Brian Burke Claim there is a Big Split on Replacement Players ..

[I in the Eye]

I'm a season ticket holder and wouldn't spend a cent on watching replacement players. If I'm "forced" to pay for replacement players and threatened with loss of season tickets, I'll let them go.

Agreed... As a regular game goer, if I'm contacted about spending $ on season tickets for replacement players, I will respectfully and kindly decline the invitation... 'No thanks, I'll wait until the NHL players come back... I may go to one or two games to watch replacement players (for the sake of novelty), but not regularly'...

I wonder what their response would be?... Are they arrogant enough to threaten to take my tickets away? Or will they be understanding and accomodating to me, a long-term customer?

My response to possibly losing my tickets (if the Canucks have the arrogance to actually do this) would be something like, 'I am not going to watch replacement players on a regular basis... I appreciate that you do not care if I actually watch or not - From your perspective, I could still go to the games and keep my eyes closed for all you care... You just want me to keep my $ with the Canucks (and I understand that)... If you give me prime rate interest for keeping my $ with the Canucks (something of value to me) - I'll hold on to my tickets... If you don't do this, and instead try to force me to spend $ regularly on replacement players (offering something of little value to me) - feel free to give my tickets to the 'next in line'...

Chances are I'll never hear from the Canucks again (the Canucks are popular, and die hard Canucks fans who can't normally justify the cost to go to games regularly, or perhaps have been on a waiting list for awhile, would probably jump on the chance to get my tickets)... and that's fine with me... I'll contact the Canucks again one day (I have no hard feelings against them - I don't agree with, but understand their position)... If after the replacement players do their thing, when the NHL players come back - I'll try to get my tickets again... If I can, great... If I can't, that's fine too... I'll watch the Canucks on TV until I can (I assume that one day, I'll be given the opportunity to be a regular game goer again)... I'm a ready, willing, and able customer who loves NHL hockey and the Canucks... How can that not be exploited...

 

[John Flyers Fan]

So the northeastern United States is not hockey country? What was Snider thinking?

New England and upstate New York is hockey country, but 40 years ago, Philadelphia and the South Jersey area were not hockey markets in the least.

And Snider started his cable network with the intention to broadcast Flyer games? Man, what a visionary!

In 1976 starting a cable network with the intention of broadcasting sporting events was extremely visionary. At the time less than 5% of the country even had cable.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

But Toronto can't have it both ways. They can't have a low salary cap AND not pay anything out in revenue sharing. A cap anywhere in the $40's would save them $20 million a year at least, less say $10 or $15 for revenue sharing and they're still a heck of a lot more profitable.

What makes you think Toronto wants a low salary cap? Toronto was doing just fine in the old CBA world. Toronto has been held hostage by Gary Bettman to try and save those not even worth saving.

 

[CGG]

What makes you think Toronto wants a low salary cap? Toronto was doing just fine in the old CBA world. Toronto has been held hostage by Gary Bettman to try and save those not even worth saving.

I thought every owner was on the same page and had pledged their unwavering, undying love and support for Bettman?

Toronto is getting shafted, sure. And they were just fine under the old CBA. Haven't ever heard them complain about a salary cap though, and why would they, it's the chance to make an extra $20 million a year just by forceably slashing payroll, and they can use the "salary cap" excuse year in year out as to why they don't win. They complain about revenue sharing, but not a salary cap.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

btw, the Leafs have got no revenue left to share. Sorry folks. Just fold. http://www.mapleleafs.com/story.ml?title=Press_Releases&ctype=Press_Releases&n=4804&e=AdminGroup

 

[mooseOAK*]

I thought every owner was on the same page and had pledged their unwavering, undying love and support for Bettman?

Toronto is getting shafted, sure. And they were just fine under the old CBA. Haven't ever heard them complain about a salary cap though, and why would they, it's the chance to make an extra $20 million a year just by forceably slashing payroll, and they can use the "salary cap" excuse year in year out as to why they don't win. They complain about revenue sharing, but not a salary cap.

It really doesn't matter what the Leafs' opinion on a salary cap is because the majority rules in the NHL, and they are in the minority. To say that they automatically went from a team willing to spend money to get better to one that is more concerned to adding more money to the bottom line is ridiculous.

 

[Mess]

$20m range isn't a problem ie $20m-$40m would work just fine for the owners. I think $22.5m-$42.5m would be best (plenty of salary cap room for rebuilding).

TO is being peculiar in this. They are getting upset at giving $15m of the teachers retirement money to other teams but happy to give $25-30m (above cap) of the teachers retirement money to players.

That's because Smart Businessmen know that it takes money to make money .. and the more your Spend the more opportunity you have to make more ...

The old you get what you pay for cliché ...


Which option is more preferable and profitable to Microsoft ??

Would a company like Microsoft make more or less money, by outlaying more in development, recruitment of higher skilled employees, buying out the competition, marketing and growing their business, using its financial clout as an advantage, or should Bill Gates cap spending and bring them more inline with their competition to make MORE PROFIT ?? ?

 

[CGG]

It really doesn't matter what the Leafs' opinion on a salary cap is because the majority rules in the NHL, and they are in the minority. To say that they automatically went from a team willing to spend money to get better to one that is more concerned to adding more money to the bottom line is ridiculous.

Shouldn't every team's opinion matter and be considered? If their opinion doesn't matter on a salary cap, why does it apparently matter on revenue sharing? If it is simple majority, wouldn't the 20 or so teams that lost money last year all vote FOR revenue sharing?

Point is, they won't be able to spend now to get better. Not that it really helped in the last 38 years anyway. Fortunately, this negative is countered by a ridiculously huge increase in profits, which makes it much easier to accept a salary cap.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Shouldn't every team's opinion matter and be considered? If their opinion doesn't matter on a salary cap, why does it apparently matter on revenue sharing? If it is simple majority, wouldn't the 20 or so teams that lost money last year all vote FOR revenue sharing?

Point is, they won't be able to spend now to get better. Not that it really helped in the last 38 years anyway. Fortunately, this negative is countered by a ridiculously huge increase in profits, which makes it much easier to accept a salary cap.

The Flyers lost money last season but I don't see the other large market teams sending them any money. You seem to be a trifle confused about where the money would be going.

The past gloriousness of the Canadiens means squat to them now so we all have to deal with the present and the unknown future. The Canadiens are a team that complained that a $42.5 million cap was too high so they must want to make money also.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

That's because Smart Businessmen know that it takes money to make money .. and the more your Spend the more opportunity you have to make more ...

The old you get what you pay for cliché ...


Which option is more preferable and profitable to Microsoft ??

Would a company like Microsoft make more or less money, by outlaying more in development, recruitment of higher skilled employees, buying out the competition, marketing and growing their business, using its financial clout as an advantage, or should Bill Gates cap spending and bring them more inline with their competition to make MORE PROFIT ?? ?

Smart Businessmen also only spend a dollar when they know they will make two.

Microsoft is a brilliant company to bring up. I wonder what the Justice Department would have to say on the topic, especially when it comes to business practices? As well, you speak of an inferior product being put on the ice in replacement players, but then promote Microsoft and their not ready for prime-time product line as shining example of all that is good? You're always good for a laugh, that is for certain.

 

[CGG]

The Flyers lost money last season but I don't see the other large market teams sending them any money. You seem to be a trifle confused about where the money would be going.

The past gloriousness of the Canadiens means squat to them now so we all have to deal with the present and the unknown future. The Canadiens are a team that complained that a $42.5 million cap was too high so they must want to make money also.

Good luck convincing yourself the Flyers lost money last year. Their president even admitted there are 2 sets of books, and the one that doesn't go to the league is more "accurate". Besides, chop $20 million off the Flyers' payroll and I think they're doing okay financially.

I've got no problems with Montreal or anyone else for that matter wanting to make a profit. They actually did last year, or came pretty damn close to breaking even, depending on who you listen to, with a payroll somewhere around $42 million, so don't believe everything you hear. Montreal is hammered by a hefty property tax bill and a large chunk of debt left on their arena, plus the CDN dollar (which is much better than it used to be), things that most teams don't have to deal with. Add in a bunch of horrible contracts that are now over (McKay, Czerkawski, Brisebois, Audette, Dykhuis, etc etc).

 

[Morbo]

Good luck convincing yourself the Flyers lost money last year. Their president even admitted there are 2 sets of books, and the one that doesn't go to the league is more "accurate". Besides, chop $20 million off the Flyers' payroll and I think they're doing okay financially.

Isn't one of the prime tenets of the pro-owner position that the players have simply refused to look at "the books"?

 

[HockeyCritter]

Good luck convincing yourself the Flyers lost money last year. Their president even admitted there are 2 sets of books, and the one that doesn't go to the league is more "accurate". Besides, chop $20 million off the Flyers' payroll and I think they're doing okay financially.

[...]

I imagine that quite a few agencies would be interested in reviewing this said set of double books . . . . . that practice is illegal.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Isn't one of the prime tenets of the pro-owner position that the players have simply refused to look at "the books"?

Did not the Pens, Sharks, Phoenix, and Chicago (or was it St. Louis) publicly state they have offered to share their books with the PA on numerous occasions and were refused each time? Did not Levitt offer to sit with the PA and discuss his finds only to have his offer refused as well?

There is certainly more than a grain of truth to that particular claim.

 

[Morbo]

Did not the Pens, Sharks, Phoenix, and Chicago (or was it St. Louis) publicly state they have offered to share their books with the PA on numerous occasions and were refused each time? Did not Levitt offer to sit with the PA and discuss his finds only to have his offer refused as well?

There is certainly more than a grain of truth to that particular claim.

Now look at the quote I was commenting on. What is your response to that?

 

[CGG]

I imagine that quite a few agencies would be interested in reviewing this said set of double books . . . . . that practice is illegal.

No it's not. URO's are not legal documents, they are put together just for fun. So long as the books they use for tax returns are the "correct" books, it's in the NHL and team's best interests to report a different batch of numbers on the URO.

 

[PecaFan]

Good luck convincing yourself the Flyers lost money last year. Their president even admitted there are 2 sets of books, and the one that doesn't go to the league is more "accurate".

No, the guy said there were two *reports*. Geezus, Wetcoaster kept repeating that same falsehood over and over, and I repeatedly called him on it:

After the Levitt Report came out, Philadelphia Flyers chairman Ed Snider revealed his team was one of the 19 NHL teams the report said lost money in 2002-03. Team president Ron Ryan said the Flyers weren't among the teams whose bottom line was colored in red ink.

"Where it becomes confusing," Ryan told the Philadelphia Inquirer, "is that it sounds like there are two sets of books. The difference is that the report we make to the league, as directed by the players' association, is different from our own internal audited statement, which we view as the more accurate statement. So we were talking about two different reports."

 

[Weary]

No, the guy said there were two *reports*. Geezus, Wetcoaster kept repeating that same falsehood over and over, and I repeatedly called him on it:

So when the NHLPA passed on reviewing the Levitt report, they weren't actually refusing to "look at the books." It seems the UROs don't accurately represent each team's actual financial performance.

 

[tantalum]

So when the NHLPA passed on reviewing the Levitt report, they weren't actually refusing to "look at the books." It seems the UROs don't accurately represent each team's actual financial performance.

No they actually passed on the look at the books and on reviewing the Levitt report. Prior to the league getting Levitt they asked the PA to appoint a person of their own choosing. They refused to do so and refuesed to participate in it. Which is why the league went out and got the guy with the best reputation in the industry to do it.

A URO is different from a balance sheet for a company. The URO's for one thing contain any affiliated businesses with common ownership that a balance sheet would not. In fact it is the balance cheet that in all likelihood do not accurately reflect all revenue streams and expenses of the club and direct affiliates. The URO's are set up to reflect all those revenue streams and expenses and can be compiled from audited statements. Which is what Levitt looked at...do the URO's reflect what is on all those balance sheets for the club and affiliated businesses (i.e. parking, boxes, suvenirs etc.)? He concluded they were an accurate statement of monies earned by the ownership group directly from NHL events.

 

[Morbo]

No they actually passed on the look at the books and on reviewing the Levitt report. Prior to the league getting Levitt they asked the PA to appoint a person of their own choosing. They refused to do so and refuesed to participate in it. Which is why the league went out and got the guy with the best reputation in the industry to do it.

To do what?

The Levitt report was not an audit. It was a review of team-prepared summary documents. Inviting the players to look at numbers they have massaged to look a certain way is an empty offer, and that's why it was refused.

A URO is different from a balance sheet for a company. The URO's for one thing contain any affiliated businesses with common ownership that a balance sheet would not. In fact it is the balance cheet that in all likelihood do not accurately reflect all revenue streams and expenses of the club and direct affiliates.

The URO's are set up to reflect all those revenue streams and expenses and can be compiled from audited statements. Which is what Levitt looked at...do the URO's reflect what is on all those balance sheets for the club and affiliated businesses (i.e. parking, boxes, suvenirs etc.)? He concluded they were an accurate statement of monies earned by the ownership group directly from NHL events.

http://ordinaryleastsquare.typepad.com/dubi/2004/03/reading_compreh.html

I suggest you read this link.

 

[CGG]

No they actually passed on the look at the books and on reviewing the Levitt report. Prior to the league getting Levitt they asked the PA to appoint a person of their own choosing. They refused to do so and refuesed to participate in it. Which is why the league went out and got the guy with the best reputation in the industry to do it.

A URO is different from a balance sheet for a company. The URO's for one thing contain any affiliated businesses with common ownership that a balance sheet would not. In fact it is the balance cheet that in all likelihood do not accurately reflect all revenue streams and expenses of the club and direct affiliates. The URO's are set up to reflect all those revenue streams and expenses and can be compiled from audited statements. Which is what Levitt looked at...do the URO's reflect what is on all those balance sheets for the club and affiliated businesses (i.e. parking, boxes, suvenirs etc.)? He concluded they were an accurate statement of monies earned by the ownership group directly from NHL events.

I'd ask for my money back from wherever you got your accounting degree. Balance sheets show asset & liability balances, not revenues and expenses. Oops. And there's something called consolidated financial statements, that actually do show all the revenue streams and expenses of the club and all its affiliated companies.

You're right about one thing, a URO is different than a company's own records. Messed up calculations of something called "net revenue" and some favorable omissions, like including minor league salaries without including minor league revenues. If you want to learn, look at Russ Conway's dissection of the Levitt report.

All that Levitt concluded is that he made $250,000 and that the numbers sorta look like they are in fact numbers, they were all added up properly, and teams filled out the forms in a way that matches the league's definition of what a URO should look like.

 

[tantalum]

I'd ask for my money back from wherever you got your accounting degree. Balance sheets show asset & liability balances, not revenues and expenses. Oops. And there's something called consolidated financial statements, that actually do show all the revenue streams and expenses of the club and all its affiliated companies.

I messed up and wrote balance sheet instead of income statement. The net income shows up on the balance sheet from my understanding and according to my accounting text.

You're right about one thing, a URO is different than a company's own records. Messed up calculations of something called "net revenue" and some favorable omissions, like including minor league salaries without including minor league revenues. If you want to learn, look at Russ Conway's dissection of the Levitt report.

It includes minor league salaries that the NHL club pays (one way contracts) yet the NHL team does not receive the minor league teams revenue. Atleast from what I read. The other thing is even if that is the case for two-way contracts that might account for about $30 mil of the $270 mil loss. AS well if you actually looked into the numbers you'd find that some teams do indeed include some additional revenue...such as the flames including all and every piece of arena revenue (including concert and Hitmen) revenues which need not be included. I agree that some universal rules need to be in place but those rules are add some to the revenues while removing some other revenues.

All that Levitt concluded is that he made $250,000 and that the numbers sorta look like they are in fact numbers, they were all added up properly, and teams filled out the forms in a way that matches the league's definition of what a URO should look like.

Perhaps you should look at the Levitt report and read what it actually says.

 

[tantalum]

To do what?

The Levitt report was not an audit. It was a review of team-prepared summary documents. Inviting the players to look at numbers they have massaged to look a certain way is an empty offer, and that's why it was refused.

For goodness sakes Goodenow and Saskin have both admitted the league offered them to look at the books and the numbers for all teams and they refused to do so because they aren't interested in having the discussion on the reveune streams.

 

[kdb209]

All that Levitt concluded is that he made $250,000 and that the numbers sorta look like they are in fact numbers, they were all added up properly, and teams filled out the forms in a way that matches the league's definition of what a URO should look like.

Have you actually read the Levitt Report?

Him (and his team) did a lot more than rubber stamp the teams UROs. They had access to the teams audited books and did their own external benchmarking to independently check the reasonableness of declared affiliate business revenues.

From the man himself:

Assignment:
My assignment was to make findings and reach conclusions as to:

A. Whether the instructions governing the report of financial information requested by the League's URO adequately and appropriately account for and captures the relevant revenues and expenses associated with operating a professional hockey franchise in the NHL.

B. Whether, based on the use of such verification and other procedures as I deemed appropriate, the member clubs of the NHL have accurately reported the financial information requested by the League's UROs.

C. Whether the treatment of affiliated or related company income in the URO is: (a) reasonable for the purposes of measuring the relevant revenues and expenses associated with operating a professional hockey franchise in the NHL; (b) similar to the treatment of affiliated or related company income in the calculation of Basketball Related Income ("BRI"), as that term is defined in the NBA/NBPA collective bargaining agreement; and (c) similar to the treatment of affiliated or related company income in the calculation of Defined Gross Revenue ("DGR"), as that term is defined in the NFL/NFLPA collective bargaining agreement.

D. Whether the current relationship between League-wide player costs and League-wide revenues is consistent with reasonable and sound business practices in this industry.

Conclusions:
In accordance with my assignment and based upon the independent review of the books and records of the League, its member clubs and their affiliates as more fully described in the report below, it is my opinion that:

A. The instructions governing the report of financial information by the teams through the URO, adequately and appropriately account for and capture all revenues and expenses associated with operating a professional hockey franchise in the NHL.

B. Based upon the verification and other procedures as set forth below, it is my opinion that the teams of the NHL have, in all material respects, accurately reported the financial information requested by the League's UROs. The combined URO presents a comprehensive and accurate statement, in all material respects, of the combined financial results of the entire League, its teams and affiliated and related-parties with respect to all hockey and hockey-related businesses of the League and its member teams. For the 2002-2003 season, the NHL has reported combined operating revenues of $1.996 billion and a combined operating loss of $273 million before accounting for interest and depreciation expenses.

C. The treatment of affiliated or related-party income in the combined URO reasonably measures the relevant revenues and expenses associated with operating a professional hockey franchise in the NHL in all material respects and is similar to the agreed-upon measures used in the NBA collective bargaining agreement in calculating the related-party revenues that it shares with the players.

D. The current relationship between League-wide player costs and League-wide revenues is inconsistent with reasonable and sound business practices. Player costs of $1.494 billion or 75% of revenues substantially exceed such relationships in both the NBA and the NFL as those relationships are set forth in their collective bargaining agreements.

 

[Morbo]

Perhaps you should look at the Levitt report and read what it actually says.

You are giving the very strong impression that you need to follow your own advice here. Did you read through the link I gave you?