Larry Brooks is clueless

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
DR said:
in all fairness, everything you just said can be applied to both sides. both sides look silly for their negotiating positions, just depends whose glasses you want to look at the issues through.

dr

Sure, what ever. One side says we'll give you the lion's share of revenues along with an opportunity to make vast sums of money by assuming minimal risk, and they look silly? Silly for making such a generous offer?

I agree the NHL has looked silly in this whole thing. They should have piushed forward on replacement players, making the NHLPA membership make a decision, support the top 8% of the association who will get all the benefits or get back to earning more money in a year that you will make over the next 10-20. Pretty simple choice for many players.

The NHLPA meeting has been cancelled for one reason and one reason only. Goodenow is scared to death to face the membership in person and face an open challenge. All its going to take is one guy to open his mouth in a room full of pissed off players and the whole house of cards come crashing down on Sideshow Bob IMO. Mob mentality is a very powerful thing, especially with a room full of no-minds like professional athletes.
 

FlyersFan10*

Guest
Sammy said:
Why dont you NHLPA guys have any intellectual honesty, & call a spade a shovel. The reason why they dont want downward linkage is because they make less money. There is nothing wrong with that, but instead, you guys come up with these ridiculously fallacious reasoning in some misguided effort to hide the true rationale.

Actually, I'm an NHLPA guy and I'm kind of insulted that you think we're all Pejorative Slurs or something. Nobody ever said that owners weren't losing money. But let's be honest here. Do you not think that there isn't deception going on by both sides? I mean, do you honestly think some owners might be overstating their losses? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there were. The fact that there have been reports that Jeremy Jacobs did not report revenue and the same with Bill Wirtz should give people some indication.

However, with that being said, both sides are being butt nuggets with regards to getting a deal done. It's time to bite the bullet, but that the deal needs to be fair. And that's the problem. The deal isn't fair and as a union person, I know I wouldn't put my signature on it. The deal does not address any kind of real revenue sharing and the fact remains that there will still be teams in financial trouble even with this deal done. What does that mean? It means in 6 or 7 years down the road, owners will complain once again that they aren't making any money and will shut down the league looking for even tighter measures.

If the owners and players really wanted to, they could always go to binding arbitration. And the fact that both sides have no interest in going there should indicate that both sides have something to hide.
 

Sammy*

Guest
FlyersFan10 said:
Actually, I'm an NHLPA guy and I'm kind of insulted that you think we're all Pejorative Slurs or something. Nobody ever said that owners weren't losing money. But let's be honest here. Do you not think that there isn't deception going on by both sides? I mean, do you honestly think some owners might be overstating their losses? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there were. The fact that there have been reports that Jeremy Jacobs did not report revenue and the same with Bill Wirtz should give people some indication.

However, with that being said, both sides are being butt nuggets with regards to getting a deal done. It's time to bite the bullet, but that the deal needs to be fair. And that's the problem. The deal isn't fair and as a union person, I know I wouldn't put my signature on it. The deal does not address any kind of real revenue sharing and the fact remains that there will still be teams in financial trouble even with this deal done. What does that mean? It means in 6 or 7 years down the road, owners will complain once again that they aren't making any money and will shut down the league looking for even tighter measures.

If the owners and players really wanted to, they could always go to binding arbitration. And the fact that both sides have no interest in going there should indicate that both sides have something to hide.
I never said you were all Pejorative Slurs. I just dont like it when somebody pretends something is what it isnt. The owners are greedy, as are the players. They want all they can get. I know that. I also know (think) that want the owners want will have the fortunate by-product of making the league healthier. I cant say the same for the players. If they got what they want the last CBA would have been renewed & competetive & financial imbalance would remain, with the players being the financial beneficiaries.
Frankly, if this was about anything other thamn money, the players would have agreed to talk about the CBA long before it expired. They didnt, with the only possible reason being that they thought they would have way more leverage later (or so they thought) to extract as much as they can from the owners.
And oh, the owners may be overstating losses. Thats why we have auditors that can be hired. And thats another aspect that drives me nuts. The players say for linkage & revenue sharing we cant trust the owners. What a load of BS. Every other league for some amazing reason can hire auditors to audit things & ensure that the revenues are being accountted for but the NHLPA cant. What a joke. Call it what it is. The real impediment is they don't didnt want it cause it impacts negativly on their $$. Thats fine, but dont lie about the true motivation because its laughable cause the at least 2 of the other major sports do it, with no apparent difficulty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

transplant99

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
549
0
Visit site
DR said:
no it doesnt and if you think about it, thats a built in safety mechanism to ensure the NHL owners a) do their job and grow the business and b) arent incented to hide revenue.

really, the role of the management and owners is to grow the business, nothing else. this ensures they do their job or else it costs them big.

dr


thats an interesting spin.

Here i could of sworn I heard that the players are the product (IE; The business) not the game.

hence...if they want the game to grow, and profits to be realized for themselves, is it not incumbent on THEM to do the growing?

Either they are employees or they are the product....cant be both ways.
 

Ron C.

Registered User
Sponsor
Jun 16, 2002
2,791
79
Amherst, NY
Visit site
This is really not that complicated. The NHL is a business that loses money (for whatever reason: poor owner negotiating skills, owners that treat their hobby as an indulgence,etc.). A majority of the owners have decided enough is enough. The question is what is a fair allotment to player/employee salaries. It has to be enough to keep the "better talent" out of the European leagues and still be enough to make some money for the investors who have invested capital. The NBA has adequately delineated "total revenues." This really should not be that hard people.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
Ron C. said:
This is really not that complicated. The NHL is a business that loses money (for whatever reason: poor owner negotiating skills, owners that treat their hobby as an indulgence,etc.). A majority of the owners have decided enough is enough. The question is what is a fair allotment to player/employee salaries. It has to be enough to keep the "better talent" out of the European leagues and still be enough to make some money for the investors who have invested capital. The NBA has adequately delineated "total revenues." This really should not be that hard people.

This is very much up for debate, and I'm not sure either side would agree. Not to mention the NBA's salary cap has proven largely useless.

Brook's suggestion is fairly ridiculous, but I also find it laughable how some people make anything over 54% sound like the end of the world.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
transplant99 said:
thats an interesting spin.

Here i could of sworn I heard that the players are the product (IE; The business) not the game.

hence...if they want the game to grow, and profits to be realized for themselves, is it not incumbent on THEM to do the growing?

Either they are employees or they are the product....cant be both ways.
thats right ... because companies in the widget business expect the widget to develop business and marketing plans.

the players are the production.

dr
 

Ron C.

Registered User
Sponsor
Jun 16, 2002
2,791
79
Amherst, NY
Visit site
The players are the product just as actors are the product. In addition, there are production costs. Once an actor has developed an audience, he or she can receive a lesser salary in lieu of points ( or linkage to profitability). This is in essence the argument here.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Epsilon said:
Brook's suggestion is fairly ridiculous, but I also find it laughable how some people make anything over 54% sound like the end of the world.
in most business, the cost of sales is in the 70% range. for those of you who dont know what "cost of sales" means, its the "cost" to produce, promote and deliver the product that is "for sale".

since the bulk of the NHL's cost of sales is the players themselves, comparing the % to traditional employment % is not accurate.

dr
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Ron C. said:
This is really not that complicated. The NHL is a business that loses money (for whatever reason: poor owner negotiating skills, owners that treat their hobby as an indulgence,etc.). A majority of the owners have decided enough is enough. The question is what is a fair allotment to player/employee salaries. It has to be enough to keep the "better talent" out of the European leagues and still be enough to make some money for the investors who have invested capital. The NBA has adequately delineated "total revenues." This really should not be that hard people.
It is quite complicated. It is NOT a number - it is a negotiated formula.

It took the NFLPA accountants almost 18 months to go through all the financial information before they were even in a position to begin to negotiate the definition of total revenues. It was similar process for the NBAPA.

The NBA and NBAPA negotiated what constitutes BRI (Basketball Related Income) which is a different formula than DGR (Designated Gross Revenues) negotiated by the NFL and the NFLPA. In both cases the NBAPA and NFLPA are looking for a re-negotiation of the definitions as there has been to much "revenue leakage" in their view.

Hockey Related Revenues will be a negotiated formula as well and almost certainly different form the NBA and NFL definitions.

As far as losing money, it all depends how you calculate the numbers - what do you incude as revenue and what do you debit as expenses.

Ed Snider, Chairman of the Board of the Flyers said the Flyers lost money while the Flyer's President said the team made a profit for that same year. His explanation??? - two sets of reports - the URO's given to the NHLPA showing a loss and the Flyer's internal reports showing a profit that he described as "more accurate" in an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer when asked about Snider's claim of losses.

Forbes Magazine forecast profits of $.3 million in 2002-03 and $1.7 million in 2003-04 for the Canucks. Burke indicated on several ocassions that the Canucks had made a profit of around $20 million in 2002-03 and $25 million in 2003-04. That seems credible when the sale of half of the Canucks to the Aquilini Group was recently completed at the reported price.

It is a very complex set of negotiations and if there is to be linkage then there must be complete full and frank disclosure of all financial information for the teams and all there related corporate entities as was done in the other sports. The NHL owners have admantly and consistently refused such disclosure while pushing the now discredited URO's.
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
Wrong. The owners have repeatedly offered to jointly examine the books with the PA.

It's the PA that refuses to look at the numbers, hiding behind their tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Crazy_Ike said:
Wrong. The owners have repeatedly offered to jointly examine the books with the PA.

It's the PA that refuses to look at the numbers, hiding behind their tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.
No, the owners have NEVER offered to open up all the books for the teams and their related corporate entities. Reviewing the URO's is an exercise in futility.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
NHLPA has never even asked to see the books (not UROs) despite being offered a chance several times.

Get an independent auditor group approved by both PA and the league to go through the books.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Pepper said:
NHLPA has never even asked to see the books (not UROs) despite being offered a chance several times.

Get an independent auditor group approved by both PA and the league to go through the books.
Yes the NHLPA has asked for the complete books and been refused. The NHLPA has requested this on various ocassions going back to the 4 team review in 1999. The owners have refused to give unfettered access.

Goodenow noted this at the time of the Levitt Report as well.
"We have consistently stated that one critical issue of disagreement between the NHLPA and the League on finances is how to define the complete business of owning an NHL franchise, and how to address the significant inconsistencies contained in the NHL's voluntary and unaudited URO reporting process," said Goodenow. "At the outset it is clear the Levitt report, commissioned by the League, is fundamentally flawed when the author "elects" to define hockey revenues on the same basis as used in the NBA and NFL for defining revenues in their salary cap systems.

"We were given access to the UROs (Unified Report of Operations ) for 30 clubs, but were only able to conduct a thorough review of four NHL clubs. On those four clubs alone we found just over $52 million in hockey related revenues and benefits not reported in the League's voluntary and unaudited URO process. If we are given similar access to all of the other individual teams' financial information, presumably used in the Levitt report, we will be in a position to provide further comment."
Of course Goodenow initially assumed that Levitt was given full access and disclosure but it is only after reading the report and closely examining the ancilliary notes that is becomes clear Levitt used the URO's. No where in the report does Levitt provide any individual team information nor did he look at the related corprate entities - he took the URO's and ran with them.

Ted Saskin told The Sporting News:
"We went and requested further information that spoke to a lot of the related entities and disclosed a lot of revenue sources that clearly were not being counted in the URO process," NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin told The Sporting News. "Just on those four teams alone, we saw a swing of $50 million toward profitability. That's only on four out of 30 teams.

"We've always said it's not an accounting issue of making sure the numbers add up," Saskin said, "but a much more complex task of how one defines the revenues in a business with many related parts and complicated corporate structures. There's no way to tell because they continue to refuse to give you individual team financial information."

"The financial reporting you get from the National Hockey League is only as good as the information they get from each team in what is an unaudited and voluntary submission. And the old adage 'Garbage in, garbage out' is unfortunately an apt description of the current system they have in place. We have numerous examples of teams simply putting down 'zero' for luxury suites, concessions and other items. You can't take that kind of reporting seriously."

Here is Stevie Y on the same issue:
"There's a lot of things that aren't reported," Detroit captain Steve Yzerman told the Detroit Free Press. "The huge debate is, basically, what are the revenues of hockey, and the league chooses to not include some significant revenues in the business of hockey (that) the players' association feels there are. There's your big discrepancy. It's not really a secret; they're not hiding anything, they're just not there. And we say they are."

This why if the NHL is insisting upon linkage the NHLPA is again seeking full and complete disclsoure of all the financial information that has yet to be provided - as the report that began this thread sets out.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
At the outset it is clear the Levitt report, commissioned by the League, is fundamentally flawed when the author "elects" to define hockey revenues on the same basis as used in the NBA and NFL for defining revenues in their salary cap systems.

And whats wrong with this??
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Pepper said:
At the outset it is clear the Levitt report, commissioned by the League, is fundamentally flawed when the author "elects" to define hockey revenues on the same basis as used in the NBA and NFL for defining revenues in their salary cap systems.

And whats wrong with this??
Because those are artificial constructs which were negotiated as formulae to take into account different issues facing those sports. The NBA and NFL definitions are quite different from one another and an NHL defintion will be different from those two.

In the case of the NBA and NFL there was full and complete disclosure and then the defintions of revenues were negotiated from there. the NHL owners have yet to take the first step in the process - disclosure.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
This is what I don't get. Two articles are posted, one which happens to be pro-NHLPA, and the thread is titled:

"Larry Brooks is clueless"

The other one, which predicts the end of the NHLPA as we know it, is titled:

"Players to raise voice in talks"

Both are nothing but opinion and speculation, but the thread starters have to immediately discount the pro-player article, while taking the pro-owner one at absolute face value, even though the "raising of the voice" is apparently supposed to happen at some time in the future.

The level of one-sided vision, inability to even comprehend anything without bias, and sheer hatred on these boards is absolutely appalling. Don't even post what the article is about, just call brooks an idiot. If Larry Brooks wrote that the sun was going to rise today, everyone on here would bash him for being an idiot. Can't even discuss anything he writes without dismissing it as trash, since it came from Larry Brooks.

It gets worse, Goodenow cancels an all-player meeting for the end of May declaring that there was no progress to discuss and immediately everyone jumps to the conclusion that (a) Goodenow is evil (b) the meeting would have resulted in players calling for his head (c) the players would have unanimously voted to accept whatever crap owners proposal was on the table at the time.

Backup to January, when Gary cancels a BOG meeting due to the lack of progress to discuss, and everyone on here took that at face value. Double standard much?
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Larry Brooks has proved over and over again that he's totally one-sided & biased and doesn't even try to be objective with his pro-PA propaganda columns.

Alan Hahn gets the benefit of a doubt because he does not have a proven track record similar to Brooks.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
Because those are artificial constructs which were negotiated as formulae to take into account different issues facing those sports. The NBA and NFL definitions are quite different from one another and an NHL defintion will be different from those two.

In the case of the NBA and NFL there was full and complete disclosure and then the defintions of revenues were negotiated from there. the NHL owners have yet to take the first step in the process - disclosure.

Hmmm, and haven't you been pointing to the NFL and NBA of shining examples of leagues that have been up front with their revenues and saying the NHL must be more like them? And now you're saying the NHL will be different? And frankly, you have no idea what information was disclosed and what what was not with either of the NFL or NBA. You also have no idea what was disclosed by the NHL. I do find it highly hypocritical that you hold the NFL and NBA up as your shining example, and then the minute someone uses their formulas for revenue identification, you dismiss that work as being flawed.

Yes the NHLPA has asked for the complete books and been refused. The NHLPA has requested this on various ocassions going back to the 4 team review in 1999. The owners have refused to give unfettered access.

Again, YOU said it yourself in the past that the NHLPA had full and complete access to the books of four teams. THEY were the ones who walked away from the exercise because the information they found didn't fit their theory. THEY were the ones who refused to look over the Leavitt report, which used the constructs that the NBA and NFL use for revenue classification like you have been demanding all these months, and rand away buring their heads in the sand because the information didn't fit their theory. The only report the NHLPA seem to like is the Forbes report, which is 100% guess work with zero information from any books at all. Cut and paste your way out of those gems and changes in tune.

:shakehead
 

AXN

Registered User
Feb 10, 2004
1,451
0
For god sake why even bring this up? If you don't like Brooks pro PA articles then go read Stan Fischler's pro NHL articles.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
The Iconoclast said:
Hmmm, and haven't you been pointing to the NFL and NBA of shining examples of leagues that have been up front with their revenues and saying the NHL must be more like them? And now you're saying the NHL will be different? And frankly, you have no idea what information was disclosed and what what was not with either of the NFL or NBA. You also have no idea what was disclosed by the NHL. I do find it highly hypocritical that you hold the NFL and NBA up as your shining example, and then the minute someone uses their formulas for revenue identification, you dismiss that work as being flawed.



Again, YOU said it yourself in the past that the NHLPA had full and complete access to the books of four teams. THEY were the ones who walked away from the exercise because the information they found didn't fit their theory. THEY were the ones who refused to look over the Leavitt report, which used the constructs that the NBA and NFL use for revenue classification like you have been demanding all these months, and rand away buring their heads in the sand because the information didn't fit their theory. The only report the NHLPA seem to like is the Forbes report, which is 100% guess work with zero information from any books at all. Cut and paste your way out of those gems and changes in tune.

:shakehead

Please do not misrepresent what I have said.

I have never said the NFL and NBA are shining examples. What I have pointed out is that if you are going to negotiate a formula for Hockey Related Revenues, then the starting point is full, frank and complete disclosure of all financial information for the teams and their related corporate entities. That is what has been done in the other sports. It is only the beginning of the process and it is an ongoing exercise.

In fact I have pointed out several times how the NFLPA was able to find over $300 million in undisclosed revenues last off-season by going through the books with what Gene Upshaw termed a "fine tooth comb". Because the NFLPA had access to the financial information this was possible. The NFLPA is currently seeking to renegotiate the formula because many owners have been able to "leak" substantial monies from shared revenues into local non-shared reveneues.

Similarly the NBAPA is also seeking an amended defintion of Basketball Related Income.

I have never said that ... "the NHLPA had full and complete access to the books of four teams (during the 1999 review). The exercise ended when the NHL refused to cooperate after the NHLPA found over $50 million in revenues not disclosed in the filed URO's. The NHLPA took the URO's and then did an investigation using the documents they could obtain (shareholders reports, SEC filings, etc.) to test the URO's.

Here is how Ted Saskin explained the process to The Sporting News:

"We went and requested further information that spoke to a lot of the related entities and disclosed a lot of revenue sources that clearly were not being counted in the URO process," NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin told The Sporting News. "Just on those four teams alone, we saw a swing of $50 million toward profitability. That's only on four out of 30 teams.
 

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
Wetcoaster said:
"We went and requested further information that spoke to a lot of the related entities and disclosed a lot of revenue sources that clearly were not being counted in the URO process," NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin told The Sporting News. "Just on those four teams alone, we saw a swing of $50 million toward profitability. That's only on four out of 30 teams.

And ultimately, even Forbes couldn’t agree with that statement as shown with their numbers. As well, the 24% roll back proposed by the NHLPA last Dec 9th didn’t either. It was largely a statement of rhetoric made by Saskin and not a factually accurate one that can be substantiated by any one nor any third party auditor. More smoke because when push came to shove, 24% rollback went on the table which could never happen if the above quote had substance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->