Fans support Owners vs. Players because................

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,584
1,260
Montreal, QC
Thinkwild,
I understand what you're saying, and even though a lot of fans of small market teams can rationalize losing key players by saying, "oh well, he's going to the Rangers, he'll never win anything", it still doesn't change the fact that if you're a fan in Edmonton you are tired of seeing your team in a constant state of flux. Yes, the logo on the jersey is all that matters, but I think in Edmonton there's a very strong belief that their team can not win the whole enchalada any more...and when you're used to winning it all, it's kinda hard to come to grips with reality.

Anyways, great discussion!

:yo:
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
mr gib said:
if the players accept a cap - we will expand revenue sharing - its typical owner rhetoric - probably the ultimate solution though - which circles back to determining league revenue - which is the major
issue with the players - the owners are cooking the books in their favour -

Gord Miller: You've heard the quote before that using generally accepted accounting principles you can take a $5 million profit and make it a $5 million loss. Why would the players believe you when you have situations like Buffalo where the Rigas family faced criminal charges, Bruce McNall went to prison for financial malfeasance. Why would-with a long history of distrust, why would the players believe you?



Bill Daly: Well, none of those issues had to deal anything at all with our unified report of operations. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of clubs in our league who, as legal entities report far less revenues than we record as part of our unified report of operations. Again, the goal of our unified report of operations is to report all hockey-related revenues, wherever it shows up, even if it's in a totally separate entity from the hockey club - if it's in an arena company, if it's in a concert management company, if it's in a concession company. All those revenues are reported as part of our unified report of operations. Now, let me finish because you're going to ask me, "Well how can the players be sure those are real numbers?" And, you know, I heard from the Players Association for 3 or 4 years - publicly, not privately - that while they're unaudited numbers, you know garbage in, garbage out, so we went out and hired Arthur Levitt to audit the books of all of our clubs to verify the accuracy of our unified report of operations. Arthur Levitt is the longest-standing chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, somebody of unassailable integrity and experience in financial reporting - quality financial reporting. He went in, did his own independent analysis of these businesses-

Bill Daly: Well I mean, I think, unfortunately, we've done everything within our power to try to get the players to believe our numbers. It's really the union that's responsible here, not the players. Five-and-a-half years ago, in March, when we reached out to the Players Association, we expressly invited them to hire an independent auditor of their choice to come in and verify our numbers. They chose not to do that, and yet continued to be critical publicly of our numbers even after we'd gone through a minor economic study group to verify those numbers, so taking the position it's garbage in, garbage out, it's unaudited, we hired an auditor to come in and look at it, and they still want to have problems with our numbers. We're done talking about our numbers. There are no issues with respect to the financial losses facing this league, and anybody who's involved in this industry in a meaningful way knows this league is hurting. So the Players Association - schizophrenic in their views as they always are - don't want to acknowledge it at this point and that's their problem and not ours.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=101548
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,584
1,260
Montreal, QC
mr gib said:
if the players accept a cap - we will expand revenue sharing - its typical owner rhetoric - probably the ultimate solution though - which circles back to determining league revenue - which is the major
issue with the players - the owners are cooking the books in their favour -

That's because they won't even listen to people like Arthur Leavitt, who has made a rather convincing case that many fans believe to be at least partly true.
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
djhn579 said:
Gord Miller: You've heard the quote before that using generally accepted accounting principles you can take a $5 million profit and make it a $5 million loss. Why would the players believe you when you have situations like Buffalo where the Rigas family faced criminal charges, Bruce McNall went to prison for financial malfeasance. Why would-with a long history of distrust, why would the players believe you?



Bill Daly: Well, none of those issues had to deal anything at all with our unified report of operations. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of clubs in our league who, as legal entities report far less revenues than we record as part of our unified report of operations. Again, the goal of our unified report of operations is to report all hockey-related revenues, wherever it shows up, even if it's in a totally separate entity from the hockey club - if it's in an arena company, if it's in a concert management company, if it's in a concession company. All those revenues are reported as part of our unified report of operations. Now, let me finish because you're going to ask me, "Well how can the players be sure those are real numbers?" And, you know, I heard from the Players Association for 3 or 4 years - publicly, not privately - that while they're unaudited numbers, you know garbage in, garbage out, so we went out and hired Arthur Levitt to audit the books of all of our clubs to verify the accuracy of our unified report of operations. Arthur Levitt is the longest-standing chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, somebody of unassailable integrity and experience in financial reporting - quality financial reporting. He went in, did his own independent analysis of these businesses-

Bill Daly: Well I mean, I think, unfortunately, we've done everything within our power to try to get the players to believe our numbers. It's really the union that's responsible here, not the players. Five-and-a-half years ago, in March, when we reached out to the Players Association, we expressly invited them to hire an independent auditor of their choice to come in and verify our numbers. They chose not to do that, and yet continued to be critical publicly of our numbers even after we'd gone through a minor economic study group to verify those numbers, so taking the position it's garbage in, garbage out, it's unaudited, we hired an auditor to come in and look at it, and they still want to have problems with our numbers. We're done talking about our numbers. There are no issues with respect to the financial losses facing this league, and anybody who's involved in this industry in a meaningful way knows this league is hurting. So the Players Association - schizophrenic in their views as they always are - don't want to acknowledge it at this point and that's their problem and not ours.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=101548
i saw all that stuff - it's all hot air - round and round and round and round - did you read chelios's comments? - and the recent slip - only 6 teams are losing - serious money -
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
mr gib said:
i saw all that stuff - it's all hot air - round and round and round and round - did you read chelios's comments? - and the recent slip - only 6 teams are losing - serious money -

The NHL seems to be going to great lengths to prove their situation. The players are just refusing to believe anything and refusing to even look at anything when given the chance. Where is all the hot air coming from?

It's funny how most of the comments about the Levitt report were "they paid for the report themselves, so it can't be trusted", "Levitt was picked by the NHL so he is just saying what they want him to say", or "they commissioned the report without consulting us.."

Now it appears the NHLPA was given opportunities to hire thier own auditor, but they wanted no part of it. Makes you wonder, doesn't it...
 
Last edited:

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
djhn579 said:
The NHL seems to be going to great lengths to prove their situation. The players are just refusing to believe anything and refusing to even look at anything when given the chance. Where is all the hot air coming from?

It's funny how most of the comments about the Levitt report were "they paid for the report themselves, so it can't be trusted", "Levitt was picked by the NHL so he is just saying what they want him to say", or "they commissioned the report without consulting us.."

Now it appears the NHLPA was given opportunities to hire thier own auditor, but they wanted no part of it. Makes you wonder, doesn't it...
the owners going to great lengths to prove their case - well - i would say they have to - they have to convince the profitable teams that this is the direction they should go -
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,874
1,535
Ottawa
Jag68Vlady27 said:
Thinkwild,
I understand what you're saying, and even though a lot of fans of small market teams can rationalize losing key players by saying, "oh well, he's going to the Rangers, he'll never win anything", it still doesn't change the fact that if you're a fan in Edmonton you are tired of seeing your team in a constant state of flux. Yes, the logo on the jersey is all that matters, but I think in Edmonton there's a very strong belief that their team can not win the whole enchalada any more...and when you're used to winning it all, it's kinda hard to come to grips with reality.

Anyways, great discussion!

:yo:

I can definitely understand what Edmonton fans are feeling. Im an Ottawa fan. Edmonton fans have no clue what sucking means. Actually I take that back, I cant imagine what it must be like to have a city that was home to one of the greatest dynastic championship teams of all time. Achieving that kind of greatness with your team once in a lifetime is an amazingly precious thing I envy and cant really relate to.

One problem with "fixing" this NFL style, is that you will never get a team like that again.

There is no real perfect solution. There are going to be teams that lose and think life sucks. That cant be fixed. Once I accepted that premise, I saw things differently.

Edmonton has a chance to build a great young team, and are starting to get some talent. The NHL has to stop selling the idea that every team should be going for the cup. It is hard. One step at a time. Become great first. Great with young cheap players. I think the goal can be sold. Edmonton has made some great trades.


That's because they won't even listen to people like Arthur Leavitt, who has made a rather convincing case that many fans believe to be at least partly true.

Levitt was hired by the owners to determine if their books capture the business of owning an NHL team similar to Basketball and Football. But for one, they have cap systems, and for two, there are probably a thousand different ways of doing those UROs that Levitt would also find acceptable. Some much more favourable to the players.

Its not that owners are in the back room skimming profits from the cash registers. Its that they get an advertising contract that goes to the arena, and they arebitrarily decide 35% goes as revenue to the team, and the rest goes to another company of theirs.
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
Questioning the Leavitt report is just an excuse that the NHLPA conveniently uses in a failed attempt to muddy the waters and take the emphasis away from their greed. The players and the NHLPA cannot justify their reasons for not wanting a cap. It's GREED, PURE AND SIMPLE GREED. Time for Goodenow to check his ego in at the door and do what is right for the game and it's fans before he loses many of his clients JOBS, NOT TO MENTION MILLIONS OF HOCKEY FANS. :banghead: :shakehead
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
John Flyers Fan said:
Agreed on all above points.

One of the biggest is the revenue sharing question; although, I believe that that is something that needs to be settled among the owners .. with little or no NHLPA involvement.

Regardless, it needs to be dealt with in the CBA itself. Whatever revenue sharing the owners come up with, won't be argued by the PA, unless they feel a change to that will benefit them more.

for example: If the Owners go with a $40mil luxury tax, and go with a revenue sharing scheme of 50%, the players may say, well no, $45 mil luxury tax, and revenue sharing of 60%... but either way, it does need to be addressed in the CBA, but at the same time the players won't fuss over it too much.

As a business owner myself, I can clearly understand the position of owners like Ed Snider (who built his organization from scratch, and made Philadelphia a successful hockey market) or Mike Illitch (who took over the Red Wings while they were in terrible shape and returned them to their former glory).

I see what you are saying... but I am sure both Snider and Illitch would love to see a true National league (as opposed to the regional league the NHL currently is), where there is a grand T.V. deal, and the league is growing. I think it's too early to write that dream off. Snider and Illitch are still going to make decent money, even with revenue sharing. But I think the league-wide goal should be to grow the league into more than a $2.1 billion league. It is a small risk venture. If all else fails, you end up dumping 5 or 6 teams (preferably the ones losing the most money), and you have a healthy, regional league.

I also understand the position of fans in Edmonton who keep seeing their best players leave year after year. Theere is no easy solution, but this should have been settled by now.

I don't disagree... but unfortunately, expecting them to do any bargaining for the past couple of seasons is a pipe dream... especially with how far apart they are in terms of philosophy. No real bargaining is ever going to happen until there is something to lose... and missing the start of the season isn't something to lose...

Missing the season however, certainly is... which is why I am not expecting much until December rolls around.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
dawgbone said:
I see what you are saying... but I am sure both Snider and Illitch would love to see a true National league (as opposed to the regional league the NHL currently is), where there is a grand T.V. deal, and the league is growing. I think it's too early to write that dream off. Snider and Illitch are still going to make decent money, even with revenue sharing. But I think the league-wide goal should be to grow the league into more than a $2.1 billion league. It is a small risk venture. If all else fails, you end up dumping 5 or 6 teams (preferably the ones losing the most money), and you have a healthy, regional league.


That was the dream, but I believe that dream has died. As much as i would like th enHL to become widely popular in the United States, it just isn't going to happen.

There will neve be a big TV deal coming from the US.

The last lockout helped kill any chance of that. The NHL was never more popular than during the 1994 Stanley Cup playoffs. The league was building momentum ... and the lockout snuffed that out completely.
 

ShippinItDaily

Registered User
Apr 28, 2004
1,467
207
Saskatoon
Jag68Vlady27 said:
On the first point, it's in fact because the PLAYERS themselves make constant references to assembly-line workers that fans get turned off, not the other way around.

On the second point, I don't think fans want Philly and Toronto to struggle per se, but they would like to see their GM struggle with certain issues like, for instance: "Hmmm, Amonte or LeClair, which one shall I keep and which one shall I part with. I know I can't keep both." Or, "Hmmm, Nolan or Nieuwendyk..."

It would be nice if each and every GM would have a level playing field, so that we could actually figure out who is the best talent evaluator and who's merely lucky to have Mr. Moneybags backing up his mistakes.

Forcing the Detroit's and Philadelphia's of the world to actually make tough decisions on player personnel cannot be a bad thing for the overall good of the game. Heck, it would probably even be good for Detroit and Philadelphia, because it would force them to look a little more closely at what they have in their system, instead of constantly rummaging through the FA market like a band of wild dogs in a restaurant alley.

And who knows, perhaps if these teams got a little younger from time to time, they'd have even more success.

Hopefully there soon will be a time where GM's have to make REAL managing decisions. I agree on a lot of your points but I also believe that you should be able to keep the players that you brought up in your system when they get good, whether you are a large or a small market team.

If there is a cap it has to be one that allows teams to stay together but not be able to scoop up every free agent it desires , its just bad for the game and part of the reason that scoring is down , i believe anyways.

It just makes sense that scoring will be lower when teams make checkers scorers and vise versa.
 

ShippinItDaily

Registered User
Apr 28, 2004
1,467
207
Saskatoon
Just a quick thought about greed ...

Doesnt anybody besides me feel the owners have been greedy in their own right in not coming up with a revenue sharing system ??
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,874
1,535
Ottawa
Bettman has said that Revenue Sharing is something the owners can do on their own. It is not an issue subject to collective bargaining between players and owners. Even though it seems both sides have put forth such a proposal as part of a CBA. WHich is curious.

In what ways can they share revenue. Probably the biggest revenue disparity generator is all the lucrative high margin playoff revenue. What if all playoff money was pooled. Teams dont make more money for going deep in the playoffs. Share and share alike.
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
thinkwild said:
Bettman has said that Revenue Sharing is something the owners can do on their own. It is not an issue subject to collective bargaining between players and owners. Even though it seems both sides have put forth such a proposal as part of a CBA. WHich is curious.

In what ways can they share revenue. Probably the biggest revenue disparity generator is all the lucrative high margin playoff revenue. What if all playoff money was pooled. Teams dont make more money for going deep in the playoffs. Share and share alike.
i think it is pooled for the first two home games - after that is gravy-ville -
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad