for the NHL. It's a visual that pretty much sums up the state of the league.

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 12:37 PM
  #27
TwineSniper
Registered User
 
TwineSniper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to TwineSniper
Y'know there is a fine line between defending a respectable journalist and kissing the ass of someone who posts here.

j/k guys.

TwineSniper is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 12:50 PM
  #28
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,657
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Why? Larry speaks the truth. McKenzie has been pro-owner from the start.
Nope. McKenzie has been frustratingly neutral throughout this whole thing. I thought you said you read his columns on the TSN site?

Seachd is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 01:13 PM
  #29
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
If I choose to believe that the Levitt report because his team actually had access to NHL numbers, as opposed to some Forbes guessing game who had NO numbers...am I really "mis-informed and "mis-guided"?
Yes.

Quote:
Why should McKenzie and TSN spend a whole bunch of time and resources trying to discredit a report, when the union that says the numbers "just aren't true", refuses to do the same?
Because it is McKenzie's job to inform the public of what is going on. The PA has no obligation to tell the public anything. They only need to inform their members.

Quote:
The Levitt report is not a forensic audit, i think that much is clear, and Bettman was silly for suggesting it was. However, it doesn't change the FACT that Levitt has invited the union to go over his findings with him, and they still wont do it.
Why would they? What is the point of wasting time to do so when they'd have to sign a non-disclosure agreement to do so and then the numbers are only what the owners wanted to provide.

Quote:
Yup...im misinformed allright.
Glad we agree on something.

Quote:
As for Brooks prattling off that nonsense about McKenzie...what a joke. The guy is one of the biggest PA lackeys goiong and has NEVER been afraid to only write one side of the story. But he has the cajones and audacity to call someone else out for allegedly doing the same thing?
Just because the majority of the media doesn't see through the deception of the owners and while Brooks does, does not make him a lackey. Why would he have to call out the other side? There are plenty of people who are have vested interest in supporting the owners to do that in the media.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 01:13 PM
  #30
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
That last part is priceless



Finally, you've got to love this part of the league's last proposal, Section 12 that provides for an independent audit of club finances with penalties of $2M and the loss of a first-round pick for a first offense of failing to disclose required information, and a fine of $5M and loss of three first-rounders for a second such offense. But I thought Arthur Levitt already vouched for the accuracy of the league financial reports?

The NHL has to put in special clauses in a CBA to address owners that intend to misrepresent revenue ..and Bettman says Lets be Partners to the NHLPA and you get 55% of everything we are able to catch them not hiding .. :lol

So because there are laws saying you'll be punished if you're caught murdering somebody, everybody is inherently a murderer? That's basically what you're saying.

I fail to see how that is anything but a positive for the NHLPA.

Bill McNeal is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 01:18 PM
  #31
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Albino
So because there are laws saying you'll be punished if you're caught murdering somebody, everybody is inherently a murderer? That's basically what you're saying.

I fail to see how that is anything but a positive for the NHLPA.
Fair Enough ..

The NHL drops the linkage from their Proposal and they can also take out this clause on behalf of the NHLPA ..

and lets negotiate ..

Mess is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 01:20 PM
  #32
EricBowser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 174
vCash: 500
BRG - You missed the whole point about the NHLPA not doing their own audit, it isn't to inform the public, it is to inform the players.

NHLPA has no firm basis to dispute the league's report because they have yet to do their own audit.

Until then, the NHLPA and their siders should clam up and think of another avenue to criticize the league.

EricBowser is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 01:21 PM
  #33
handtrick
Registered User
 
handtrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 3,111
vCash: 500
Hockey journalism [and I use that word very loosely in Brook's case] has reached an all-time low .......the only thing worse, is the absolute absence of coverage in the American press

handtrick is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 01:25 PM
  #34
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,657
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Yes.
You expect people to take you seriously with an answer like that? Why not back it up? Show us proof that we're misguided.

Seachd is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 01:26 PM
  #35
Des Louise
Formerly E=CH2
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 17,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by handtrick
Hockey journalism [and I use that word very loosely in Brook's case] has reached an all-time low .......the only thing worse, is the absolute absence of coverage in the American press
I disagree, I think it's actually much better not to report anything than do what Crook-Brook's doing.

Des Louise is online now  
Old
02-06-2005, 01:40 PM
  #36
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Just because the majority of the media doesn't see through the deception of the owners and while Brooks does, does not make him a lackey. Why would he have to call out the other side? There are plenty of people who are have vested interest in supporting the owners to do that in the media.
What deception? Hockey's ratings equal arena football and MLS in the US, as a business that's the salary structure the game should have but no one wants to hear that hockey has fallen this far. People in the US for the most part do not know or care there is a lockout.

It's interesting that Brooks brings nothing to any article about the team he covers even though they claim the most losses of anyone. It's even more interesting the Post publisher blast James Dolan but Brooks does not do likewise.

This is the man who one week demands Rangers must come for the pride of the sweater and the next he gives his plan to force the Flames to hand over Iginla and put him in a market where he would be superstar #20.

It's kind of like the shell-game Brooks pulled during the 2002 finals when he fought as NHLPA President to keep amateur writers out of the finals, he appealed, lost and appealed again. What makes this interesting is he did not lobby his own readers or let them know what he was doing and why.

Who broke the story of what Brooks was doing? Red Fisher in the Montreal Gazette and he pulled no punches on Brooks or his tactics.

NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 01:43 PM
  #37
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
You expect people to take you seriously with an answer like that? Why not back it up? Show us proof that we're misguided.
I don't think anyone is really taking him seriously anymore, he has spouted so much crap & been proven totally wrong so many times that his reputation is about as good as Brooks'. Then again, they could be the same person.

Pepper is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 01:47 PM
  #38
Captain Lou
Registered User
 
Captain Lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 4,002
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Captain Lou
I am no fan of him, but you Brooks bashers need to take a look in the mirror.

First of all, he has an opposing viewpoint, which immediately undermines his credibility in many people's eyes (esp. on this board). This opinion is the minority opinion at that, which makes him an easy target for the so-called "80%" who favor the owners in this lockout. Remember, it very difficult to hold the line of the side that almost no one believes.

I, for one, highly doubt that everything he has written is true. I also do not believe much of what Bettman and Co. have said about their finances. This is a negotiation over revenue in the billions. Would it not serve the league's purpose to "skew the numbers" so they could get a bigger slice of the pie? And all of you people bought hook, line and sinker. In the dealings I have had with management, I have always found that all they are wont to do in any situation, not just a CBA process, is get away with whatever they can--and that includes presenting falsehoods as facts, and taking cetain other facts and twisting them to reinforce their belief system. I am not saying that the league has done any of this, and no one else here knows for sure. I just think it is imprudent to pass judgement on a topic when hearing only one side of the story. I think the term is "Drinking the Kool-Aid"?

Could it just be the main problem that most of you have with Brooks is that he is writing stuff that just MAY be true, which would refute and dispel some or all of your beliefs that Bettman has told you over the past 18-24 months? That maybe all the league is trying to do is "get away with whatever they can", and using disinformation to sway the court of public opinion?

The fact that Brooks speaks out against the league is all the more reason why you should read him and objectively decide whether he is right or wrong on any of a myriad of topics, because while neither side has been forthcoming with their truths, many people here just take what Brooks writes and dismisses it without a thought, just because he makes up trade rumors.

Captain Lou is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 01:47 PM
  #39
handtrick
Registered User
 
handtrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 3,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH²
I disagree, I think it's actually much better not to report anything than do what Crook-Brook's doing.
I understand your point, but the obvious bias and ridiculous statements of Brooks stirs emotion and keeps hockey in the foreground of the public.....the silence of the American media in general, fosters only apathy and neglect.....and I don't think, at this point, silence, apathy, and neglect are what hockey in general, and the NHL in particular, need at this point in the US.

handtrick is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 01:48 PM
  #40
JimmyPage
Registered User
 
JimmyPage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,049
vCash: 500
This is the equivelant of Lonny Bohonos calling out Mario Lemieux. Larry who?

JimmyPage is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 01:51 PM
  #41
Des Louise
Formerly E=CH2
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 17,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1

It's kind of like the shell-game Brooks pulled during the 2002 finals when he fought as NHLPA President to keep amateur writers out of the finals, he appealed, lost and appealed again. What makes this interesting is he did not lobby his own readers or let them know what he was doing and why.

Who broke the story of what Brooks was doing? Red Fisher in the Montreal Gazette and he pulled no punches on Brooks or his tactics.
I heard about this, you don't happen to have a link huh ? I can't find it over the net... I'd really like to read that.

Des Louise is online now  
Old
02-06-2005, 02:16 PM
  #42
Marconius
Registered User
 
Marconius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I am no fan of him, but you Brooks bashers need to take a look in the mirror.

First of all, he has an opposing viewpoint, which immediately undermines his credibility in many people's eyes (esp. on this board). This opinion is the minority opinion at that, which makes him an easy target for the so-called "80%" who favor the owners in this lockout. Remember, it very difficult to hold the line of the side that almost no one believes.
.
I think, for the most part, this thread has done a very good job of separating its conflicting NHL vs NHLPA views, and instead are calling Brooks to task for his blatent hypocricy regarding his statements about McKenzie. I find that a lot of times, people try to defend Brooks or the NHLPA simply to try and balance out the boards. I think this is a good thing. Hf is majority owner-supportive, and any poster who wants to take it upon themselves to argue for the NHLPA is doing a good job of increasing the critical thinking around here instead of allowing this to fall into "Brooks is fat & stupid, players are greedy & selfish" type posts.

That being said, I think that sometimes the pro-NHLPA posters are trying to defend things that are so obviously sketchy that they begin to drown. This is one of those times. I don't think there is anyone here, pro-NHLPA or not, would would claim that each & every reporter is 100% objective. It's simply not possible. Some reporters are worse then others however, and for Brooks to call McKenzie's integrity into question is ......laughable. I'm not saying the NHLPA view is laughable, or that Brooks never makes any good points, but c'mon, for him to question something like objectivity is just downright retarded.

Marconius is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 02:18 PM
  #43
Hoek
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Country: Argentina
Posts: 774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Could it just be the main problem that most of you have with Brooks is that he is writing stuff that just MAY be true, which would refute and dispel some or all of your beliefs that Bettman has told you over the past 18-24 months?
Nope. He's right up there (or down there rather) with Eklund as far as accuracy goes. He does the exact same thing as that guy in fact (including posting hundreds of bogus trade/FA rumors), except he actually IS a published hockey writer. Unbelievable.

Hoek is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 02:31 PM
  #44
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I am no fan of him, but you Brooks bashers need to take a look in the mirror.

First of all, he has an opposing viewpoint, which immediately undermines his credibility in many people's eyes (esp. on this board). This opinion is the minority opinion at that, which makes him an easy target for the so-called "80%" who favor the owners in this lockout. Remember, it very difficult to hold the line of the side that almost no one believes.
It's not a question of bashing for the skake of doing so and it's not about taking one side. This is not the right media person to be taking a stand because he has proven out not to be credible with his stories and sources several times over. This man will write one week Jason Smith is going to be a Ranger meanwhile the next week the Edmonton Journal will even dismiss Brooks and his rumor as completely baseless.

If Kevin Dupont or Red Fisher or Michael Russo waged Brooks campaign I would be much more inclined to respect it because these people have proven they do not come with an agenda. The Pittsburgh writers are outstanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I, for one, highly doubt that everything he has written is true. I also do not believe much of what Bettman and Co. have said about their finances. This is a negotiation over revenue in the billions. Would it not serve the league's purpose to "skew the numbers" so they could get a bigger slice of the pie? And all of you people bought hook, line and sinker. In the dealings I have had with management, I have always found that all they are wont to do in any situation, not just a CBA process, is get away with whatever they can--and that includes presenting falsehoods as facts, and taking cetain other facts and twisting them to reinforce their belief system. I am not saying that the league has done any of this, and no one else here knows for sure. I just think it is imprudent to pass judgement on a topic when hearing only one side of the story. I think the term is "Drinking the Kool-Aid"?
I don't know if the NHL is being honest or not about it's finances. I tend to think the former chairman of the SEC did do an honest job with what he was given and would not have signed on to conduct nothing more than propaganda scam based on skewed information. Forbes yearly estimate with no info showed losses and the NHLPA salary reduction offer all confirm this business is not doing very well. It's not Drinking the Kool-Aid to acknowledge that Espn/Fox and Abc are not interested in paying much or anything at all to cover hockey. The media's lack of coverage is also no illusion brought up by management, neither are the television ratings. That's a reality that can no longer be spun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Could it just be the main problem that most of you have with Brooks is that he is writing stuff that just MAY be true, which would refute and dispel some or all of your beliefs that Bettman has told you over the past 18-24 months? That maybe all the league is trying to do is "get away with whatever they can", and using disinformation to sway the court of public opinion?
The problem most folks have with Brooks is he has proven his work is not credible as to what's happening. He also has no prayer of the Rangers competing with the large market teams in the city. If the 500 million dollar team teams played in obscurity going on close to a decade with all those star players imagine how rough it will become if the Rangers must ice a 40 million dollar team with no ability to add stars?

That's Brooks true agenda.

Strachan also knows that would be a problem in Toronto but the Leafs own their market. In NYC hockey is invisible with very weak coverage. The only regular Sunday column is from Brooks, that's how obscure hockey is here.

The fans do not need any writer to know the truth, hockey fans are generally
die-hards and know what's going on. We know owners created these problems and no player should have turned down a contract and owners cannot be trusted to keep a salary structure without a cap. That said the players are going to have to acknowledge this game needs cost-certainty, it's not Goodenow's problem, he wants his free market.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
The fact that Brooks speaks out against the league is all the more reason why you should read him and objectively decide whether he is right or wrong on any of a myriad of topics, because while neither side has been forthcoming with their truths, many people here just take what Brooks writes and dismisses it without a thought, just because he makes up trade rumors.
I think you answered your own question. If he has to make up things when hockey is being played what is he going to make up without hockey being played?

Making comments against Bob McKenzie is not scoring points with the fans, neither was his shot at the Toronto Star before that.


Last edited by NYIsles1*: 02-06-2005 at 02:45 PM.
NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 04:24 PM
  #45
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
What deception? Hockey's ratings equal arena football and MLS in the US, as a business that's the salary structure the game should have.
The fact that you even suggest that shows you have absolutely no clue about how the business operates. Please explain why TV ratings are the sole determinant of the financial success of a sports league. I'd love to hear this.


As for the thread as a whole, I agree that Brooks criticizing McKenzie is not only laughable but hypocritical. On the other hand, I find it pretty hypocritical how people trash on Healey and then kiss Brian Burke's rear end, when both of them are simply spouting off biased positions from opposite ends of the spectrum.

Epsilon is online now  
Old
02-06-2005, 04:38 PM
  #46
WHARF1940
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: down in a hole
Country: United States
Posts: 832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
I haven't read the story, but this is a fair criticism of McKenzie, but it really applies to the Canadian media as a whole. I would have loved to have seen TSN really dig in and assess the credibility of the statements each side is making. Some of the stuff coming from the Oilers ownership just doesn't make sense, but it's accepted like the word of God.

That said, as Red Fisher said in his book, "My favourite four letter word is 'fair'", and I don't think anyone can make a credible argument that McKenzie hasn't been fair during the lockout.
This was the point I was trying to make in an earlier thread. The Media has accepted everything at face value thus far. I will agree that McKenzie has been the most objective of the three, Healy should be shot, and while Burke is pro-owner a little, I like his take on most things the best.

But the bottom line is, this has been handled terribly by the media. I can't believe I got beat up by you guys on this board for saying this in that earlier thread. Everything reported on NEVER has a shred of anything even remotely resembling anything but pessimism, even when things deserve a little bit of a brighter light shone upon them. So many harmless or even slightly positive stories are spun so negatively it seems like they are TRYING to piss us off (sportsnet seems to be the worst offender to me). I guess it keeps us watching, I for one have spent more time following the lockout then I do following the reg. season. That's sad, but i doubt I am the only one.

A good example is all of us hearing things that people who are familiar with negotiations like this through message boards and a few radio stations, but never from the print media. Most casual observers have no clue that everything that is going on is PR and BS!

WHARF1940 is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 04:44 PM
  #47
Des Louise
Formerly E=CH2
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 17,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by handtrick
I understand your point, but the obvious bias and ridiculous statements of Brooks stirs emotion and keeps hockey in the foreground of the public.....the silence of the American media in general, fosters only apathy and neglect.....and I don't think, at this point, silence, apathy, and neglect are what hockey in general, and the NHL in particular, need at this point in the US.
At one point misinformation becomes even more detrimental than no information. But then again some say any press is good press. Anyway your point is well taken.

Des Louise is online now  
Old
02-06-2005, 04:50 PM
  #48
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
The difference between Burke and Healy:

Burke forms his own opinion based on a pro-owner background.
Healy is fed his opinion from the PA.

This is why Burke will criticize the owners for some of their moves, but Healy never will criticize the players.

Brooks criticizing McKenzie is also blatently absurd.

Egil is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 04:51 PM
  #49
WHARF1940
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: down in a hole
Country: United States
Posts: 832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricBowser
Being a union member as a reporter does not mean you just drop all journalistic integrity by personally insulting people like Gary Bettman or provide outright lies on the subject.

Face it, NHLPA and NHL is using the media to make sure they are being represented during the lockout and that disgusts me.

Journalists should not be receiving special gifts, favors, and money for what their employer is paying them to do with integrity.
I am a union butcher and I say F the PA!!! they are not a real union, half the reason to be in a union is to have wages set, at a fair, but CAPPED rate so that there is no fighting amongst employees and their respective company and vice versa. Most unions have a tiered system with caps on different job titles. I make just as much as the guy next to me, but not as much as the boss, and more than the kid who cleans up, the way it should be. Eliminates nonsense like this. Accept it players, the rest of us have and are very happy with it!!!

WHARF1940 is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 04:53 PM
  #50
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricBowser
BRG - You missed the whole point about the NHLPA not doing their own audit, it isn't to inform the public, it is to inform the players.

NHLPA has no firm basis to dispute the league's report because they have yet to do their own audit.

Until then, the NHLPA and their siders should clam up and think of another avenue to criticize the league.
They had previously audited the books of four NHL teams and came up with $50M in revenues that weren't accounted for. They know not to believe the owners cries of poverty that have existed for decades.

YellHockey* 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 12:40 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.