Will players get a better offer?

Status
Not open for further replies.

dakota

Registered User
May 18, 2002
1,314
0
Ottawa
Visit site
Munchausen said:
One thing is for sure. The owners will not lose an other entire season again. They'll take whatever means necessary to re-open under a system where they no longer lose money.

I think this is FALSE... the owners are in this for the long haul... if it is FALSE (ie they are prepared to lose another season) then do you think the next offer will be lower then? What about in September 2006? Do you think the offer will be lower then? I think it will... the owners are prepared to sit this out another 2- 3 years... at least then many more of those guaranteed contracts will be gone... heheheh bye bye contracts $$$
 

Munchausen

Guest
dakota said:
I think this is FALSE... the owners are in this for the long haul... if it is FALSE (ie they are prepared to lose another season) then do you think the next offer will be lower then? What about in September 2006? Do you think the offer will be lower then? I think it will... the owners are prepared to sit this out another 2- 3 years... at least then many more of those guaranteed contracts will be gone... heheheh bye bye contracts $$$

As much as we can hear propaganda on either side stating they're willing to sit for many years to come in order to get the right deal, I don't buy it. I think both the players and owners feel they need to have a season next year. I am convinced there will be at least a partial season next year, whether it comes as a result of the owners caving, the players caving, both parties finding a creative solution to their problems (creativity has seriously lacked so far in these negotiations so I wouldn't count on that) or finally, through impasse, if everything else fails.
 

dakota

Registered User
May 18, 2002
1,314
0
Ottawa
Visit site
Munchausen said:
As much as we can hear propaganda on either side stating they're willing to sit for many years to come in order to get the right deal, I don't buy it. I think both the players and owners feel they need to have a season next year. I am convinced there will be at least a partial season next year, whether it comes as a result of the owners caving, the players caving, both parties finding a creative solution to their problems (creativity has seriously lacked so far in these negotiations so I wouldn't count on that) or finally, through impasse, if everything else fails.

hey I am with you in your thinking... or I was.. .back in September I did not see how the season would be cancelled... and yet it was... I am a believer... until the league gets what they NEED.. there will not be a season and judging by the NHLPA position they will not play in September. There is no reason for the owners to lose money in thier business... and until they get a deal that is good for the NHL they wont bother playing. So while I agree with you on how a deal will get done... i just dont know how one can be convinced of one getting done based on what we have seen in the past.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,913
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Munchausen said:
Why? Simple. Because their next offer will be worse for the PA, no matter if they go for impasse or not in the future. You're dreaming if you think the league will offer a bigger de-linked cap with better sub components to the deal from now on. The 42.5M is history. The players were foolish to refuse it and they'll have to live with the consequences. They'll never see such a high number again. This thing is going down.

The most likely scenario is the league coming back in March with a lower cap in a tweaked system, say 35M, linked to revenues, maybe with more profit sharing with the players to show they're willing to compromise on what they can afford to compromise. Then Goodenow refuses, states the offer is ridiculous, etc. The NHL comes back with an other proposal. The NHLPA counters, etc. (basically all the same things we've seen from the begining of this lockout).

Then if neither the PA or the league has come up with a solution to get the parties closer by September, the owners make a final offer, the NHLPA rejects it, they decide we're done since this is going nowhere again, the lockout's over, the owners impose their last offer as the new CBA and re-open the league. Likely then, players strike and file a claim for unfair labor practice or decertify. Replacement players are brought in, etc. etc. etc. and the legal mess begins. I'm sure the owners don't want to arrive to that point, but they will if it's the only choice left. One thing is for sure. The owners will not lose an other entire season again. They'll take whatever means necessary to re-open under a system where they no longer lose money.
I see it a little different ...The minute that the NHL decides to go backwards and make the numbers for the CAP smaller .. The NHLPA will say ..Okay take it to court you are no longer bargaining in "Good Faith" as far as the NHLPA are concerned .. At which time the NHL can declare Impasse and the process begins ..As you said , and everyone knows full well that if you don't take a high number you certainly are not going to accept a lower one ..

The Danger on Behalf of the NHL is that it is going to put their fate into the hands of the Courts and they will rule if 35 M and Linkage is in good faith considering the previous offer was 42.5 and no linkage .. The NHL will say revenues will go down ..and the courts will say first Define Revenue (as neither side has even sat down and discussed that yet, or drawn up what is included and not)..

Then present the court with facts that REVENUE has gone down not beliefs that it will go down .. The Court will say I have your 2.1 Bil Super Audit Levitt report and nothing else here .. The burden of proof will be the NHL responsibility to prove decreased revenue and with a lockout in effect how can they have any evidence that Fans will go away they are locked out like the Players currently.

In Fact the NHLPA will say that 80% of the popular vote has sided with the NHL in this dispute .. Leaving only 20% left for the NHLPA side .. So the courts could say that a 20% decrease is realistically all the NHL should expect it to drop .. and even then that does not guarantee that some of that 20% will not return to watch hockey .. Point being there is no evidence other then expectations of Revenues and as such no SMOKING GUN ..So to speak .. You can't prove something that hasn't happened yet .. The Courts could say that sure the Revenue will go done for a few seasons but then it could bottom out and rise again for the final 4 years of this CBA, possibly even higher then the current 2.1 Bil of today once all these fancy new rules you are talking about go into effect ..

I also believe the Courts will say if you want linkage then the Courts are going to order its own independent Audit of the Owners books to determine if the Levitt report is accurate .. So if some owners have now hidden Revenue or not provided the Levitt report with accurate information ** BIG TROUBLE ** for the NHL ..then NHLPA is going to get what it wants the books opened and true (trusted results) Financial Info to come out. Imagine if in that process another 500 Mil is discovered in Revenue not reported, then that would offset any Revenue going down theory and Hard Cap number and clearly put the NHLPA in the drivers seat for refusing any deal with linkage .. The courts will not authorize any CBA that includes linkage without first being 100% sure of the facts and accuracy. The NHLPA does not have to spend a million dollars doing its own audit of the books . Its more then happy to let the US Internal Revenue service go over the 30 Owners books with a fine tooth comb to validate accurate reporting..IMO ..This in fact could work both ways .. once the books are verified and if the Owners and levitt report accurate then the NHLPA can no longer play the ** TRUST ** card and should be more then happy to take Linkage once the % (percentage) of Salaries to Revenue is agreed upon ..

So I think your suggested strategy could really backfire on the NHL .. I think the best the NHL could do IMO ..Is hold firm on its 42.5 Cap or offer some gravy train sub clause like drop UFA a couple of years to offset a lower Cap number .. or any other sub-issue like Arbitration etc .. That at least then gives the impression that you are at least trying to get a deal and by definition Good Faith Bargaining ..
 
Last edited:

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
The Messenger said:
I see it a little different ...The minute that the NHL decides to go backwards and make the numbers for the CAP smaller .. The NHLPA will say ..Okay take it to court you are no longer bargaining in "Good Faith" as far as the NHLPA are concerned .. At which time the NHL can declare Impasse and the process begins ..As you said , and everyone knows full well that if you don't take a high number you certainly are not going to accept a lower one .. ..

The actual percentage of revenues the NHL will offer may not change, but they will be well within their rights to peg the cap at a lower level of expected revenue. I have already posted a link that shows that regressive bargaining is not bargaining in bad faith (EDIT See post #85 on page 6 of this thread...). In fact one of the examples was a case where the employer offered a decent contract and stated if it was not accepted within a certain amount of time, that offer would be off the table and a worse contract would be the best the union would be offered in the future. This is essentially what the NHL did, and it was upheld as bargaining in good faith.

The Messenger said:
The Danger on Behalf of the NHL is that it is going to put their fate into the hands of the Courts and they will rule if 35 M and Linkage is in good faith considering the previous offer was 42.5 and no linkage .. The NHL will say revenues will go down ..and the courts will say first Define Revenue (as neither side has even sat down and discussed that yet, or drawn up what is included and not)....

The NHL will show that report that showed they were losing $400M in advertising money, that ESPN was considering severing it's ties (~$70M, I think...), lost merchandise sales (~5% of last seasons levels), and will point to the drop off in attendance in the NFL and MLB when they had their labor issues.


The Messenger said:
Then present the court with facts that REVENUE has gone down not beliefs that it will go down .. The Court will say I have your 2.1 Bil Super Audit Levitt report and nothing else here .. The burden of proof will be the NHL responsibility to prove decreased revenue and with a lockout in effect how can they have any evidence that Fans will go away they are locked out like the Players currently..

In Fact the NHLPA will say that 80% of the popular vote has sided with the NHL in this dispute .. Leaving only 20% left for the NHLPA side .. So the courts could say that a 20% decrease is realistically all the NHL should expect it to drop .. and even then that does not guarantee that some of that 20% will not return to watch hockey .. Point being there is no evidence other then expectations of Revenues and as such no SMOKING GUN ..So to speak .. You can't prove something that hasn't happened yet .. ..

I think I pointed out several "smoking guns" and 80% fan support does not guarantee fans will attend the games and spend money as they did previously.


The Messenger said:
I also believe the Courts will say if you want linkage then the Courts are going to order its own independent Audit of the Owners books to determine if the Levitt report is accurate .. So if some owners have now hidden Revenue or not provided the Levitt report with accurate information ** BIG TROUBLE ** for the NHL ..then NHLPA is going to get what it wants the books opened and true (trusted results) Financial Info to come out. Imagine if in that process another 500 Mil is discovered in Revenue not reported, then that would offset any Revenue going down theory and Hard Cap number and clearly put the NHLPA in the drivers seat for refusing any deal with linkage .. The courts will not authorize any CBA that includes linkage without first being 100% sure of the facts and accuracy. The NHLPA does not have to spend a million dollars doing its own audit of the books . Its more then happy to let the US Internal Revenue service go over the 30 Owners books to validate accurate reporting ..IMO ..

You sure the courts are not going to ask why the NHLPA has refused to look at the NHL's books even though they have been offered on several occasions?

I think the courts will be more interested in whether both sides made a good faith effort to come to an agreement than to tell the NHL what they can and can't demand, IMO...

The Messenger said:
So I think your suggested strategy could really backfire on the NHL .. I think the best the NHL could do IMO ..Is hold firm on its 42.5 Cap or offer some gravy train sub clause like drop UFA a couple of years to offset a lower Cap number .. or any other sub-issue like Arbitration etc .. That at least then gives the impression that you are at least trying to get a deal and by definition Good Faith Bargaining ..

As I said, the courts will have little problem with the NHL putting the $42.5M cap on the table and then withdrawing it as similar bargaining tactics have been up held in the past. In fact, I would think that the NHL would be veiwed better as bargaining in good faith since they took made an offer without linkage and increased their cap value in a last ditch effort to save the season.
 
Last edited:

Munchausen

Guest
The Messenger said:

I agree with the jist of what you said. But all this doesn't matter. Why? Because the particularity of linkage is it will follow the peaks and valleys of the market. If the cap is set too low, after the season, it could be readjusted accordingly. So if they set the cap at 30M thinking the league's projected revenues are in the ballpark of 1B and oh surprise, they make 2.5B as a league, well the next year that cap could go up as high as 50M. So they don't have to prove anything, if there is linkage, it will be directly linked to each year's total revenues. Or of course, there's also the escrow account solution where the owners or the players give back the excess money that falls outside the 53%-55% range the owners want to set.

Now as far as hiding numbers, I think it's obvious to say that if indeed the league is doing this, they're certainly not going to go to impasse and risk having their scam blow in their faces. They'll only consider impasse if indeed their numbers are accurate and representative of the offer(s) they made. If they were straight with their revenue numbers, they won't have any problem to open their books to any court.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,913
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Munchausen said:
I agree with the jist of what you said. But all this doesn't matter. Why? Because the particularity of linkage is it will follow the peaks and valleys of the market. If the cap is set too low, after the season, it could be readjusted accordingly. So if they set the cap at 30M thinking the league's projected revenues are in the ballpark of 1B and oh surprise, they make 2.5B as a league, well the next year that cap could go up as high as 50M. So they don't have to prove anything, if there is linkage, it will be directly linked to each year's total revenues. Or of course, there's also the escrow account solution where the owners or the players give back the excess money that falls outside the 53%-55% range the owners want to set.

Now as far as hiding numbers, I think it's obvious to say that if indeed the league is doing this, they're certainly not going to go to impasse and risk having their scam blow in their faces. They'll only consider impasse if indeed their numbers are accurate and representative of the offer(s) they made. If they were straight with their revenue numbers, they won't have any problem to open their books to any court.
See you and I are negotiating in Good Faith .. by our posts .. I agree with the first part and the concept of Linkage as long as someone determines the FAIR % number .. that may be 55 % , that might be the 60+ % the NFL uses .. Then the Cap would move according to league revenues .. However the one thing that I believe would change is that that Hard Cap number starting 1st year will be based on actual 2.1 Bil reported ..

Those are the facts that are actual not theoretical ..as in 35 Mil but 45 Mil lets say .. The reason also being if you set a low cap based on expectation and then yoiu force teams to buyout players or trade players or make UFA spending decisions on spending and amounts of UFA contracts and RFA and then the lower Revenue does not happen .. You can't say Oops we blew it .. and correct all the contracts effected by it. You would face lawsuits by players being traded to small market teams and then suddenly realize that that was not necessary..

So while I agree ..I would still firmly believe that the Cap Number starts higher the first year and allow contracts to expire normally that year (almost like Grandfathering in) would be like. Owners claimed Salary cost where 75% of Revenue in the Levitt report ..if the courts set the % at 55 lets say first year = 45.0 M then that 20% diff (75% old - 55 % new). Should protect the owners, and would equal the market dropping by 20% in the first year ..

On the second point I also agree but Define "Going to Impasse" then ..

The NHLPA could simply not pick up the phone for 3 months and the NHL would have no recourse but to move forward ..at which time the matter would go to courts and the NLRB order an independent audit. If I was Bettman I would be very nervous that Wirtz and Jacobs and other reported correctly as they have been through the courts numerous times already on tax evasion and other court cases in involving money and reporting .. If the NHL wants to go with replacements and have its own CBA with Linkage the NHLPA will challenge that 100% guaranteed.. At which time your point will come into play .. and one way or another we will know which side was lying and which side was just mistrusting the facts given by the Levitt report..

I can't see anyway around an independent Audit other then a successful negotiated deal outside of courts and Impasse avoided.. and the only way that is possible is if Linkage is not a part of the New CBA .. because then it does not matter if the Audit report is right or not as its not the bases for linkage or partnership...

We simply have a Hard Cap number fixed that does not move .. however as the NHL threatened that Linkage is back on the table then they will have to be sure that all 30 owners where accurate with the Levitt report and withstand an Audit.

Like I said If the NHL was honest and accurate then they have nothing to fear from and IRS audit to get the Owners CBA in place .. If they reported accurately then the NHLPA is going to be dragged around by the nose in courts and rightfully so then, because they have Zero reason for not accepting Linkage and a Hard Cap based on the figures ..

This in my opinion is all going to come down to The Accuracy of the Levitt Report and Linkage.. IMO
 
Last edited:

Munchausen

Guest
The Messenger said:
See you and I are negotiating in Good Faith .. by our posts .. I agree with the first part and the concept of Linkage as long as someone determines the FAIR % number .. that may be 55 % , that might be the 60+ % the NFL uses .. Then the Cap would move according to league revenues .. However the one thing that I believe would change is that that Hard Cap number starting 1st year will be based on actual 2.1 Bil reported ..

Those are the facts that are actual not theoretical ..as in 35 Mil but 45 Mil lets say .. The reason also being if you set a low cap based on expectation and then yoiu force teams to buyout players or trade players or make UFA spending decisions on spending and amounts of UFA contracts and RFA and then the lower Revenue does not happen .. You can't say Oops we blew it .. and correct all the contracts effected by it. You would face lawsuits by players being traded to small market teams and then suddenly realize that that was not necessary..

So while I agree ..I would still firmly believe that the Cap Number starts higher the first year and allow contracts to expire normally that year (almost like Grandfathering in) would be like. Owners claimed Salary cost where 75% of Revenue in the Levitt report ..if the courts set the % at 55 lets say first year = 45.0 M then that 20% diff (75% old - 55 % new). Should protect the owners, and would equal the market dropping by 20% in the first year ..

If indeed the condition to accept linkage was a sort of grandfathering clause, where the cap number for the 1st year was set according to last season's numbers, I can't see that as a deal breaker. In fact, I'm sure lots of big market teams would push for this regardless so they don't lose all their assets at once and can use next season to reshape their team. I think it'd be a pretty reasonable request, just as long as for the following season and all subsequent ones, the cap is readjusted according to most recent revenue numbers.

The Messenger said:
On the second point I also agree but Define "Going to Impasse" then ..

The NHLPA could simply not pick up the phone for 3 months and the NHL would have no recourse but to move forward ..at which time the matter would go to courts and the NLRB order an independent audit. If I was Bettman I would be very nervous that Wirtz and Jacobs and other reported correctly as they have been through the courts numerous times already on tax evasion and other court cases in involving money and reporting .. If the NHL wants to go with replacements and have its own CBA with Linkage the NHLPA will challenge that 100% guaranteed.. At which time your point will come into play .. and one way or another we will know which side was lying and which side was just mistrusting the facts given by the Levitt report..

I can't see anyway around an independent Audit other then a successful negotiated deal outside of courts and Impasse avoided.. and the only way that is possible is if Linkage is not a part of the New CBA .. because then it does not matter if the Audit report is right or not as its not the bases for linkage or partnership...

We simply have a Hard Cap number fixed that does not move .. however as the NHL threatened that Linkage is back on the table then they will have to be sure that all 30 owners where accurate with the Levitt report and withstand an Audit.

Like I said If the NHL was honest and accurate then they have nothing to fear from and IRS audit to get the Owners CBA in place .. If they reported accurately then the NHLPA is going to be dragged around by the nose in courts and rightfully so then, because they have Zero reason for not accepting Linkage and a Hard Cap based on the figures ..

This in my opinion is all going to come down to The Accuracy of the Levitt Report and Linkage.. IMO

All the leverage the owners have, other than the fact they're billionaires and can probably outlast the players in a staring contest, is they can decide to unilaterally declare impasse, impose their last offer and reopen their doors. I don't think the NHLPA has anything to gain by not picking the phone for 3 months. In fact, their only hope to avoid impasse is to keep the process moving at all times. If impasse was not an option for the 1st year of this negotiation, it certainly will become one for the next phase of this ordeal. So the PA better not start playing the deadline hunting game once again or that deadline will quickly become an impasse starting date.

Since the issue here seems to be trust, I think a valid but bold option for both sides would be to try to call the other side's bluff on the numbers war. So the NHLPA should offer right away to the owners to take their offer on the condition the league opens all 30 teams' books for an independant 3rd party audit so their numbers can be proven either accurate or inexact. Likewise, the league might be advised to offer the exact same thing to the PA. What will come out of that will be the truth. Either the owners are hiding money and therefore have no foundation for the numbers put forward in their previous offers, or the PA is wrong and they unfairly accused the league to tinker with the numbers and will have no choice, even legally, but to accept what the league is offering. Seems to me both sides should work on the mistrust issues before trying to restart negotiations because if not, this will again amount to a big waste of time.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,913
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Munchausen said:
If indeed the condition to accept linkage was a sort of grandfathering clause, where the cap number for the 1st year was set according to last season's numbers, I can't see that as a deal breaker. In fact, I'm sure lots of big market teams would push for this regardless so they don't lose all their assets at once and can use next season to reshape their team. I think it'd be a pretty reasonable request, just as long as for the following season and all subsequent ones, the cap is readjusted according to most recent revenue numbers.

All the leverage the owners have, other than the fact they're billionaires and can probably outlast the players in a staring contest, is they can decide to unilaterally declare impasse, impose their last offer and reopen their doors. I don't think the NHLPA has anything to gain by not picking the phone for 3 months. In fact, their only hope to avoid impasse is to keep the process moving at all times. If impasse was not an option for the 1st year of this negotiation, it certainly will become one for the next phase of this ordeal. So the PA better not start playing the deadline hunting game once again or that deadline will quickly become an impasse starting date.

Since the issue here seems to be trust, I think a valid but bold option for both sides would be to try to call the other side's bluff on the numbers war. So the NHLPA should offer right away to the owners to take their offer on the condition the league opens all 30 teams' books for an independant 3rd party audit so their numbers can be proven either accurate or inexact. Likewise, the league might be advised to offer the exact same thing to the PA. What will come out of that will be the truth. Either the owners are hiding money and therefore have no foundation for the numbers put forward in their previous offers, or the PA is wrong and they unfairly accused the league to tinker with the numbers and will have no choice, even legally, but to accept what the league is offering. Seems to me both sides should work on the mistrust issues before trying to restart negotiations because if not, this will again amount to a big waste of time.
Okay .. Now we are done to TRUST and DEFINING what HOCKEY RELATED REVENUE is ..

Trust and Linkage are just about interchangeable words and you will not get one without the other .. and at present the minute the NHL puts Linkage on the Table the NHLPA will say we are out of here ..See you in court ..DUE TO TRUST ...

The reason I prefer the Court IRS audit is because that TRULY allows 3rd party people in to see the Books.. I hear your "inexact" and that comes down to the definition of Hockey Revenue and perhaps not wrongly representing the figures but more so not reporting everthing that may be Revenue.The NFL has it clearly defined in its CBA and the NHL would need to do the same first and go through this process before a partnership is possible..

Then If the court did do a Financial Audit and all grey areas would be closed and trust in the numbers would be established .. As you certainly know the Arthur Levitt "Super Audit" was really just a Financial Review .. All 30 teams provided him with the Accounting Information and based on what they supplied he verified the information and the numbers as correct .. However teams like Chicago and others never truly opened its books even for the NHL Owners, so he would not do that for a NHLPA 3rd party review outside of a court ordered one.. IMO

The final point of mine is that NO HARD CAP has ever been negotiated in a CBA in any major sport by Owners and the PA.. I don't think that Bob Goodenow is going to go down as the first to do so .. He is going to force the Courts to order one and if linkage is included it will be over his dead body ...

If that happens the Players could hardly blame him as that was outside of his control, and no NHL proposal was ever on the table that he turned down that had neither Linkage or Hard Cap in it.

Since the NHL needs LINKAGE and a CAP to guarantee a balance of Players Wages to Revenue for long term survival then again the Court route is the likely road we are heading down. This is really a WIN WIN situation as both sides would forever get its appropriate piece of the Revenue Pie ..

SO if that is the road ahead lets get on with it , and get this resolved ..
 

Munchausen

Guest
The Messenger said:
Okay .. Now we are done to TRUST and DEFINING what HOCKEY RELATED REVENUE is ..

Trust and Linkage are just about interchangeable words and you will not get one without the other .. and at present the minute the NHL puts Linkage on the Table the NHLPA will say we are out of here ..See you in court ..DUE TO TRUST ...

The reason I prefer the Court IRS audit is because that TRULY allows 3rd party people in to see the Books.. I hear your "inexact" and that comes down to the definition of Hockey Revenue and perhaps not wrongly representing the figures but more so not reporting everthing that may be Revenue.The NFL has it clearly defined in its CBA and the NHL would need to do the same first and go through this process before a partnership is possible..

Then If the court did do a Financial Audit and all grey areas would be closed and trust in the numbers would be established .. As you certainly know the Arthur Levitt "Super Audit" was really just a Financial Review .. All 30 teams provided him with the Accounting Information and based on what they supplied he verified the information and the numbers as correct .. However teams like Chicago and others never truly opened its books even for the NHL Owners, so he would not do that for a NHLPA 3rd party review outside of a court ordered one.. IMO

The final point of mine is that NO HARD CAP has ever been negotiated in a CBA in any major sport by Owners and the PA.. I don't think that Bob Goodenow is going to go down as the first to do so .. He is going to force the Courts to order one and if linkage is included it will be over his dead body ...

If that happens the Players could hardly blame him as that was outside of his control, and no NHL proposal was ever on the table that he turned down that had neither Linkage or Hard Cap in it.

Since the NHL needs LINKAGE and a CAP to guarantee a balance of Players Wages to Revenue for long term survival then again the Court route is the likely road we are heading down. This is really a WIN WIN situation as both sides would forever get its appropriate piece of the Revenue Pie ..

SO if that is the road ahead lets get on with it , and get this resolved ..

Hey whatever can get this resolved as quickly as possible is good for me. But trust is indeed something that needs to be worked on and the sooner the better. I think the owners have realized the players will never beleive their numbers unless somebody exterior to the league audits the books and comes out with the real numbers once and for all. But if the NFL and NBA can do it, certainly the NHL can too. Be it through the legal system or an independent party, this to me seems like the only step that could bing the 2 sides closer and avoid a complete mess. I hope they touch the subject on the next BOG meeting.
 

misterjaggers

Registered User
Sep 7, 2003
14,284
0
The Duke City
Munchausen said:
Hey whatever can get this resolved as quickly as possible is good for me. But trust is indeed something that needs to be worked on and the sooner the better. I think the owners have realized the players will never beleive their numbers unless somebody exterior to the league audits the books and comes out with the real numbers once and for all. But if the NFL and NBA can do it, certainly the NHL can too. Be it through the legal system or an independent party, this to me seems like the only step that could bing the 2 sides closer and avoid a complete mess. I hope they touch the subject on the next BOG meeting.
I think the PA's constant "the books are cooked" mantra is a red herring thrown out there to keep the rank and file unified. The league has invited the PA to bring in their own independent auditors to verify their numbers on multiple occasions, but the PA expressed no interest. Their 24% rollback offer proves that the PA knows the league is in genuine financial trouble.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Trust is NOT necessary to formulate linkage.

Define hockey revenues.

Contract independant auditors and get them access to the books.

Define penalties for cheating.

Business partnerships are formed all the time between groups who have zero TRUST for the other side.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,913
11,862
Leafs Home Board
misterjaggers said:
I think the PA's constant "the books are cooked" mantra is a red herring thrown out there to keep the rank and file unified. The league has invited the PA to bring in their own independent auditors to verify their numbers on multiple occasions, but the PA expressed no interest. Their 24% rollback offer proves that the PA knows the league is in genuine financial trouble.
Here Read this Article

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20050102/FP_001.htm

It explains the difference between an Audit and a Review ..

Bettman has said come in to talk to Aurthur Levitt :



Trust remains issue

NHL legal counsel Daly said the players union was offered a chance to grill Levitt about the report. "They're not the least bit interested," he said.
Union officials say it would take a team of accountants months to unravel the tangled corporate structure of NHL teams and account for all revenues and expenses.

"So the process didn't solve anything. It's one-sided. They used their own rules in coming up with a conclusion."
The issue comes back to one of trust.

The problem in not with Levitt and the Numbers ..The problem is with the process they used to gather the numbers and in Levitt's own Words ..

The Levitt report largely relies on audited financial reports supplied by the NHL teams themselves.


Blinn said that was "another area of concern."

"If you're an accountant working for a team or working for a company related in some way with the team, you're working for the same owner. That's who pays you, so you've got his best interests in mind."

Blinn said if an independent auditor did the work, "dollars to doughnuts, you'd get altogether different numbers."

The Levitt report authors said they verified the team audits independently. Another problem was that not all the teams reported hockey revenue the same way.
 

BitterEnd

Registered User
Dec 24, 2004
44
0
So under this very best case scenario each player could make an average of 1.2 million dollars for an 80 game schedule? Does that seem ironic to anybody else? The players will not play for an aveage 1.3 million dollars but will form thier own team and make even less... ha ha. The players are so screwed!


The Messenger said:
They play for Gate Receipts ..

They Travel around the country to many Areana's and play games ..

Average 15,000 fans X $50/ticket = $ 750,000 per game .. Building owner gets cut say $100,000 + Parking, Concessions etc and then the 44 players divided up the rest giving them each $14,500 - $15.000 /game per player.

Could buy them losts of time until the NHL changed its stance ..
:joker:
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
BitterEnd said:
So under this very best case scenario each player could make an average of 1.2 million dollars for an 80 game schedule? Does that seem ironic to anybody else? The players will not play for an aveage 1.3 million dollars but will form thier own team and make even less... ha ha. The players are so screwed!

:joker:

Not only that the numbers just don't add up. How many of these travelling troupes are the players going to start? 30 troupes, playing each other, 82 times a year? 15000 at $50 a game? Maybe in TO and a handful of the big markets but not in the rest.

I can't see the hockey minstrels employing more than a handful of teams. I wouldn't leave Europe to join if I had a steady job there. $50 to see 3rd and 4th line NHLers put on an exhibition game? Maybe if they were a home town, but they aren't. Its hard to get behind a bunch of nobodies, who mean nothing to the town.
 

Cosis

Guest
The players are screwed. The owners couldnt offer more money at this point even if they wanted to.
 

misterjaggers

Registered User
Sep 7, 2003
14,284
0
The Duke City
The Messenger said:
...Bettman has said come in to talk to Aurthur Levitt...
The NHL has done more than offer the PA access to Levitt. On more than one occasion they've invited the PA to bring in their own independent auditor to review the books, but the PA ignored the offers.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,913
11,862
Leafs Home Board
misterjaggers said:
The NHL has done more than offer the PA access to Levitt. On more than one occasion they've invited the PA to bring in their own independent auditor to review the books, but the PA ignored the offers.
That is because in my opionion the NHL and NHLPA has never sat down and defined Hockey Related Revenue ...

and second .. I am not sure if you have ever seen or are familar with accounting practices but many of these owners have many other intermingled companies in their full empire .. Unless you take months and years to figure out partnerships and relationships one to another.. It does no good looking at a set of books for a single business .. and certainly the owners are not going to be generous to allow the players to see other company books that are none of their business ..

A simple example would be Bill Wirtz ..He owns many companies, businesses and property .. He for instance might draw his total yearly Salary only out of His NHL business and it would show up on the books and towards a loss on the bottom line .. How can an accountant make a decision if that is correct or accurate unless he has access to both sides or all the info .. It will just show up as an number and no way to veryify it. ??
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
300-17 think the players got their best offer? lol, that is an amazing agreement. What exactly was the owners last offer btw? Does anyone know?
 

Johnnybegood13

Registered User
Jul 11, 2003
8,711
968
The Messenger said:
A simple example would be Bill Wirtz ..He owns many companies, businesses and property .. He for instance might draw his total yearly Salary only out of His NHL business and it would show up on the books and towards a loss on the bottom line .. How can an accountant make a decision if that is correct or accurate unless he has access to both sides or all the info .. It will just show up as an number and no way to veryify it. ??

I fail to see whats wrong with Wirtz taking his whole salary out of "his" NHL team...what if it was his only gig?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->