Globe and Mail -"Sides Agree to Salary Cap system" -all talk here !!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

davemess

Registered User
Apr 9, 2003
2,894
236
Scotland
Hockey teams pay tax right?

I'm sure the IRS would be very interested in all this "hidden" revenue thats going on in the NHL.

The NHLPA have never been interested in where these bordeline revenue streams have been positioned before..... thats their fault not the owners.
 

MojoJojo

Registered User
Jan 31, 2003
9,353
0
Philadelphia
Visit site
davemess said:
Hockey teams pay tax right?

I'm sure the IRS would be very interested in all this "hidden" revenue thats going on in the NHL.

The NHLPA have never been interested in where these bordeline revenue streams have been positioned before..... thats their fault not the owners.

Lets say a subsidiary of Comcast (the owner of the Flyers) decides to buy half the club box seats to games not expected to have a high turnout, at higher than market value. Would be easy to orchestrate, and how exactly would the IRS get wind of this, and why would they even care?
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
MHA said:
from the reports I am hearing it looks as if the players got whooped. What a stupid deal for them, oh well it's their fault they had 42.5
Not necessarily . . . . this offer (it seems) has a floor whereas the $42.5-million offer did not.
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
HockeyCritter said:
Not necessarily . . . . this offer (it seems) has a floor whereas the $42.5-million offer did not.
Just how many teams would spend less than 22 million anyway? Id venture to guess that number would be extremely low, perhaps even zero.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
The Messenger said:
I think his comment Pep gives us a pretty good idea of his of his accounting understanding and background ..

I wonder how many businesses each day receive payment in cash and somehow that is forgotten to be included in the accounting books. ;)

I wonder how many times services are exchanged as currency in real life ..


I wonder if a company owns multiple businesses like Hockey and Basketball and the Arena they play in.. When a sponsors sends in their money in order to have the owner put up his Nike or Ford banner in the arena .. I wonder if its perfectly legal to record that money against either Hockey or Basketball or Arena books? Whatever suits your financial means best?

If the team doesn't own the arena then the advertising revenue for advertisements within wouldn't go to them anyhow.

To my knowledge no owner has a basketball and hockey team that play in the same arena but even if they did then if they took it off of hockey then they would need to include it under basketball, which has a cap based on league revenues. Either way they have to include it.
 

timlap

Registered User
Jun 19, 2002
9,218
41
The Messenger said:
I think his comment Pep gives us a pretty good idea of his of his accounting understanding and background ..

I wonder how many businesses each day receive payment in cash and somehow that is forgotten to be included in the accounting books. ;)

I wonder how many times services are exchanged as currency in real life ..
. . .

He's talking about increasing reported revenues, not hiding them. I can see how that would harder than simply pretending the cash that came in didn't come in.

Naturally there will be strict rules governing the reporting of revenues, auditing, etc.
 

timlap

Registered User
Jun 19, 2002
9,218
41
mooseOAK said:
. . .
To my knowledge no owner has a basketball and hockey team that play in the same arena . . .
MLSE????? (owner of the Leafs and Raptors, for those who don't know).
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,950
11,940
Leafs Home Board
mooseOAK said:
If the team doesn't own the arena then the advertising revenue for advertisements within wouldn't go to them anyhow.

To my knowledge no owner has a basketball and hockey team that play in the same arena but even if they did then if they took it off of hockey then they would need to include it under basketball, which has a cap based on league revenues. Either way they have to include it.
Hello ??

Are you really a Leaf fan??

Perhaps maybe MLSE fits the bill of an Owner with both NHL and NBA and Air Canada Centre ??
 

davemess

Registered User
Apr 9, 2003
2,894
236
Scotland
MojoJojo said:
Lets say a subsidiary of Comcast (the owner of the Flyers) decides to buy half the club box seats to games not expected to have a high turnout, at higher than market value. Would be easy to orchestrate, and how exactly would the IRS get wind of this, and why would they even care?

That revenue would still have to be reported somewhere though.

Thats the point i was making, the teams are not hiding revenue it is simply being reported under a different name (ie Arena Revenue vs Hockey Revenue).

The NHLPA's claim that teams hide revenue is junk, the Union has just never cared to enter into a debate of what is and isnt reported hockey revenue previously.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
barnburner said:
Be advised that the author (Jeff Gordon) is well known as "which way is the wind blowing today Gordon" in the St. Louis area.. Originality you will not find in his columns.

That's the nice way to put it. There's a lot more than originality lacking in his columns... intelligence... logic... common sense... etc.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
The Messenger said:
Hello ??

Are you really a Leaf fan??

Perhaps maybe MLSE fits the bill of an Owner with both NHL and NBA and Air Canada Centre ??
Perhaps they do. Not that I needed two people to remind me of that.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
I've been patiently waiting for another article to confirm the salary structure of the proposed deal before wading into the fray, but with this aricle from CBC it is spelled out pretty straight forward, so there is no confusion over numbers.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2005/06/09/Sports/nhl050609b.html

It confirms a maximum of $36M with a floor of $22 million, and a one-for-one tax starts at $29 million, and used as revenue sharing that must be used as player compensation money. This includes all player compensation, including bonuses and benefits. This number is tied to revenues and set at 54% of revenues. This appears to be in stone and is the basis for all other points in the agreement.

What is left in the negotiation is Free Agency, arbitration and the Olympic matter to work out. While any of them could be contentious (except the Olympics, not that anyone would care) I think these will be worked through quickly and painlessly. I suspect that we will have an announcement sometime next week and the draft (notice no mention of this, so it has been agreed to by the sounds of things) will go a head and Crosby will pull on a Flames, er, Rangers jersey at the end of the month.

So with this as the basis for the deal I would think that unless the NHLPA manages to negotiate Free Agency at age 24, this is a resounding victory for the league and all teams (the NHLPA has been crushed). When you add in the work the league is doing away from the negotiations in regards to play, I think the new NHL should be something to look forward to. They will definitely be the economic model that all the other leagues will be trying to follow in the very near future.

:cheers:
 

p.l.f.

use the force
Feb 27, 2002
47,486
1
Toronto, CANADA
well...

for a 30 team league with 2/3's of the teams faltering financially in non hockey market areas i'm not sure if the ultimate problem has been solved :huh:
 

Lard_Lad

Registered User
May 12, 2003
6,678
0
Kelowna
Visit site
The Iconoclast said:
I've been patiently waiting for another article to confirm the salary structure of the proposed deal before wading into the fray, but with this aricle from CBC it is spelled out pretty straight forward, so there is no confusion over numbers.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2005/06/09/Sports/nhl050609b.html

It confirms a maximum of $36M with a floor of $22 million, and a one-for-one tax starts at $29 million, and used as revenue sharing that must be used as player compensation money.

It doesn't confirm anything, it just says "according to the Globe and Mail..."
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by gscarpenter2002
First off, NHL teams produce audited financial statements. Reported revenues are not capable of being misrepresented.


PepNCheese said:
Aha...ahaaaa..ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Outstanding contribution to the debate. Please keep up your most perceptive posting. I await your next missive with trembling excitement.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by gscarpenter2002
First off, NHL teams produce audited financial statements. Reported revenues are not capable of being misrepresented.

MojoJojo said:

And yours too. Don't you have a MENSA meeting to attend somewhere?
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
The Messenger said:
I think his comment Pep gives us a pretty good idea of his of his accounting understanding and background ..

I wonder how many businesses each day receive payment in cash and somehow that is forgotten to be included in the accounting books. ;)

I wonder how many times services are exchanged as currency in real life ..


I wonder if a company owns multiple businesses like Hockey and Basketball and the Arena they play in.. When a sponsors sends in their money in order to have the owner put up his Nike or Ford banner in the arena .. I wonder if its perfectly legal to record that money against either Hockey or Basketball or Arena books? Whatever suits your financial means best?

Now, Massager, I have been advised by another poster that you claim to be an accountant in that big bad metropolis of Kelowna, where we know ALL the big deals are made.

Assuming that is the case, and that you are not actually a candidate for a grade ten Adult Education Diploma that I assumed you were, your post is actually very cleverly worded. You actually didn't come out and say that what I posted was incorrect, did you?

The fact is that I know and understand accounting principles very well. I am required to. My posting confirms that fact.

Secondly, receiving payments in cash or not has nothing to do with the discussion. There is no usggestion in this thread that underreporting of revenue will take place. The point was quite the opposite.

Thirdly, in order for players to agree to a linkage concept, there will need to be controls put in place, assumng they are not currently in place. Are you suggesting that the PA will go into a linkage deal that would permit NHL teams to skim gate receipts?

As for services in replacement of cash, or "payment in kind", that legally needs to be recorded in books as well and is taxable income. Otherwise, there is no ability to match revenue with expense - what is known as a red flag in the auditing business.

As for the assignment of revenue form signage, etc., again assumng you are not a grade ten candidate, you should be familiar with GAAP. A business is not entitled to assing revenue where it suits them. They are required to justify the assingment of the revenue.

As I said before, NHL teams have accounting firms sign off on their URO's. To state otherwise is false.

But then again, Massager, you didn't really say that, did you? You didn't really say anything about my original post. You just wrote a bunch of "I wonder" statements.

*Edited*
 
Last edited by a moderator:

timlap

Registered User
Jun 19, 2002
9,218
41
gscarpenter2002 said:
. . .
Here is one for you: I wonder when you will write anything that actually contributes anything even remotely intellectually stimulating and is not based on a gigantic steaming pile of half-formed, ill-informed unvarnished Kelowna animal droppings?
I enjoyed your post up until this bit of poop. The Messenger contributes plenty to the discussions on these board, and does so in a spirit of fun.

I like a lot of things you've said too, but suggesting that other people are not "intellectually stimulating" is a bit pretentious, considering the setting.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
timlap said:
I enjoyed your post up until this bit of poop. The Messenger contributes plenty to the discussions on these board, and does so in a spirit of fun.

I like a lot of things you've said too, but suggesting that other people are not "intellectually stimulating" is a bit pretentious, considering the setting.
Ah, just trying for a bit of word play off his "I wonder" stuff. Kind of like how I refer to him as "Massager" (of the truth) as a play on his screen name. :dunno:

That said, I don't agree that he contributes much, but whatever floats your boat. Reasonable people can disagree on matters of opinion. I hope you can recognize that the above post is informed by a variety of exchanges where he is being cute and/or spouting outright falsehoods time and again. That gets a little off-putting.

That said, fair enough. I will edit the offending section from my post.
 

AXN

Registered User
Feb 10, 2004
1,451
0
Last time I read on TSN, there was no confirmation. I think Bettman said they do not have an agreement on the cap.
 
Last edited:

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
AXN said:
Last time I read on TSN, there was no confirmation. I think Bettman said they do not have an agreement on the cap.


No, all he said was there would be no caps on a team by team basis, ie: "Nashville's cap is 32.1 million. Dallas's cap is 35.6 million. Vancouver's cap is..."

The fact that neither side has outright confirmed or denied the report(something for which there's a fair precedent that's been set) tells me, for the first time, this might be more on the accurate side than the inaccurate side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad