Yes you can, every report published so far (Levitt's, Forbes etc) prove that teams are losing money big time. What the exact numbers are is another issue.
As long as we're citing experts, Russ Conway actually called a few up...
"If anybody calls this a superaudit, you give them my number," said Nelson Blinn, a 36-year certified public accountant from Haverhill and member of the Banknorth auditing committee. "This is absolutely, unconditionally not an audit. To pass it off as one is nonsense."
Richard Delgaudio, a professor of accounting and auditing at Merrimack College in North Andover who is a certified public accountant and nationally known lecturer on accounting, explained the difference between an audit and a review.
"An audit implies that you look at documentation and source documentation," he said. "A review is when you just kind of look things over to see if it seems right."
This isn't the point of what we're discussing here, but there are public sources who refute your postion that this is quite enough. Forbes methodology involves guessing from the outside, without any access to the books-even the NHL says that they're wrong. There is not enough info out there.
Like I said, I know quite enough to know that the teams are not doing too well financially. If you believe anything else it's you that have an agenda, not me.
I guess that's for others to judge. I've tried to square the NHL's actions with their claims, and I can't. My conclusion is that the numbers are wrong, or that there are other beneficial to which we're not privy. Not every team is going to make the playoffs, and no rational owner would proceed with a business plan that requires a playoff run to turn a profit.
Let's put it this way, there's a lot more evidence supporting league's claims than there's evidence supporting PA's conflicting claims.
What conflicting claims? The PA basically says that they don't know/care what the NHL's financial position is. They noted that Forbes contradicts the NHL's position, which was stupid of them to do, but there it is. The NHL is the one who have claimed massive losses, the PA says they don't know and don't care. You might not like the PA's position, but there's more evidence to back it up.
I haven't taken your assertions seriously because they simply reek pro-PA bias.
Fine, do with it what you will. I've been accused of both pro-PA and pro-owner bias on here over the past couple of months, so it's really irrelevant to me.
Yes and have advanced to 2nd round just once, correct me if I'm wrong but during the last 7 years they have had only 14 home play-off games?
That can't be right, but it really doesn't matter. You're saying that a plan requiring an appearance in Rd. 2 is acceptable now? So to hell with the 22 teams that don't make it that far?
If salaries drop by 30% as a result of this cap, that means Oilers can field an equal team for 30% less money. That means a $23M team and $10M extra to bottom line. Doesn't sound too shabby now does it?
Sure, except what the NHL has proposed is a salary range, where the Oilers would, according to their numbers, be making no money, barring a playoff run. You don't seem to understand how the NHL's proposal would work.
I believe it was Iconolast or Thunderstruck who quoted some expert laborlawyers which made Wetcoaster's 'expert opinions' look quite ridiculous.
Do these people market themselves as laborlawyers? I figure your average Masters degree knows that it's "labour lawyers". Provide a link, or let it go.