it was a joke - sorry - here's some more fun stuff
http://www.careermisconduct.com/
http://www.careermisconduct.com/wirtzlaw.html
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/2001/0710/1224543.html
http://www.careermisconduct.com/
http://www.careermisconduct.com/wirtzlaw.html
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/2001/0710/1224543.html
Northern Dancer
The future ain't what it used to be.
The Pucks
Registered User
So, Karmanos has lost 135 million since he took over the team.
But, let me ask you this, how much has the value of the team increased?
Thats how it works, maybe you loose some money on paper, but you also gain in value.
But, let me ask you this, how much has the value of the team increased?
Thats how it works, maybe you loose some money on paper, but you also gain in value.
Well, maybe if you believe all THAT crap ...Wirtz makes Ballard look like a SAINT !!!!!
Aw the ol' three card monte, let's hide the massive profits, the owners are liars, etc, etc, story rears it's very ugly head again !!!!
It really makes me laugh when I see this nonsense. Do you really think the 30 NHL owners locked out the players for a YEAR because they were all secretly making all sorts of money with creative accounting ??? What would be the point of that ?????
I am by no means saying they made $$$MMM but I would said it is nonsense to believe everything you read about losses when not all revenue is part of the picture.
And also ask oneself, is the original purchase price in that figure?
Um, i am not very sure how familiar you are with principles of accounting, but a capital expenditure to buy a team does not qualify as a part of an operating loss. If a guy like Karmanos sells the team at a loss, that is a capital loss, but until that happens it is unrealized. Given the lack of depth of knowledge that your original post showed, I will refrain from getting into permanent impairment of goodwill or anything like that. It will just confuse the issue further for you. Suffice to say in response to your hypothetical - "I seriously doubt it".
Incidentally, the URO's do include all hockey-related revenues. What's more, they do NOT include all expenses, chief among them being carrying costs on debt, which is probably the second largest line item for a number of teams.
I just asked the question about the "capital expenditure" ......but you remind me of the ****head at the bar who spouts off all this stuff than go looks at himself in the mirror thinking people actually care what he said. What a joke !!!
Beside, you probably already work for me....you just don't know it !!
Butch 19
Go cart Mozart
Aw the ol' three card monte, let's hide the massive profits, the owners are liars, etc, etc, story rears it's very ugly head again !!!!
It really makes me laugh when I see this nonsense. Do you really think the 30 NHL owners locked out the players for a YEAR because they were all secretly making all sorts of money with creative accounting ??? What would be the point of that ?????
It's funny that so many fans and media (Strachen) drink the NHLPA kool-aid.
The players were just fine making more per season than NFL players, but they somehow had a problem when the owners said they wanted to turn a profit too.
The owner's called their bluff and the NHLPA was 90% responsible for loosing an entire season.
And mr gib, do you actually think that a few owners that made profits talked the other owners into cancelling a season just to make a point?? What would that point be exactly?
If the majority of owners were making a profit, I'm 100% certain they would have voted to keep playing, but that didn't happen did it?
concerning your question of course not - it is interesting to note as a whole payroll is more now than in 04 -05
Whatever, guy. You remind me of the ******** who throws out comments like the one in your original post and then is offended when someone points out just how pathetically misinformed they are. Make a useful contribution to the discussion and you will receive a more temperate response. Make a useless contribution like the one that you did and you get what you got.
You are the joke. There. Are we further along now?
As for me working for you, let me put it as politely as I can; I highly doubt that this is true, or even capable of being true. I suspect the reverse is far more likely to be true. Now kindly stop bothering people.
Northern Dancer
The future ain't what it used to be.
Good Point and that is exactly what is wrong, a lot of teams have increased there budgets up to the cap, when in reality if they did not make money prior to the new CBA. (at a lessor salary structure) There is some financial trouble brewing out there with some of the small market teams.
I don't believe that is true, gib. Unless payrolls went up approximately 25-30% over 2005-06, it is definitely not true, in fact. Do you have a source for your statement?
EDIT:
Sorry about that. Basic math in fact tells us that this is categorically false, without the need to even refer to a source.
Assuming gib means 2003-04 (since payroll in 2004-05 was in fact zero), even if every team were capped out, $44 million/team x 30 teams = $1.32 billion. It is less, of course, because every team is not capped out.
Payroll in 2003-04 was $1.415 billion.
That is without getting into the return of monies due to escrow. If memory serves, and assuming projected revenues are not exceeded, the collective payroll will be the midpoint x 30 teams. If memory serves, the midpoint is in the range of $36-38 million, is it not? Accordingly, collectively salaries are far below previous levels.
Last edited by a moderator:
That ignores the impact of revenue sharing. It also ignores the reality that some smaller market teams, such as Calgary and Carolina, experienced huge revenue increases individually. Of course they would increase their payroll commensurately.
However, as I pointed out above, the premise is flawed. Salaries are still substantially depressed from previous levels.
Northern Dancer
The future ain't what it used to be.
Agreed that over-all salaries are down (that was the point of the lock-out) but that is because all the teams above the cap have had to reduce sharply and a lot of the middle of the pack and bottom-feeders rose sharply. (i.e. Ottawa and before anyone takes offence Iam not saying Ottawa is a bottom-feeder)). The expense was generally re-distributed amongst 30 teams and I agree at an over-all reduced rate.
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,130
- 8,533
Acutually, if i was in his place, i might be upset. instead of writing off the loss, he now has to pay tax on the slim profit. he might actually be worse off!
i actually saw a chart that confirmed payroll was up - i'll dig about and find it - yes 03 04 -
this isn't the chart i saw but here is 03 04
http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm
now if have to find this year -
Last edited:
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
Well, since that chart shows that '03-'04 salaries averaged $44M/team, it is in fact impossible for payrolls to be up unless every team was at the cap (which they are not) or they are secretly over and just haven't told Bettman about it.
Of course, team payrolls are just a usefull fiction. I can guarantee you that teams are not paying an average of $44M in actual player costs (unless league wide revenues increase 20% to $2.5B). They will end up paying 54-55% of actual 2006-07 League HRR - no more, no less. If revenues are flat from last year, that will be an average of $36M per team. If payrolls are more than that, the players just give back money through escrow.
Welcome to the world of cost certainty.
