Larry Brooks: His greatness grows

[dawgbone]

It also depends on how the question is asked... NHL contracts are guaranteed... but there is an option for a buyout.

The player does not have to accept a buyout (Irbe in Carolina for example). They can refuse the buyout if they choose to.

As for being sent to the minors, that is something they negotiate. A player isn't worth being paid $1.2 mil (or whatever) in the minors, because he doesn't do anything there to increase the revenues for the pro team. Aside from the entry level contract, a player doesn't have to agree to a 2-way deal either.

So NHL contracts, are in fact, guaranteed.

 

[vanlady]

Tom, your argument would look much more credible if you didn't use examples like Larry Brooks and Bill Guerin. Both are the worst in their own categories, Brooks is a pro-NHLPA lapdog and Guerin is a greedy mercenary who cares only about getting the last dollar.

OK lets talk about credibility.

Fox Sports is owned by Fox Entertainment - minority owner of the NY Rangers
ABC and ESPN owned by Disney - Owners of the Mighty Ducks
TSN and CTV owned by BCE - one of the owners of the Leafs.

Shall I go on? And you wonder why the NHL doesn't have a cable deal right now. Who held the previous deals, ABC, ESPN and Fox by chance?

 

[dawgbone]

So? That doesn't make either of them wrong.

Why don't you try to defend Bettman instead of attacking Brooks or Guerin? Explain how either of the examples I used are the actions of a person with any sense of honour or decency. Do you trust Gary Bettman? Do you think he gives a damn about hockey? Where's the evidence? What's he ever done for the sport besides make it more expensive?

Tom

What has Brooks ever done for the game?

Brooks prints nothing but bullcrap in every single article he writes. Look back at his archives, and see how much crap he threw at the wall hoping it would stick.

Sorry man, Brooks is just about the least credible hockey writer there is... and using him to prove your case is laughable at best.

What makes you think Bettman cares any less about hockey than Bill Guerin, or Bob Goodenow?

How have either of them made the game of hockey any more entertaining?

 

[Cully9]

OK lets talk about credibility.

Fox Sports is owned by Fox Entertainment - minority owner of the NY Rangers
ABC and ESPN owned by Disney - Owners of the Mighty Ducks
TSN and CTV owned by BCE - one of the owners of the Leafs.

Shall I go on? And you wonder why the NHL doesn't have a cable deal right now. Who held the previous deals, ABC, ESPN and Fox by chance?

After the ratings NHL hockey has generated, who's wondering why the NHL doesn't have a cable deal right now? The NHL doesn't have a cable deal because it's a bad business decision for those networks.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Tom,

I take it Bettman's the anti-Goodenow -- the fine upstanding and truthful fighter for justice and freedom? If you want to dig into backgrounds and what's going on behind the scenes, don't be afraid of opening Goodenow's closets too. They're both far from sainthood.

Sainthood? Who expects that? I called Bettman a sleaze and a slug and offered examples of his fundamental dishonesty and lack of integrity. Would you trust him? How can anyone support him?

If you want to dig open Goodenow's closet, feel free. Give me an example that shows the fundamental dishonesty or lack of integrity that Bettman delivers up on a weekly basis. Give me an example of bad faith on the part of Goodenow.

Attacking Brooks, Guerin or Goodenow doesn't change anything. It doesn't make Gary Bettman trustworthy or turn him into a decent human being.

Tom

 

[copperandblue]

Explain how either of the examples I used are the actions of a person with any sense of honour or decency.

It's like a pack of rabid dogs around here sometimes. Any percieved angle that supports one side or the other gets jumped on an blown out of proportion in an instance.


Let's look at the quote that Brook's pulls from the memo;

"Therefore, we will be raising for discussion issues affecting numerous CBA and SPC [Standard Player Contract] provisions including salary guarantees and buy-outs other than for injury . . ."

Now Goodenow sells this to the players as meaning that non-guaranteed contracts will be part of the new NHL landscape.

Personally I think that this quote can mean a number of things - only one of which may mean non guaranteed contracts.

Such as changing salary guarantees can also mean doing away with the 10% qualifier on all below average contracts or resetting the rookie max or setting a limit of rookie bonuses and so on.....

Discussing buyouts can be as simple as resetting the 2/3's buyout percentage to something lower.

Now I expect this to get dismissed as another Bettman apology but another thing to consider is the PR war. Everyone seems pretty unanimous that Bettman is trying his hardest to provide a certain public image for the league.

By him going public with the statement that eliminating guaranteed contracts is not on the table and never has been pretty much outright concedes that point to the PA - does it not?

Does it really matter if the statement was made on the Doug Maclean show?

Now what I am wondering is why Goodenow wouldn't take this marginal statement and get a clarification on it prior to submitting it to the players with what I would assume is his interpretation as a qualifier? It couldn't be to get the players emotions up in order to galvanize the union.

As for TB's second example, is it really underhanded to send an unmarked envelope (first I have heard of this but anyways...) to the agents when the information is also posted on the CBA website for public consumption?

 

[dawgbone]

Let's just take a big look at how these honest, and morally sound players act shall we?

It really becomes so much a part of your day. My brother needs help, he's an alcoholic, who should I speak to? Pregnancy in the family, unwanted pregnancy, how do you handle that? I've got somebody pregnant, how do I handle that? What do I do? Who do I talk to? We have DNA samples here in the safe at the office to deal with those kinds of paternity issues. It's part of the realm. What people don't understand is that they think that being someone's agent means only negotiating a contract and walking away. That's the least amount of time. It's ironic.


Drinking. Drinking and driving. Dealing with police. Dealing with Crown attorneys. The wonderful thing about my day is that you never know what's going to happen on any given day because you're dealing with people's problems. It's a challenge every day and it's different every day.

Boy, when things like that are a common occurance, that should send some warning bells throughout the village.

The players aren't the blessed little angels with pure souls, good hearts, etc... individually they are corrupt, impossible to trust, etc...

Who can trust these guys? Guys who have their agent on speed dial so he can have his sperm sent to Detroit to challenge a paternity suit being filed against him...

Good, honest to goodness players... yup, that's it.

They are just as untrust-worthy as anyone!

 

[Pepper]

So? That doesn't make either of them wrong.

There's no right or wrong here, it's a difference in opinion. And the opinions of those two carry very little weight among the fanbase or in general.

If that's Red Fisher and Steve Yzerman saying the same things, then I'd be much more willing to give them a benefit of a doubt. Guerin has zero credibility in my eyes and a Brooks' articles are like carwrecks, you just have to look at them.

Why don't you try to defend Bettman instead of attacking Brooks or Guerin? Explain how either of the examples I used are the actions of a person with any sense of honour or decency. Do you trust Gary Bettman? Do you think he gives a damn about hockey? Where's the evidence? What's he ever done for the sport besides make it more expensive?

Because I don't like Bettman either, he shouldn't be a comissioner because he has no hockey background and doesn't respect the long traditions hockey has. He has done lots of bad things, however in this CBA issue I'm on the owners side.

 

[free0717]

Billionaires

Billionaires did not become Billionaires by making bad Business deals. The Owners are very united on this CBA deal. The players keep losing paychecks, and the owners are not desparate to get back on the ice with a bad CBA. I am not on either side, business is business but the players have short careers. If I were the players, I would stop losing paychecks and give in to the concept of a cap. The owners are willing to wait the players out. I am not too sure about the owners looking to break the union, but the owners will make the deal they want from a position of strength. Larry Brooks can back the players all he wants, bottom line until the players give in to the concept of a salary cap, there will be no NHL.

 

[SENSible1*]

Billionaires did not become Billionaires by making bad Business deals. The Owners are very united on this CBA deal. The players keep losing paychecks, and the owners are not desparate to get back on the ice with a bad CBA. I am not on either side, business is business but the players have short careers. If I were the players, I would stop losing paychecks and give in to the concept of a cap. The owners are willing to wait the players out. I am not too sure about the owners looking to break the union, but the owners will make the deal they want from a position of strength. Larry Brooks can back the players all he wants, bottom line until the players give in to the concept of a salary cap, there will be no NHL.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Discussing buyouts can be as simple as resetting the 2/3's buyout percentage to something lower.

Of course. That's all there was to this. I don't have any problem with the NHL wanting to negotiate this. And nobody should have any difficulty with Bill Guerin objecting to it or Bob Goodenow making sure the players know exactly what the owners have given notice about wanting to negotiate.

What drives both Goodenow and the players nuts over it is the insult Bettman delivers. He's implying 1) Goodenow is misleading the players, 2) the players are too naive to understand what is in the memo and 3) if Bob Goodenow was not misleading the players there would be a deal. That's not negotiating in good faith. That's disrespectful of Goodenow and the players.

It also disrespects the intelligent fan.

I expect this to get dismissed as another Bettman apology but another thing to consider is the PR war. Everyone seems pretty unanimous that Bettman is trying his hardest to provide a certain public image for the league.

No doubt. He's painting the players as greedy pigs. That's his PR campaign. But guess what? PR campaigns don't do a damn thing. That's all Bettman is doing. Running a PR campaign. The campaign is driving the parties further apart. Every time he opens his mouth, the players trust him less.

By him going public with the statement that eliminating guaranteed contracts is not on the table and never has been pretty much outright concedes that point to the PA - does it not?

No. This depends on the definition of guarantee. It does not mean the NHL does not want to change the buyout provisions. And it does not mean the NHL does not intend to raise it. All Bettman has said is that it has never been discussed with the union. He has not said it will never be discussed with the union.

Besides the players think Bettman is a liar. Even if he decalred that it was off the table as a concession, nobody believes him. I can't understand why anybody believes anything he says.

As for TB's second example, is it really underhanded to send an unmarked envelope (first I have heard of this but anyways...) to the agents when the information is also posted on the CBA website for public consumption?

Here's the story.

If the leak of the memo was intended to spur either agents or players into questioning the union's position, it did not appear to be working yesterday. One agent described the memo as "amateurish" and "ridiculous."

The leak of the memo is nothing really because here is probably nothing in it that Daly hasn't said out loud anyway or hasn't already hit the media. So why do it? It is not technically bargaining in bad faith, but it clearly shows bad faith. Brown paper envelopes. How bogus is that? Why do it? The only reason is to poke the players with a sharp stick. It is the same insulting, misleading message.

It is pettiness. Pettiness from petty little people. They are sitting around trying to think up ways to make the players and the union angry instead of trying to figure out a way to solve the dispute.

It is Gary Bettman all the way. Anything but upfront. A sleazy soap salesman who has done more damage to the game than any commissioner in history. Two labour disputes, ill advised expansion, corporate kowtowing and sticking it to the fan, all the while winning a PR battle. He should be Madison Avenue Man of the Year.

Once a grifter, always a grifter.

Tom

 

[Cully9]

Sainthood? Who expects that? I called Bettman a sleaze and a slug and offered examples of his fundamental dishonesty and lack of integrity. Would you trust him? How can anyone support him?

If you want to dig open Goodenow's closet, feel free. Give me an example that shows the fundamental dishonesty or lack of integrity that Bettman delivers up on a weekly basis. Give me an example of bad faith on the part of Goodenow.

Attacking Brooks, Guerin or Goodenow doesn't change anything. It doesn't make Gary Bettman trustworthy or turn him into a decent human being.

Tom

According to people who've worked at the PA, Goodenow's lack of integrity is on display, in plain view for all of them.

You want bad faith? How about telling the owners in Atlanta that he doesn't care if the team goes bankrupt? How about making a second offer worse than the first in this negotiation? That's good faith? How about ducking the New York Times when they asked about how David Frost was certified as an agent by the PA?

As I said, they are both far from sainthood, which would seem to concur that Bettman isn't necessarily a decent human being. At the same time, don't pretend that Goodenow is.

 

[copperandblue]

Of course. That's all there was to this. I don't have any problem with the NHL wanting to negotiate this. And nobody should have any difficulty with Bill Guerin objecting to it or Bob Goodenow making sure the players know exactly what the owners have given notice about wanting to negotiate.

Tom, you have three posts in this thread alone that doesn't just question Bettman's credibility but outright says he has none.

Now the point I was trying to make is that Bettman's memo (atleast the part quoted) does not say one way or another that the league is looking for unguaranteed contracts.

Which returns this to Goodenow, if the players believe that they are in danger of losing their guaranteed contracts (or the NHL version of their gauranteed contracts) because of this single memo, then it is Goodenow that is not being forthright....not Bettman.

What drives both Goodenow and the players nuts over it is the insult Bettman delivers. He's implying 1) Goodenow is misleading the players, 2) the players are too naive to understand what is in the memo and 3) if Bob Goodenow was not misleading the players there would be a deal. That's not negotiating in good faith. That's disrespectful of Goodenow and the players.

1) Goodenow (or someone under his charge) IS misleading the players. Atleast in this instance he is. Unless there is something much more specific out there by the league that reinforces the accusation, then this can't really be disputed.

2) To discount the influence that the information providers have over the rank and file players would be very naive in my opinion.

3) He has done no such thing.

It also disrespects the intelligent fan.

Well it's up to the fan to assess what they feel is relevant. Clearly there are some that lean to one extreme and some that lean to the other. I think the majority see both sides as being equal (for the most part equally bad) but have figured out what they want (or feel the game needs) as a league moving forward.

Every time he opens his mouth, the players trust him less.

Well if that's the case then so be it....

However, they should also be asking Goodenow to be a little more forthright and at the end of the day they don't need to trust Bettman anyways. Goodenow will get them the best deal he can and when the time comes that he feels he can't get anymore he will advise the players to sign on and they will do exactly that.... like the good little sheep they are.

No. This depends on the definition of guarantee. It does not mean the NHL does not want to change the buyout provisions. And it does not mean the NHL does not intend to raise it. All Bettman has said is that it has never been discussed with the union. He has not said it will never be discussed with the union.

Exactly. It also doesn't mean that they want ungauranteed contracts. Which is what Brook's is contending and the players have apparently been told.

Besides the players think Bettman is a liar. Even if he decalred that it was off the table as a concession, nobody believes him. I can't understand why anybody believes anything he says.

If the players choose to believe him fine, if they don't, fine. But if nothing else it offered an olive branch to the players or more specifically Goodenow that he can point to at a later date and hold out for all to consume should it turn out to be false.

Let's be realistic here, all this crap comes out in the end. I don't think either side is stupid enough to burn their bridges publically when credibility will once again be front and center at the end of this agreement. The NHL, moreso that the players as an association, need the best public credibility that they can garner. That isn't just through the labour disputes but for general operations as well.

I think that Bettman just offered Goodenow quite abit of bargaining leverage by killing the rumour the way he did as it pertains to this specific item. You may disagree, so be it....

The leak of the memo is nothing really because here is probably nothing in it that Daly hasn't said out loud anyway or hasn't already hit the media. So why do it? It is not technically bargaining in bad faith, but it clearly shows bad faith. Brown paper envelopes. How bogus is that? Why do it? The only reason is to poke the players with a sharp stick. It is the same insulting, misleading message.

Oh please, this is a case of finding something to hang on.

This secret, leaked memo is posted on the CBA website so where is the big problem here?

 

[vanlady]

According to people who've worked at the PA, Goodenow's lack of integrity is on display, in plain view for all of them.

You want bad faith? How about telling the owners in Atlanta that he doesn't care if the team goes bankrupt? How about making a second offer worse than the first in this negotiation? That's good faith? How about ducking the New York Times when they asked about how David Frost was certified as an agent by the PA?

As I said, they are both far from sainthood, which would seem to concur that Bettman isn't necessarily a decent human being. At the same time, don't pretend that Goodenow is.

What business makes money in there first 5 years? That isn't illegal of course. The Thrashers owners should be over the moon, there franchise value has increased 30 percent in less than 5 years. Before answering I suggest you ask CCRA, the results will blow your mind

 

[Cully9]

What business makes money in there first 5 years? That isn't illegal of course. The Thrashers owners should be over the moon, there franchise value has increased 30 percent in less than 5 years. Before answering I suggest you ask CCRA, the results will blow your mind

I said nothing about making money in there first five years. I said 'bankruptcy'. Not breaking even and being forced to file for bankruptcy are entirely different animals and, more importantly, it doesn't change the fact that Goodenow's position on the matter was sleazy -- and that's the point for which it was used.

 

[NYIsles1*]

At least Larry Brooks wrotes a column every week about the NHL.If it was not for Larry,nobody would give a **** in the same city where the NHL headquarters are based in and in the same city where Gary Bettman lives and works in.

Bill Daly is traveling across North America conducting townhall meetings about the lockout.Daly should consider conducting an event in his own background but he won't because the NHL are a bunch of cowards and their pathetic attempt to blame the NHLPA for everything wrong with the game will not fly.

That's because no one in the New York City sports market talks about or cares about hockey to bother. Baseball hot stove is underway here. Simply more important sports for fans to be involved with.

Brooks does his dance each Sunday for his paycheck, but he seems to have an agenda to make sure he comes out of this with the Rangers maintaining an advantage in free agency.(regardless of how they lose revenue and drag the sport down) Without rumors of star players in Rangers uniforms he is going to have to work much harder.....No doubt he wants a luxury tax or a free market system, he's competing with big name talent in other sports and even now the Rangers, Islanders and Devils might as well be playing in Nashville for all the attention they receive.

Even markets like Pittsburgh and Florida have more coverage on hockey than NYC.

Fans in New York did not notice all those star players in Ranger uniforms when the payroll was 90 million. What's going to happen when they have to ice a team with a 31 million dollar payroll filed with European players in a market with Derek Jeter?

It was tough before a lockout, it's going to get much worse for all three teams here.

Brooks knows what's coming which is why every week since the summer he has been destroying the league every chance he gets as if he's employed by the NHLPA.....

It's been a sad show, even by his standards.

 

[vanlady]

I said nothing about making money in there first five years. I said 'bankruptcy'. Not breaking even and being forced to file for bankruptcy are entirely different animals and, more importantly, it doesn't change the fact that Goodenow's position on the matter was sleazy -- and that's the point for which it was used.

Where is any backup or proof the Thrashers are going bankrupt. There is none, as a matter of fact if they were in that much financial trouble why did a new owner buy them in 2003.

 

[Cully9]

Where is any backup or proof the Thrashers are going bankrupt. There is none, as a matter of fact if they were in that much financial trouble why did a new owner buy them in 2003.

Because their former president Stan Kasten was on TV and talked about his conversation with Goodenow. He said that he told Goodenow that, on its current path, the Thrashers would go belly up, and Goodenow said he didn't care. That's why they got out, according to Kasten.

I would imagine that a new owner bought them because he knew that a new CBA was on the way...and that the Thrashers were part of the package with the Hawks and the arena. For all we know, the Hawks and arena are the attractive commodities in that package.

In any case, my point was about Goodenow's callous nature and how it's just as unseemly as Bettman's. If you want to get caught up in the minutiae, be my guest.

 

[NYIsles1*]

.

Thirdly, as much as you guys are slamming him, I haven't seen a shred of anything that contradicts what he says, or shows it to be completely slanted. All that comes out is "Brooks is a moron lolololol" which is significantly less convincing than his argument -- and Brooks feels passionately about the cause, something that comes through in his writing. I like reading a piece with emotion behind it, and not something that looks like it came off the AP Wire..

The passion is fine, only problem is every time he writes his infamous four words..
" THE POST HAS LEARNED " no one in North America confirms his rumors, in fact many publications associated with those teams make it a point to lable Brooks rumors or emotion as baseless......

Hard to take anything he writes as serious..

Brooks got very lazy too. His Sunday work used to include updates on the Islanders and Devils, he will not put in the time or is not given the space anymore..

Look at the some of the out of town papers that print hockey rumors and speculation, it's better quality and respectful of die-hard fans......Michael Russo, Kevin Dupont, The Pitt Post Gazette, far superior hockey coverage.

Brooks is also someone who lobbied (as NHLPA President) to keep amateur writers out of the finals a few years ago. Brooks did not even make a case to his readers from his column for all those exclusives......Red Fisher broke the story of Brooks trying to bar writers and he even filed an appeal after he lost..

Brooks never wrote a word. And he is no longer NHLPA president.

NYC maybe the worst hockey media market in the US for keeping fans informed.

The Times does a.p only, Newsday has Alan Hahn sharing Islander and Ranger news, The Daily News has barely written anything....Sherry Ross even before a lockout wrote once a month.....No journalists will touch hockey at Msg unless they want to take a shot a Dolan for the Knicks.......

.
Brooks may opine that the Rangers are after this person or that person, but how many times does he claim they would LOVE to play for the Rangers? Uh huh.

I don't know, between the playing for the pride of the sweater rants vs go sign Jerome Ignila for seventeen million, Brooks cannot make up his mind whether he is coming or going, but he keeps folks desperate to read anything to pay attention and they do.

I would suggest reading the articles but take Brooks with a big grain of salt.....For someone around over 20 years, who covered the Islander dynasty and worked for the Devils, his work has been very weak now for a long time.

Hockey fans deserve better, IMHO..

 

[vanlady]

Because their former president Stan Kasten was on TV and talked about his conversation with Goodenow. He said that he told Goodenow that, on its current path, the Thrashers would go belly up, and Goodenow said he didn't care. That's why they got out, according to Kasten.

I would imagine that a new owner bought them because he knew that a new CBA was on the way...and that the Thrashers were part of the package with the Hawks and the arena. For all we know, the Hawks and arena are the attractive commodities in that package.

In any case, my point was about Goodenow's callous nature and how it's just as unseemly as Bettman's. If you want to get caught up in the minutiae, be my guest.

First the arena is not owned by anyone but the city of Atlanta. Second the Thrasher were higher in the standings than the Hawks when the teams were bought, third the value of both teams was a combined 308 million, why did Time Warner keep a share in the team that was that bad off.

Oh and Kasten wrote a article and never mentions bankruptcy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/s...adxnnlx=1097100103-+JbYJVy9tT0UgREr4cV7Egjust

 

[Cully9]

First the arena is not owned by anyone but the city of Atlanta. Second the Thrasher were higher in the standings than the Hawks when the teams were bought, third the value of both teams was a combined 308 million, why did Time Warner keep a share in the team that was that bad off.

Oh and Kasten wrote a article and never mentions bankruptcy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/s...adxnnlx=1097100103-+JbYJVy9tT0UgREr4cV7Egjust

So, because he doesn't mention in an online article that means he didn't mention it on television? Interesting.

Higher in the standings? Who cares? The NBA has a cap, and a luxury tax, and the owners have some idea what they are going to spend on salaries going into any season (and, if you follow the NBA, you'd know the Hawks are basically rebuilding from square one right now).

But, at the end of the day, what do you think is easier to sell in Georgia, basketball or hockey? Considering the number of basketball teams in the state compared to the number of hockey teams, my vote's on basketball.

Again, it's off the topic, but it is the bone upon which you've chosen to latch yourself.

 

[codswallop]

First the arena is not owned by anyone but the city of Atlanta. Second the Thrasher were higher in the standings than the Hawks when the teams were bought, third the value of both teams was a combined 308 million, why did Time Warner keep a share in the team that was that bad off.

Oh and Kasten wrote a article and never mentions bankruptcy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/s...adxnnlx=1097100103-+JbYJVy9tT0UgREr4cV7Egjust

The operating rights to the arena were sold in the deal. That in itself is worth a fair amount of coin considering the new owners will be the ones reaping the profits of the arena (if any).

Already done this twice, hopefully third time's the charm. At or very near the time of the sale in March, Forbes valued the Hawks at $204M and the Thrashers at $134M (the numbers are from memory so they might be a tad off). Add in the operating rights to the arena, the deal should have been well over $350M according to Forbes. But in the end, the deal was for $250M. The Forbes numbers were quite a bit off. Like someone said before, they are just an educated guess.

AOL/TW had been looking to sell off the teams for a while. Getting rid of what they consider "non-core" assets to help with the debt they have. The prospective owners had to perform their due diligence which took five or six months, so a quick sale just to get the cash wouldn't have happened anyways. Both sides poured over the info and came up with a number they both could live with; the real value and not a guess based on sparce information.

Even if you want to add in the 15% non-voting share that AOL/TW still holds in the teams, the Forbes guess was still off by anywhere between $60-$80M. Time Warner did need an influx of cash, but not enough to let $60M+ walk out the door.

 

[vanlady]

The operating rights to the arena were sold in the deal. That in itself is worth a fair amount of coin considering the new owners will be the ones reaping the profits of the arena (if any).

Already done this twice, hopefully third time's the charm. At or very near the time of the sale in March, Forbes valued the Hawks at $204M and the Thrashers at $134M (the numbers are from memory so they might be a tad off). Add in the operating rights to the arena, the deal should have been well over $350M according to Forbes. But in the end, the deal was for $250M. The Forbes numbers were quite a bit off. Like someone said before, they are just an educated guess.

AOL/TW had been looking to sell off the teams for a while. Getting rid of what they consider "non-core" assets to help with the debt they have. The prospective owners had to perform their due diligence which took five or six months, so a quick sale just to get the cash wouldn't have happened anyways. Both sides poured over the info and came up with a number they both could live with; the real value and not a guess based on sparce information.

Even if you want to add in the 15% non-voting share that AOL/TW still holds in the teams, the Forbes guess was still off by anywhere between $60-$80M. Time Warner did need an influx of cash, but not enough to let $60M+ walk out the door.

I suggest you check you valuations again, in 2003 the Thrasher were worth 106 million and the Hawks were worth 202 million. Recheck for the 2003 valuations.

308-46.2(TW share)=261.8 so at most it is only our 11.8 million which is less than 5% at best. I know but cannot find the article at this point but will try tommorow, that the difference is only 1%.b

By the way the operating rights of the arena are all considered in the valuations already, it is part of the calculation. By the way Forbes has these expences and profits dead on because the city gives them the information under freedom of information.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

.... Both sides poured over the info and came up with a number they both could live with; the real value

ahhh ... kinda like what the players are suggesting should be done for their contracts ?

dr

 

[codswallop]

I suggest you check you valuations again, in 2003 the Thrasher were worth 106 million and the Hawks were worth 202 million. Recheck for the 2003 valuations.

308-46.2(TW share)=261.8 so at most it is only our 11.8 million which is less than 5% at best. I know but cannot find the article at this point but will try tommorow, that the difference is only 1%.b

By the way the operating rights of the arena are all considered in the valuations already, it is part of the calculation. By the way Forbes has these expences and profits dead on because the city gives them the information under freedom of information.

Couldn't sleep, and the numbers you had seemed interesting so I dug a bit. Actually found two different set numbers giving Forbes valuations. But if I'm looking correctly, the numbers I gave before were correct.

I was stating their valuations at the time of the sale earlier this year, not right now. Don't know exactly how it turns out like this, but then again I've looked at various Forbes numbers in various industries for more than a decade and still don't really understand how they come to some of their conclusions (but that's another story). The numbers on the Forbes site don't reflect the sale, they still have both teams belonging to Time Warner. And since those numbers don't factor in the sale, the part of the deal that includes the operating rights cannot be shown. So we really don't have much of an idea of what value that carries, probably embedded in the sale itself. Either way it's out of our knowledge, so I'll back out of putting a monetary value on it.

The numbers I have put the Hawks at $202M and the Thrashers at $134M, owners Atlanta Spirit LLC.

That's still $86M below the actual sale. And Turner Broadcasting owns 15% of the Atlanta Spirit. Not knowing any particulars of the sale, I don't have the first clue what that actually means in terms of our little pricing debate here (though the Thrashers local TV contract has to be a part of that). Both your numbers and mine would be a bit more off because of this. So my $60M-$80M estimate could be off a bit, my apologies. I'd amend that to $40M-$50M.

Thus I labor to prove a point that I've known for over a decade now, Forbes values have a tendency to be off. This doesn't really come as a shock if you've paid attention to their work for a while. They don't have all the info necessary to make such valuations, they're not the end result. They do the best they can with the info they have. I respect the work they do and they are an excellent tool to be able to use. But it seems like a very enormous reach to take what they give and use it as a benchmark to prove a point. There's always some info missing, so you have to factor that in.

But I can't be surprised. The pattern repeats itself here; if a certain news-clip, sound-byte, etc. echoes someone's view, they often use it as a club. Not willing or wanting to look and see how accurate it may be or how additional information not initially included can change the gist of it. Since I not on one side or the other and don't give a damn who should "win" this battle, I always look on both sides of the fence. Very different view.