Lock the door - throw away the key - let's start the NHL II with new players!

[PecaFan]

So, you're saying the players are too stupid to see this (even though we all can), and will be totally hoodwinked in negotiating what revenues should be counted, and will hire stupid auditors who won't see it either?

I guess I just think the players, agents, and PA are a hell of a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

So, you're saying the players are too stupid to see this (even though we all can), and will be totally hoodwinked in negotiating what revenues should be counted, and will hire stupid auditors who won't see it either?

I guess I just think the players, agents, and PA are a hell of a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

Where did I say the PA was stupid? What are you talking about? They are smart enough to see revenues can be hidden, which is part of the reason they aren't taking a cap at this point in time.

 

[PecaFan]

You're saying that revenue can be hidden. Which means the players et al are too stupid to find it. Hiding something that can be easily found isn't hiding it, right? Just like Dad's old Playboy stash, and Mom's bottle of Crown Royal.

If someone says 2+2 is too complicated for you to solve, then they're calling you stupid. They didn't use the word, but it's implied.

By saying there will be all this revenue that players will be unable to find, you're stating that the players side is stupid.

 

[CarlRacki]

Where did I say the PA was stupid? What are you talking about? They are smart enough to see revenues can be hidden, which is part of the reason they aren't taking a cap at this point in time.

It's not a matter of hiding revenues as it is one of defining revenues. This can be accomplished through negotiation. But until the players accept a link between revenues and payroll, there's no reason to negotiate on that ipoint. Likewise, players can negotiate for independent audits to be conducted of each team following every season to determine revenues.
This isn't neuro-surgery.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

You asked me how a team hides a logo on the side of their stadium and I answered your question. An owner such as Cablevision can do it by putting that revenue on the books of Madison Square Garden, rather than the New York Rangers. If one owner or group owns more than one entity related to their hockey team they are able to shift revenues and costs between them.

Now how exactly is that calling the players stupid?

 

[djhn579]

You asked me how a team hides a logo on the side of their stadium and I answered your question. An owner such as Cablevision can do it by putting that revenue on the books of Madison Square Garden, rather than the New York Rangers. If one owner or group owns more than one entity related to their hockey team they are able to shift revenues and costs between them.

Now how exactly is that calling the players stupid?

Are you saying it would be too difficult to put a box (figuratively) around the hockey team then, define what comes into the team (revenues) and what goes out of the team (expenses)? After that, market rates for advertising and broadcasting and any other "questionable" revenue streams can be determined. Is that something that is completely impossible to do by some one with a business degree and/or an auditor/accountant/lawyer?

From what I can see, the problem is not with doing the above. The problem has more to do with the players wanting to count as hockey revenue any other venture the owners control that could possibly profit from the hockey team, even if the venture would be profiting from the hockey team if the owner didn't control it. For example, my impression is that if there was a hotel and bar next to the arena, if it was owned by the owner of the hockey team, the players want to count revenue from that as hockey revenue. I can't see any business owner in any industry agreeing to something like that.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Are you saying it would be too difficult to put a box (figuratively) around the hockey team then, define what comes into the team (revenues) and what goes out of the team (expenses)? After that, market rates for advertising and broadcasting and any other "questionable" revenue streams can be determined. Is that something that is completely impossible to do by some one with a business degree and/or an auditor/accountant/lawyer?

From what I can see, the problem is not with doing the above. The problem has more to do with the players wanting to count as hockey revenue any other venture the owners control that could possibly profit from the hockey team, even if the venture would be profiting from the hockey team if the owner didn't control it. For example, my impression is that if there was a hotel and bar next to the arena, if it was owned by the owner of the hockey team, the players want to count revenue from that as hockey revenue. I can't see any business owner in any industry agreeing to something like that.

Would players want to include as much as possible in hockey revenue? Of course. Would owners try to hide as much as possible. Of course.

The players wouldn't say that all the revenue from the bar should be counted as hockey revenue, but isn't it fair to assume the bar is going to generate more revenue on nights when an event takes place in the arena? So shouldn't the players see a certain percentage of that?

Its also very hard to determine what revenue they generate because the owners refuse to make all(and at this point, any) of their books available to the PA. Until every cent that the NHL makes is accounted for, there can be no "partnership"

 

[djhn579]

Would players want to include as much as possible in hockey revenue? Of course. Would owners try to hide as much as possible. Of course.

Of course, but some things are reasonable, and somethings are not. It was a long time ago so I doubt I could find it now, but I saw an article where one of the players was actually saying that one owner was not losing money on hockey because they had money coming in from the basketball team and other associated business that he also owned.

The players wouldn't say that all the revenue from the bar should be counted as hockey revenue, but isn't it fair to assume the bar is going to generate more revenue on nights when an event takes place in the arena? So shouldn't the players see a certain percentage of that?

The point I was trying to make is that the only reason they can "try" to claim any money from the bar is if the team owner also owned the bar. If the bar is owned by Joe Schmoe, the players would have no way to get any money from Joe Schmoe, regardless of how much Joe profitted from the hockey team. Why should an owner fork over any more money to the players for other businesses they own if the players are not entitled to a share of that money from anyone else owning that kind of business?

Its also very hard to determine what revenue they generate because the owners refuse to make all(and at this point, any) of their books available to the PA. Until every cent that the NHL makes is accounted for, there can be no "partnership"

And that is what the auditors, accountants and lawyers are for. To figure out exactly what income is coming in. I'm willing to bet you can identify 100% of the revenue streams and over 90% of the actual revenue coming in. The NFL and other leagues seem to have no problem doing that. The percentage you negotiate as your share then is based on the 90% you know and the uncertainty in the 10% you don't know. Kind of like the NHLPA could be saying "We don't think that these numbers on the board advertising (for example) are accurate, but we will accept 30% of that revenue, but we want 70% of this other revenue stream, which we are very sure of...", it's called negotiating and compromising.

 

[CarlRacki]

Would players want to include as much as possible in hockey revenue? Of course. Would owners try to hide as much as possible. Of course.

The players wouldn't say that all the revenue from the bar should be counted as hockey revenue, but isn't it fair to assume the bar is going to generate more revenue on nights when an event takes place in the arena? So shouldn't the players see a certain percentage of that?

Its also very hard to determine what revenue they generate because the owners refuse to make all(and at this point, any) of their books available to the PA. Until every cent that the NHL makes is accounted for, there can be no "partnership"

Where I go to NHL games, people in the neighborhood surrounding the arena sell space in their alleys for parking. Should they chip in for the players as well? How 'bout the guy selling peanuts across the street from the stadium? He obviously wouldn't be selling as much of his product without the game. A bar a few blocks away runs a shuttle to and from games for its customers. How much should its owners have to fork over to the players?
The players should get a cut of hockey revenue and hockey revenue only. Ticket sales. Licensed merchandise. Broadcast rights. The fact the team's owner happens to own a bar down the block is irrelevant. The concept you're proposing punishes an owner for operating a separate business nearby, while the owner of a similar business next door pays nothing.

 

[thinkwild]

I cant believe people are still trying to make the case that the owners dont hide revenues. The current number being reported is $2.3 billion in league revenues. Covers all the losses. There are millions of ways they can hide revenue. Yes it would be difficult to put a box around hockey revenues and define them, or at least get both sides to agree on it. Its a stupid exercise anyway. Why should the players go through this? The owners know what they can afford and they will spend it.

But if they are saying they want a partnership, where they peg percentages at a percent, then yes, there are a multitude of ways they can hide revenue. There are volumes written about some of the ingenious way baseball owners did and still do this. We know of many ways hockey teams can do this. Its not even a question, everyone knows the owners are lying about and hiding their revenues. They can hide their hockey revenues from the players as easily and as well as they hide their personal revenues from their ex-wives.

 

[djhn579]

I cant believe people are still trying to make the case that the owners dont hide revenues. The current number being reported is $2.3 billion in league revenues. Covers all the losses. There are millions of ways they can hide revenue. Yes it would be difficult to put a box around hockey revenues and define them, or at least get both sides to agree on it. Its a stupid exercise anyway. Why should the players go through this? The owners know what they can afford and they will spend it.

But if they are saying they want a partnership, where they peg percentages at a percent, then yes, there are a multitude of ways they can hide revenue. There are volumes written about some of the ingenious way baseball owners did and still do this. We know of many ways hockey teams can do this. Its not even a question, everyone knows the owners are lying about and hiding their revenues. They can hide their hockey revenues from the players as easily and as well as they hide their personal revenues from their ex-wives.

Then I guess the best thing to do would be to shut down the NHL. If the level of distrust is so high that it is futile to even try to establish any kind of "partnership", why do the players even want to be in the NHL? If the players are being lied to so thoroughly, why are they even trying to negotiate a CBA? Why not just decertify and ask for whatever they want from whoever they want?

Personally, I'll miss the NHL...

 

[SENSible1*]

I cant believe people are still trying to make the case that the owners dont hide revenues. The current number being reported is $2.3 billion in league revenues. Covers all the losses. There are millions of ways they can hide revenue. Yes it would be difficult to put a box around hockey revenues and define them, or at least get both sides to agree on it. Its a stupid exercise anyway. Why should the players go through this? The owners know what they can afford and they will spend it.

But if they are saying they want a partnership, where they peg percentages at a percent, then yes, there are a multitude of ways they can hide revenue. There are volumes written about some of the ingenious way baseball owners did and still do this. We know of many ways hockey teams can do this. Its not even a question, everyone knows the owners are lying about and hiding their revenues. They can hide their hockey revenues from the players as easily and as well as they hide their personal revenues from their ex-wives.

A definition of hockey revenue can be negotiated.

Independant auditors can ensure that all teams abide by the negotiated definition.

The objections are just smokescreens.

 

[eye]

A definition of hockey revenue can be negotiated.

Independant auditors can ensure that all teams abide by the negotiated definition.

The objections are just smokescreens.

I agree Thunderstruck and let me just say that's it's reassuring and refreshing to have other posters on this board that actually get it.

How hard can it be for experts to figure out how many fans attend games and at what price. How much parking is and average number of cars. Average concession sales, average merchandise sales, luxury suites revenue should be easy. There are not hundreds of ways to hide revenues in hockey like some have indicated. It's a smokescreen or a copout by the PA and the players that like to use this is an excuse for not getting on with it.

 

[CarlRacki]

I agree Thunderstruck and let me just say that's it's reassuring and refreshing to have other posters on this board that actually get it.

How hard can it be for experts to figure out how many fans attend games and at what price. How much parking is and average number of cars. Average concession sales, average merchandise sales, luxury suites revenue should be easy. There are not hundreds of ways to hide revenues in hockey like some have indicated. It's a smokescreen or a copout by the PA and the players that like to use this is an excuse for not getting on with it.

Again, it goes to the issue of how one defines hockey revenues. Some believe that if a team owner also owns a nearby shopping center that will receive additional foot traffic on game nights, it should be counted as hockey revenue. If it isn't counted, they'll claim the owners are 'hiding' it.

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

Again, it goes to the issue of how one defines hockey revenues. Some believe that if a team owner also owns a nearby shopping center that will receive additional foot traffic on game nights, it should be counted as hockey revenue. If it isn't counted, they'll claim the owners are 'hiding' it.

Right. And Thunderstruck said it perfectly - right now, there's a problem, yes, because revenue has never really been an issue to anyone but owners. If the league is going to become something of a partnership through a salary cap that floats with revenues, then the two sides will have to sit down and define what constitutes revenues.

If the players think the shopping center should count, they'll ask for it. If the owners don't think it should, they'll try to keep it off the table. Once revenues have been defined and an independent auditor has been agreed upon, the "hiding" of revenues will cease being an issue.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

This is not rocket science people. The owners and players have teams of lawyers and CPA's working for them who can, if the will was there, sit down and define to the smallest detail what is and what is not 'revenue.' That is their job, and the final CBA will have a hundred pages on just this definition I am sure.

The real question is whether there is a will to impliment revenue sharing and a cap (however you name it) on both sides. The definitions of revenue could easily fall fairly into place if both sides agreed in principle to both.

 

[eye]

Like I said how hard can it be to come up with a pretty simple and agreed upon method to determine hockey revenues. Revenue in hockey is basically limited to ticket sales, portion of parking and concessions, luxury suites, coroporate sponsorship, merchandise sales, limited TV contracts. How hard can it be?

It doesn't really matter now anyway as Bill Watters is now on record as saying the NHL season is over. I think there is another day or two for a potential hero to step up but if not we can all save our debating energy and resume talks about 8 months from now.