It appears that someone should disect the disection....
"And that's 75% of net revenue of nearly $2 billion (aka gross profit), not gross revenue, going for total player costs, not just salaries."
???
Where the author of the article really goes off the rails is his attempt to put into question Levitt's independence ("No surprise, despite his so-called independence, that Levitt came within $12 million of the league's own loss declaration and within 1% of its player cost ratio.")
Given that the author is a skeptic - I'll venture that he or she needs a refresher on auditing.
To quote, "To characterize an audit as "unqualified" is the best opinion an auditor can give. "
Not true - an unqualified opinion merely means:
1) An audit engagement has been undertaken.
2) The general standard has been followed by the auditor in all respects on the engagement
3) Sufficient appropriate evidence has been accumulated, and the auditor has conducted the engagement in a manner that allows him or her to conclude that the three examination standards have been met.
4) The financial statements, which include the balance sheet, the income statement, the statement of retained earnings, and the notes to the financial statements are fairly presented in accordance with an appropriate disclosed basis of accounting, which is generally accepted accounting principles
5) There are no circumstances which, in the opinion of the auditor, would require him or her to modify the wording of the report or to add an additional explanatory paragraph.
(From Auditing- An Integrated Approach - Lemon, Arrens, Loebbecke)
A qualified opinion (such as the "going concern opinion") expressed by the author may be issued in the event that the current financial statements do not reflect the above.
In short, this weblog appears long on rhetoric, and short on facts.
You'll forgive me for listening to the former chairman of the SEC, who puts his accounting designation on the line, over a weblog written by,
Well, by whom???