NHL's projections of the NBC deal

Status
Not open for further replies.

mooseOAK*

Guest
The Messenger said:
Judging by your response you are clearly not an accountant .. If the NHL wants to implement its CBA and base it on its Financial figures then the burden of proof is in their hands to prove the figures are correct .. The NHLPA will simply file a claim disputing the Levitt report and say we did an independent review of 4 teams books and our findings and results are different. At which time the court will order its own audit and we move forward.

The bigger problem is the system in which its reported .. The Owners have their books closed and own many Companies at the same time .. An simple accountant can make a entry in the books one day when the NHLPA is reviewing the books and then the next day transfer Costs or Expense or Revenue to a connected company .. The NHLPA would have to review the book every day ..

I think the Court case will rule that all revenue collected by the 30 independent NHL terms must be reported to and information stored by a 3rd Party Accounting Firm .. So that at any time the NHLPA or NHL can request that info to determine if the future Cap and Revenue in this quarter or year is going up or down .. This is the only way to guarantee trust and accuracy .. The NHLPA will never tie itself to the honour of the 30 owners telling them what the figures are and they are not in the accounting business to constantly have to be concerned if Revenue is being reported correctly, as it effects their livelihood and wages ..

You either have to have a CBA with Un-linked Hard Cap not based on Revenue figures and linkage .. for the owners reporting of revenue to not be an issue. The minute the NHL wants linkage a 3rd party has to be involved for the protection on both sides .. and if the NHL owners are reporting correctly then they would have no problem with a 3rd party maintaining the ACTUAL LEAGUE REVENUE...

Let's carry this lack of trust thing to the next level then.

As an owner if that was the case then I would want a 3rd party audit of how my player who I am spending my money on works out, his lifestyle, maybe drug testing. After all if I have to account for every penny I spend then I am going to want to make sure that whoever I am spending my money on is living up to his end of the bargain too. I want him working out all summer and maintaining top fitness and he will have to report for regular physicals just to make sure. I want a personal written guarantee that he will do all these things and play to his utmost ability every game or I get a salary rebate
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
The Messenger said:
Judging by your response you are clearly not an accountant .. If the NHL wants to implement its CBA and base it on its Financial figures then the burden of proof is in their hands to prove the figures are correct .. The NHLPA will simply file a claim disputing the Levitt report and say we did an independent review of 4 teams books and our findings and results are different. At which time the court will order its own audit and we move forward.

The bigger problem is the system in which its reported .. The Owners have their books closed and own many Companies at the same time .. An simple accountant can make a entry in the books one day when the NHLPA is reviewing the books and then the next day transfer Costs or Expense or Revenue to a connected company .. The NHLPA would have to review the book every day ..

I think the Court case will rule that all revenue collected by the 30 independent NHL terms must be reported to and information stored by a 3rd Party Accounting Firm .. So that at any time the NHLPA or NHL can request that info to determine if the future Cap and Revenue in this quarter or year is going up or down .. This is the only way to guarantee trust and accuracy .. The NHLPA will never tie itself to the honour of the 30 owners telling them what the figures are and they are not in the accounting business to constantly have to be concerned if Revenue is being reported correctly, as it effects their livelihood and wages ..

You either have to have a CBA with Un-linked Hard Cap not based on Revenue figures and linkage .. for the owners reporting of revenue to not be an issue. The minute the NHL wants linkage a 3rd party has to be involved for the protection on both sides .. and if the NHL owners are reporting correctly then they would have no problem with a 3rd party maintaining the ACTUAL LEAGUE REVENUE...

And I would say based on your reply you haven't been paying attention to anything that has been going on in the past few months. The NHL has attempted to provide "burden of proof", but the NHLPA continues to walk away. That is no longer the NHL's problem. The NHLPA has made the decision to walk away and not engage on the matter what so ever. That was the NHLPA's decision, and that will not play well in a court of law. As for the charge of "cookin' the books", that's pretty weak and has been proven to untrue by numerous sources for many teams. All of these companies still have to report earnings and are open to government audits at any time, so it is unlikely they are going to do as you suggest. As well, the NHL has outlined that their linked revenue scheme includes third party auditting, so your point there is moot.

Again, all I see from the PA side is hand waving to distract you from the most obvious solutions to these problems. The PA is attempting to get people to believe that there is a conspiracy against the players that is being perpetrated by few hundred companies, all of them cooking their books and lying to make sure the players do not continue to make the money that it is extremely obvious the industry cannot sustain. Sorry, the conspiracy angle doesn't sell.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
The Messenger said:
Bob Goodenow has never said anything close to that claim of yours .. You will need to provide a link in order to show that claim, I certainly have never heard it before and the fact that the NHLPA did a review of 4 owners books and found misreported Revenue would suggest that your claim is totally false ..

Also the court audit of the books will continue despite what is happening .. If the owners implement their own CBA and players decide to cross a picket line ..that does not stop the Court audit from not continuing .. If 6 months down the road the Courts find that the CBA in place is not based on accurate figures it will have it removed and that is the whole purpose of the claim by the NHLPA in the first place .. In baseball the court re-installed the old expired CBA until and new one could be negotiated between the 2 sides .. The NHL can't just do what it wants and not be accountable for the accuracy of the information it intends to use as its CBA ..

I'll look for it when I have the time (and it did surprise me when Goodenow said that), it was in answer to a journalist's question at a press conference. I'll research it someday when I have some extra time.

As I said, the issue is good faith bargaining. The NHL could deposit the individual team's audits as "proof" and the Levitt Report (based on these team's audits) that they can't sustain the current system. As to the %, they can state the other major sports % going to the players, along with the fact the NHL revenues are lower than those other sports revenues, implying a higher portion for other fixed costs, which means that the offered % would be a bit below what's paid in the NBA (58%).

If the courts somehow ask for another audit (for 3-4 years) and a replacement players season is being played with success, the NHLPA will face a mutiny and won't hold long enough for the process to be complete. That's why I really doubt the NHLPA will ask for an audit that would mean the court decision would be delayed by 3-6 months (at least).
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
The Iconoclast said:
And I would say based on your reply you haven't been paying attention to anything that has been going on in the past few months. The NHL has attempted to provide "burden of proof", but the NHLPA continues to walk away. That is no longer the NHL's problem. The NHLPA has made the decision to walk away and not engage on the matter what so ever. That was the NHLPA's decision, and that will not play well in a court of law. As for the charge of "cookin' the books", that's pretty weak and has been proven to untrue by numerous sources for many teams. All of these companies still have to report earnings and are open to government audits at any time, so it is unlikely they are going to do as you suggest. As well, the NHL has outlined that their linked revenue scheme includes third party auditting, so your point there is moot.

Again, all I see from the PA side is hand waving to distract you from the most obvious solutions to these problems. The PA is attempting to get people to believe that there is a conspiracy against the players that is being perpetrated by few hundred companies, all of them cooking their books and lying to make sure the players do not continue to make the money that it is extremely obvious the industry cannot sustain. Sorry, the conspiracy angle doesn't sell.
Bottom line the NHLPA wants nothing to do with a Hard Cap and/or Linkage .. That is their current position ..

So engaging in projects about the books is irrelevant.. The NHLPA cares less what the owners are reporting or claiming the true numbers are. They don't care if they are accurate or not at this point since they do not want to be tied to the owners as partners.

Should the time come when the NHL forces it beliefs on the NHLPA in the form of an IMPASSE CBA will be the time the NHLPA will ask the courts to verify and rule on the issue, until that time it feels that getting a negotiated CBA in place is a better time management resource then running around and checking the books ..

If the NLRB rules in the NHLPA favour about bad faith bargaining has occurred or the courts determine the at the accuracy of the figures imposed in not correct then the CBA is thrown out .. and engaging in something you want thrown out in the first place seems like a complete waste of time and energy .. If the NLRB rules in favour of the NHL , then their is nothing the NHLPA can do , except decertify the union and again get the self imposed CBA nullified .. so all paths lead away from engaging in financial figures provided by the NHL ..

So disengaging as the NHLPA has done supports their case of NO CAP - NO Linkage while engaging would hurt their stance and weaken their case in the courts.. IMO.. as the obvious question would arise as to why did they spend money on their own review if you want the courts to throw out the CBA, that would suggest that its not your position at all, and we are really down to the Linkage % here and the Hard Cap figure ..

If you want to sell me your car and I say I am not interested .. and then I come over and check out the motor and take it for a test drive ..what does that say ???

You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink..
 
Last edited:

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
The Iconoclast said:
More PA rhetoric. You say on one hand that the owners are in for the long haul then assume that the owners are going to sell out immediately after the CBA is signed. If they wanted a quick profit they would have sold the whole league and washed their hands of the mess. So employing who ever they do is going to have zero impact on franchise values until a long term ternd can be established.

If I did so, I didn't mean to make it sound like I think they are going to sell right away. Of course it's going to take a couple of years to determine new franchise values after this mess, but in my opinion, I don't think they will bring in replacements because the quality of hockey will be diminished even worse that it has been in the last passed 5 years, thus crushing values.

My basic point is with this entire season missed and replacements starting next season, franchise values are going to contiune down the tubes for the next 5-10 years. The game will not recover for a very long time if it does recover at all. I think replacements is the end of this leagues value. When you miss an entire year of play, then open shop without the best players who played in the league two years ago, how much revenue will be broguht in? It only makes sense that it continues on the decline
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
The Messenger said:
If you want to sell me your car and I say I am not interested .. and then I come over and check out the motor and take it for a test drive ..what does that say ???

You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink..

So when the NHLPA whines and cries for years and years about gettng access to the books and seeing the truth, yet when that happens they turn tail and run in the other direction, stmping their feet loudly all the way... what does that say???

A better saying in regards to the NHL and the PA's position is "you can't bullschiznit a bullschiznitter".

Frankly, both sides have to grow the hell up, put this crap behind them and start working together for the good of the game. A partnership is the best thing possible for the game.
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,390
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
The Messenger said:
Then there is no way around this even if it takes 3-6 months to do .. The Courts will never rule on a Valid CBA unless it is 100% sure the Financial figures are correct and reported similarly for 30 teams..
One thing that you are not considering is that each team's financial structure isn't the same.

Just an quick example. NHLPA wants to include parking revenue as "hockey revenue" of which they get a cut. Some owners (Wirtz as an example) own the vast majority of parking lots situated around the arena, and others don't. Do you include the parking revenue only for teams that own the parking? That doesn't make much sense IMO, as you are penalizing owners that have made an additional investment.

I think that is why several posters are proposing a relatively "strict" view of what is hockey revenue (ticket sales, TV, + advertising).
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,390
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
nyrmessier011 said:
If I did so, I didn't mean to make it sound like I think they are going to sell right away. Of course it's going to take a couple of years to determine new franchise values after this mess, but in my opinion, I don't think they will bring in replacements because the quality of hockey will be diminished even worse that it has been in the last passed 5 years, thus crushing values.

My basic point is with this entire season missed and replacements starting next season, franchise values are going to contiune down the tubes for the next 5-10 years. The game will not recover for a very long time if it does recover at all. I think replacements is the end of this leagues value. When you miss an entire year of play, then open shop without the best players who played in the league two years ago, how much revenue will be broguht in? It only makes sense that it continues on the decline

Just as a CPA that has done a lot of acquisition work - normal business are almost always valued based on cash flow. When you have a negative cash flow - values go down. Show me a team that has consistently lost money and has appreciated greately in value. The teams that appreciated greatly in value are those that make money (aka - the NFL teams). I would go so far as to say that the NHL teams that had substantial appreciation were all sold before the major losses over the last 5+ years.

The value of a NHL franchise is not going to be impacted at all if there is relatively short period of hockey with replacement players. The quality of the game does not matter insofar as there are buts in the seats. If attendance is bad for 3 months of replacement players, and then players cross the picket lines, there will be NO negative impact on franchise value because marginal hockey was played for a while. In fact, a CBA with a reasonable hard cap and/or linkage would likely be a HUGE inflator in team values. (Of course, if a team has sustained substantial losses over the last 5 years, it would take HUGE gains to offset the negative cash flow for that period of time).
 

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
Beukeboom Fan said:
Just as a CPA that has done a lot of acquisition work - normal business are almost always valued based on cash flow. When you have a negative cash flow - values go down. Show me a team that has consistently lost money and has appreciated greately in value. The teams that appreciated greatly in value are those that make money (aka - the NFL teams). I would go so far as to say that the NHL teams that had substantial appreciation were all sold before the major losses over the last 5+ years.

The value of a NHL franchise is not going to be impacted at all if there is relatively short period of hockey with replacement players. The quality of the game does not matter insofar as there are buts in the seats. If attendance is bad for 3 months of replacement players, and then players cross the picket lines, there will be NO negative impact on franchise value because marginal hockey was played for a while. In fact, a CBA with a reasonable hard cap and/or linkage would likely be a HUGE inflator in team values. (Of course, if a team has sustained substantial losses over the last 5 years, it would take HUGE gains to offset the negative cash flow for that period of time).


Again, i apologize for not making myself as clear as possible. I agree it will have no or little impact on franchise values if replacements are only there for a couple of months, but I'm under the impression that replacements will be there the entire season-- In my opinion at least. I think two full years without top players will kill values for next 10 years at least
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
nyrmessier011 said:
Again, i apologize for not making myself as clear as possible. I agree it will have no or little impact on franchise values if replacements are only there for a couple of months, but I'm under the impression that replacements will be there the entire season-- In my opinion at least. I think two full years without top players will kill values for next 10 years at least

It will depend on the popularity of replacement players. If there is strong support it would actually raise the NHL teams value through the roof.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
guymez said:
Can you show a link for just one system which dosen't have a delinked inflationary componant to it? I am not trying to be sarcstic here....I would genuinely like to see one.

It is not possible to have a totally non inflationary system. The average salary will always go up in the long run. The average baseball salary has actually gone done since they got their luxury tax, a tax much weaker than the starting points propsed by thr NHLPA.

The biggest problems with the last CBA were the entry level cap being circumvented, arbitration that favored the players, and an inherently inflationary QO system. Every proposal made by the NHLPA has been in the owners' direction on all of those.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
HF2002 said:
And isn't this part of the reason they have a union and hire specialists to help them understand the business?

There's no question the NHL needs to market the game a hell of a lot better than they have been doing. But priority one is to make sure that what they're selling is going to survive. How do you market something that's on the verge of imploding?

No no no. The players don't want to understand that side of the game. The money, the marketing, the business, its all too hard. They just want to go out there and do their work then go home, just like autoworkers. But don't dare to compare them autoworkers, that makes them sad and they'll sulk.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Mat said:
actors are a product too but you dont see them marketing themselves
their producers manage that

An actor can sit on his butt in NY while the movie is making money in England, Japan, Canada and the US. Is the product the movie or the actor? Its the movie.

As for marketing the lead actors market the movie a lot. Always travelling for openings in different countries. They flog the product hard.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Weary said:
No. Appeal to Popularity is a logical fallacy.

He states a fact (in his opinion) which leads to a conclusion as opposed to a conclusion that leads to a fact. I guess it comes down to how you want to interpret his sentence.

1. "PA made sense" therefore "less people on there side"

2. "lack of public support" means "PA makes no sense"

The first runs on the premise that that the PA make no sense. I would think the second is the appeal to popularity not the 1st. I think he meant the 1st and so its not really an appeal to popularity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->