One question no one has asked in all of this...

[The Grudge]

...At least that I've heard. And if it has been asked a player sure as hell hasn't answered it.

Why do the players think it is so completely insane for the owners to tie the players salary to what the team generates in revenues?

From what I can gather the owners are basically saying "No matter how much we make income-wise, you'll get 53%".
Why is that so unfair?

If I own a company or a corporation I'm not going to pay my staff $150,000 a year while the business is going to the dogs. If we're doing well then that's another story.

Let them sit out for another 5 years. I'm at the point now where I'd rather see hockey gone than have these players come back. They're all over in Europe and have turned their backs on us, yet some people are still waiting to pounce when they come back and get right back into it.

I for one, couldn't care less anymore.

Click to read more...

 

[BLONG7]

...At least that I've heard. And if it has been asked a player sure as hell hasn't answered it.

Why do the players think it is so completely insane for the owners to tie the players salary to what the team generates in revenues?

From what I can gather the owners are basically saying "No matter how much we make income-wise, you'll get 53%".
Why is that so unfair?

If I own a company or a corporation I'm not going to pay my staff $150,000 a year while the business is going to the dogs. If we're doing well then that's another story.

Let them sit out for another 5 years. I'm at the point now where I'd rather see hockey gone than have these players come back. They're all over in Europe and have turned their backs on us, yet some people are still waiting to pounce when they come back and get right back into it.

I for one, couldn't care less anymore.

They haven't answered this question because they don't have an answer... they just don't want to and that is why the fans in most cases are all over them...

 

[Cropduster]

.
Why do the players think it is so completely insane for the owners to tie the players salary to what the team generates in revenues?

.

because they dont believe the owners. thats the problem with all this. as long as they dont believe them, nothing matters

 

[The Grudge]

Don't believe or SAY they don't believe?

I know my answer.

 

[Charge_Seven]

...At least that I've heard. And if it has been asked a player sure as hell hasn't answered it.

Why do the players think it is so completely insane for the owners to tie the players salary to what the team generates in revenues?

From what I can gather the owners are basically saying "No matter how much we make income-wise, you'll get 53%".
Why is that so unfair?

If I own a company or a corporation I'm not going to pay my staff $150,000 a year while the business is going to the dogs. If we're doing well then that's another story.

Let them sit out for another 5 years. I'm at the point now where I'd rather see hockey gone than have these players come back. They're all over in Europe and have turned their backs on us, yet some people are still waiting to pounce when they come back and get right back into it.

I for one, couldn't care less anymore.

Because then the can of worms as to what is revenue gets opened.

 

[HF2002]

I was hoping your question was going to be where's the beef? I haven't heard that in a while.

 

[thinkwild]

It really isnt giving the players a percentage of the revenues created by the game if the owners make up a number, its just giving them a fixed amount. They want their scare commodity employees on salary.

The owners say they lost $200mil on revenues. But now the revenue has gone from the oft stated number of $2.1B to $2.3 bil. Yet, theyre still losing money and asking for sympathy and support

When the pa examined the books of 4 teams, they found $50mil in revenue they think is hockey revenue. How about they go to arbitration to determine the number. Both sides put forth what their audits found, and an arbitrator decides baseball style which is correct. IF owners pull a fast one like Jacobs on the tax man more than twice in 2 years, the cap is off. Fair?

 

[loudi94]

The question I have is:

Have the players been given an opportunity to vote on any offer that has come from the owners?

For all the rumours of players ready to play (see the Domi %70 thread) has the PA allowed the players to actually reject the owners offer?

If I was Bettman, I would insist the players vote on the offer (at the league's expense) if only to put the final nail in the coffin. Media wise it would be a big mistake for the PA to reject that proposition

 

[HF2002]

It really isnt giving the players a percentage of the revenues created by the game if the owners make up a number, its just giving them a fixed amount. They want their scare commodity employees on salary.

The owners say they lost $200mil on revenues. But now the revenue has gone from the oft stated number of $2.1B to $2.3 bil. Yet, theyre still losing money and asking for sympathy and support

When the pa examined the books of 4 teams, they found $50mil in revenue they think is hockey revenue. How about they go to arbitration to determine the number. Both sides put forth what their audits found, and an arbitrator decides baseball style which is correct. IF owners pull a fast one like Jacobs on the tax man more than twice in 2 years, the cap is off. Fair?

When they turned the books over were the numbers a review or an audit? forensic audit? Not to mention that there's plenty of discrepancies that they're going to argue over and never agree on. Especially luxury boxes.

 

[Hockeyfan02]

Don't believe or SAY they don't believe?

I know my answer.

They dont believe the owners. They dont believe that the owners are listing all their revenues.

 

[Charge_Seven]

They dont believe the owners. They dont believe that the owners are listing all their revenues.

Heck if anyone here believes they are, then this board is much, MUCH dumber than anyone could have thought.

 

[djhn579]

It really isnt giving the players a percentage of the revenues created by the game if the owners make up a number, its just giving them a fixed amount. They want their scare commodity employees on salary.

The owners say they lost $200mil on revenues. But now the revenue has gone from the oft stated number of $2.1B to $2.3 bil. Yet, theyre still losing money and asking for sympathy and support

When the pa examined the books of 4 teams, they found $50mil in revenue they think is hockey revenue. How about they go to arbitration to determine the number. Both sides put forth what their audits found, and an arbitrator decides baseball style which is correct. IF owners pull a fast one like Jacobs on the tax man more than twice in 2 years, the cap is off. Fair?

It's funny how the NHL players are supposed to be the best hockey players in the world, but I have yet to hear of any NHL player lighting the world on fire in any other league they are playing in. Have you? If the players are such a scarce commodity, they should be dominating these other leagues...

I'm glad you put that in there, "They think" is revenue...

 

[Wetcoaster]

The question I have is:

Have the players been given an opportunity to vote on any offer that has come from the owners?

For all the rumours of players ready to play (see the Domi %70 thread) has the PA allowed the players to actually reject the owners offer?

If I was Bettman, I would insist the players vote on the offer (at the league's expense) if only to put the final nail in the coffin. Media wise it would be a big mistake for the PA to reject that proposition

It is one of those odd things in labour law - the employer does not get to tell the union how to conduct its negotiations and how to deal internally with proposals. Hard to believe I know.

 

[Wetcoaster]

...At least that I've heard. And if it has been asked a player sure as hell hasn't answered it.

Why do the players think it is so completely insane for the owners to tie the players salary to what the team generates in revenues?

From what I can gather the owners are basically saying "No matter how much we make income-wise, you'll get 53%".
Why is that so unfair?

If I own a company or a corporation I'm not going to pay my staff $150,000 a year while the business is going to the dogs. If we're doing well then that's another story.

Let them sit out for another 5 years. I'm at the point now where I'd rather see hockey gone than have these players come back. They're all over in Europe and have turned their backs on us, yet some people are still waiting to pounce when they come back and get right back into it.

I for one, couldn't care less anymore.

The question really is 53% of what? A figure the owners have come up with that the NHLPA cannot verify.

In 1999 and 2000 the NHLPA conducted an in depth review (not an audit and they were not given full access to the team books nor any access to the related company books) of four teams - Montreal, Boston, Los Angeles and Buffalo. The NHLPA found about $52 million in hockey revenue not disclosed on the URO's the team had filed with the league.

Forbes Magazine took a very conservative look at the figures from the URO's used by Levitt and knocked them down by over half. Who knows what may have happened if they could have actually reviewed all the books.

Russ Conway has reported that Jeremy Jacobs and the Bruins have just been found guilty of hiding NESN broadcast revenues from the the state tax authorities and not paying tax on them. If Jacobs hides them from peopel who canprosecute him what makes you think he is being truthful with the NHLPA by filing URO's that are parely voluntary, self-defined and unaudited and for which there is no penalty for filing false figures?

So 53% of what????

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

So 53% of what????

Of revenues

The NHL's proposal clearly states that the league's books will be examined each year by a jointly-selected auditor and a figure will be calculated on which the cap will be based.

"Following the end of each League Year, the League's Hockey-Related Revenues will be audited by an independent auditor jointly selected by the NHL and NHLPA, and the escrowed funds will be distributed either to the Players; or to the Clubs; or to both Players and Clubs in order to ensure that the Players receive 54% of the League's Hockey-Related Revenues."

All this talk of no trust and "53% of what?" is just a smokescreen. The league has addressed the issue with its proposal yet PA supporters continue to squawk about how the numbers can't be trusted. All that needs to be done is for the two sides to come to an agreement on what constitutes hockey revenue and then "trust" becomes a moot point.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Of revenues

The NHL's proposal clearly states that the league's books will be examined each year by a jointly-selected auditor and a figure will be calculated on which the cap will be based.

"Following the end of each League Year, the League's Hockey-Related Revenues will be audited by an independent auditor jointly selected by the NHL and NHLPA, and the escrowed funds will be distributed either to the Players; or to the Clubs; or to both Players and Clubs in order to ensure that the Players receive 54% of the League's Hockey-Related Revenues."

All this talk of no trust and "53% of what?" is just a smokescreen. The league has addressed the issue with its proposal yet PA supporters continue to squawk about how the numbers can't be trusted. All that needs to be done is for the two sides to come to an agreement on what constitutes hockey revenue and then "trust" becomes a moot point.

No what was proposed was an examination of the URO's and team books. At issue are the revenues reported in the the Unified Report of Operations (URO) filed by league's 30 teams. Those UROs formed the basis for the Levitt Report, which the NHL commissioned and said is an accurate reflection of the league's financial woes. Forbes and other finacial experts would disagree as well as the NHLPA itself based on its own review from 1999 and 2000.

The NHL has refused access to other related companies and that is the key to tracing revenues given the conglomerates and interlocking companies. The NHLPA already know that these figures are not accurate and the President of the Flyers confirmed that in a newspaper interview just after the Levitt Report was released.

After the Levitt Report came out, Philadelphia Flyers chairman Ed Snider revealed his team was one of the 19 NHL teams the report said lost money in 2002-03. Team president Ron Ryan said the Flyers weren't among the teams whose bottom line was colored in red ink.

"Where it becomes confusing," Ryan told the Philadelphia Inquirer, "is that it sounds like there are two sets of books. The difference is that the report we make to the league, as directed by the players' association, is different from our own internal audited statement, which we view as the more accurate statement. So we were talking about two different reports."

What is not confusing is that since giving that interview is that Ron Ryan has not made another public statement. Big surprise.

So the real question is 53% of what??????????

As I said.

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

So the real question is 53% of what??????????

As I said.

Again, as I said. 53% of revenues.

The teams and players can sit down and define hockey-related revenues. Once that's done, a percentage of revenue that will be allocated to players can be agreed upon. Until now, revenues have been murky because the league has had no reason to show to the world their books since it hasn't been an issue.

With a cap, it becomes a big issue and the books will be opened and an auditor that both sides select will go over the books to tally up what has been agreed upon will constitute hockey-related revenues. Owners won't be able to hide what has been mutually agreed upon will make up those revenues because the auditor will know what to look for. If the auditor determines an owner does somehow manage to hide revenues, the players will be able to take them to the cleaners.

 

[Greschner4]

You shouldn't act as if the "of what" question is what's keeping a deal from being made. The players IN CONCEPT have rejected the idea that salaries should in any way be linked to league revenues. They've been saying it over and over for months; that's what this whole impasse is about.

The "of what" question has been answered in both the NFL and NBA, so it's hardly an impossible one.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Again, as I said. 53% of revenues.

The teams and players can sit down and define hockey-related revenues. Once that's done, a percentage of revenue that will be allocated to players can be agreed upon. Until now, revenues have been murky because the league has had no reason to show to the world their books since it hasn't been an issue.

With a cap, it becomes a big issue and the books will be opened and an auditor that both sides select will go over the books to tally up what has been agreed upon will constitute hockey-related revenues. Owners won't be able to hide what has been mutually agreed upon will make up those revenues because the auditor will know what to look for. If the auditor determines an owner does somehow manage to hide revenues, the players will be able to take them to the cleaners.

The owners refuse to open the books. They did not open all the books to Levitt even.

 

[Wetcoaster]

You shouldn't act as if the "of what" question is what's keeping a deal from being made. The players IN CONCEPT have rejected the idea that salaries should in any way be linked to league revenues. They've been saying it over and over for months; that's what this whole impasse is about.

The "of what" question has been answered in both the NFL and NBA, so it's hardly an impossible one.

Ted Saskin has stated in a radio interview on BaD Radio in Dallas/Fort Worth that if the NHL is prepared to consider revenue sharing at the NFL level then the NHLPA is prepared to look at a salary cap.

The NHL's investment banker, Moag and Company said the same thing in its June 2004 report.

 

[loudi94]

It is one of those odd things in labour law - the employer does not get to tell the union how to conduct its negotiations and how to deal internally with proposals. Hard to believe I know.

I am aware that they cannot force the union to take proposals to the players. They can however try to force the PA's hand through the media by appealing to the players themselves. It's dirty pool, but we're beyond playing fair.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I am aware that they cannot force the union to take proposals to the players. They can however try to force the PA's hand through the media by appealing to the players themselves. It's dirty pool, but we're beyond playing fair.

Okay, let's force the NHL owners to take a secret ballot and it only requires 16 owners to approve the last NHLPA proposal.

 

[vanlady]

It's funny how the NHL players are supposed to be the best hockey players in the world, but I have yet to hear of any NHL player lighting the world on fire in any other league they are playing in. Have you? If the players are such a scarce commodity, they should be dominating these other leagues...

I'm glad you put that in there, "They think" is revenue...

You need look no further than SEL. Shawn Horkoff, Brendan Morrison and Peter Forsberg are all in the fight for the scoring title.

 

[SuperUnknown]

You need look no further than SEL. Shawn Horkoff, Brendan Morrison and Peter Forsberg are all in the fight for the scoring title.

Shawn Horcoff... :lol

 

[OilerFan4Life]

Horcoff is a guy that can excel in a no contact, bigger rink league. But thats not the NHL. Thats why hes lighting up SEL and very mediocre in Edmonton.