Larry Brooks is clueless

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wetcoaster

Guest
cleduc said:
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.
The forbes number were very conservative because they only used numbers they were able to verify.

For example Forbes pegged the profits of the Cancuks at $.7million for 2002-03 and $1.3 million for 2003-04 when the Canucks actaully made $20 million and $25 million for those seasons.

The 24% rollback was contingent on salaries not being linked to revenues.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
WC Handy said:
Brian Burke and Dave Nonis on CKNW's Sportstalk, various reports in the media at the time of the recent Aquilini purchase of 50% of the Canucks.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
The NHLPA has asked for the books to be opened. The NHL refuses. It has been reported in the media on various ocassions.

Just prior to the lock out Bill Daly expressed frustration in dealing with the union because they kept asking for financial information on the teams they had been seeking for the past 5 years.

In 2003 there were a series of secret meetings dubbed "Project Blue Fin" and these meetings were subsequently disclosed by the Toronto Globe and Mail and The Hockey News. Project Blue Fin was an attempt by the NHLPA to get at the financial information of all the teams beyond the provided URO's but that broke off when the NHL adamantly refused to provide the requested financial information and demanded the NHLPA agree to a cap without seeing the books.

In respect of the 1999 four team review, the NHLPA did not get to audit those four teams. They did an in-depth review of the URO's and were allowed selective access to some documents for the teams. Using publicly available documents to check against the imnformation given, they found $52 million in undisclosed revenues.

No NHL team has ever fully disclosed to the NHLPA and the owners have always refused to do so.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
mr gib said:
i concur - mccammon too
Right I forgot that interview when Stan McCammon was asked if the Canucks were in a position to up their salary structure to accomodate rental players and make a run in the play-offs and he mentioned the two years profit. Thanks.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
The NHLPA has asked for the books to be opened. The NHL refuses. It has been reported in the media on various ocassions.

What a load of crap. Bettman and Daly have both said in public numerous times that they'd open the books and have criticized the NHLPA for NOT asking to do so.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
WC Handy said:
What a load of crap. Bettman and Daly have both said in public numerous times that they'd open the books and have criticized the NHLPA for NOT asking to do so.
The NHL have never said they are prepared to open all the books of the teams and their related entities - in fact they have said the exact opposite. The NHL owners are prepared to review the URO's as disclosed already to the NHLPA.

It would be a simple offer to make - but it has never been made. So you get obfuscation. How long did it take bettman to finally admit what everyone knew - cost certainty was in fact a salary cap. Same old, same old.

As we already know the URO's are woefully inadequate.

As Daly said in September 2004 that pesky NHLPA just keeps on asking for the same finaincial information thay have been after for the past 5 years (since the 1999 four team review). How about just giving it to them???? Or perhaps with full disclosure the figures are not borne out as claimed.

Refer to the Flyers for proof of that with their differing reports - the URO's given to the NHLPA showing a loss as claimed by Ed Snider per the Levitt Report and the more accurate internal financial reports showing a profit accoriding to the President of the Flyers.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
The NHL have never said they are prepared to open all the books of the teams

Yes, they have. THey said it plenty last fall.
 

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
Wetcoaster said:
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 occasions 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.

That's only confusing until one recognizes things like:
- the sale of the Canucks also involved GM Place
- the profit/loss of the Canucks NHL team alone does not represent Orca Bay Sports & Entertainment who put on concerts and other events that make money. It's only convenient to forget that these are two different financial subjects when posting on a message board and trying to combine them as one to pretend there is more confusion on the subject than really exists.
- likewise for the Flyers.

Like any accountant would when rationalizing a product line, the value add of a hockey team can only be properly assessed by looking at the true value/or lack of it that it adds to the business and separately from the business. There is no legal entity on the NHL planet that does that and so you have the UROs to do it for you.

Therefore, you have two answers: one for each question:
Did Orca Bay S&E make money ? Yes, with concerts and other activity they did
Did the Canuck ? Not like Orca Bay did and they’ve lost $46 mil according to Forbes since ’99..

Again, you have two separate questions for the Flyers. One for the entity that run the team along with other non-hockey related business and one specific to the Flyers. Both the Flyers and the Canucks, the NHL, Levitt, etc have explained this many times. The time you’d really have to wonder, knowing how they are structured, is when they didn’t have two answers.

Even without the Canucks, evidence of the reasonableness of such separation exists today because, somehow, without the mighty Canucks, Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment continues to operate, putting on concerts and events as they have done in the past. If they are anything like MSG, they may be making more money at than they were.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
cleduc said:
That's only confusing until one recognizes things like:
- the sale of the Canucks also involved GM Place
- the profit/loss of the Canucks NHL team alone does not represent Orca Bay Sports & Entertainment who put on concerts and other events that make money. It's only convenient to forget that these are two different financial subjects when posting on a message board and trying to combine them as one to pretend there is more confusion on the subject than really exists.
- likewise for the Flyers.

Like any accountant would when rationalizing a product line, the value add of a hockey team can only be properly assessed by looking at the true value/or lack of it that it adds to the business and separately from the business. There is no legal entity on the NHL planet that does that and so you have the UROs to do it for you.

Therefore, you have two answers: one for each question:
Did Orca Bay S&E make money ? Yes, with concerts and other activity they did
Did the Canuck ? Not like Orca Bay did and they’ve lost $46 mil according to Forbes since ’99..

Again, you have two separate questions for the Flyers. One for the entity that run the team along with other non-hockey related business and one specific to the Flyers. Both the Flyers and the Canucks, the NHL, Levitt, etc have explained this many times. The time you’d really have to wonder, knowing how they are structured, is when they didn’t have two answers.

Even without the Canucks, evidence of the reasonableness of such separation exists today because, somehow, without the mighty Canucks, Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment continues to operate, putting on concerts and events as they have done in the past. If they are anything like MSG, they may be making more money at than they were.
Burke, Nonis and McCammon have all been clear it was the Canucks and not the Orca bay conglomerate that made profits of $20 million and $25 million over the past two seasons.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
WC Handy said:
Yes, they have. THey said it plenty last fall.
The NHL was not prepared to open all the books, just the URO based financials.

Saying it does not make it so unless you define your terms.

Remember Bettman claiming interminably that "cost certainty" is not a salary cap????????????
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
Burke, Nonis and McCammon have all been clear it was the Canucks and not the Orca bay conglomerate that made profits of $20 million and $25 million over the past two seasons.
Forbes lists last year's revenues at $74 million, player expenses at $45, so how do you get a $20-25 million profit out of $29 million left for all other costs?
 

BLONG7

Registered User
Oct 30, 2002
35,619
21,953
Nova Scotia
Visit site
Wetcoaster said:
Burke, Nonis and McCammon have all been clear it was the Canucks and not the Orca bay conglomerate that made profits of $20 million and $25 million over the past two seasons.
And Burke himself has said that it was with a lower payroll than they would of had this year if it had been played...he then says it would of been impossible to keep the lid on the Nucks payroll as everyone of the players would have been due for big raises...which is what happens everytime a team does well...Calgary and Tampa would be examples of this, if there had been a season most players on these teams would have all been going for bigger $$$...I think the Bolts did already lose Cullimore...and the Flames will have it tough trying to hang on to Iggy... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ it's all about money...
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
It's probably a conspiracy. PA mouthpieces are fond of conspiracy theories.

If this was a political forum the same people would be claiming the hidden money is going to either terrorists or Haliburton (maybe both!)...

:D
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
mooseOAK said:
Forbes lists last year's revenues at $74 million, player expenses at $45, so how do you get a $20-25 million profit out of $29 million left for all other costs?
Forbes lists the profit (aka operating income) at 1.3 million for the Canucks for the 2003-04 season.
http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists...ssListType=Misc&uniqueId=315423&datatype=Misc

It is Nonis, Burke and Mcammon who pegged the Canucks actual profit at $25 million for that season.

Obviously Forbes was not able to credit all the revenues received by the team as they were unable to confirm them through third party sources - that is my point in this whole exercise. I have said all along that Forbes has been extremely conservative in its forecasts and therefore the losses are likely much less that even Forbes is showing.

Thank you for so graphically illustrating my point that revenues are much higher than claimed in the URO's.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Crazy_Ike said:
It's probably a conspiracy. PA mouthpieces are fond of conspiracy theories.

If this was a political forum the same people would be claiming the hidden money is going to either terrorists or Haliburton (maybe both!)...

:D
No conspiracy just differernt financial reports. The URO's supplied to the NHLPA and the more accurate internal financial reports as pointed out by the Flyers President.

If you shift the revenues around amongst related corporate entities which is quite proper from an accounting persective that skews the profit picture of the NHL teams. The NHLPA says you have to look at all the revenues to determine the real financial picture of the hockey team. The owners refuse to provide that information.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
Remember Bettman claiming interminably that "cost certainty" is not a salary cap????????????

What Bettman said and said it clearly many times was that cost certainty was not NECESSARILY a salary cap and that any system that guarantees player salaries stay at a certain level would be acceptable.

Apparently you hear only want you want...
 

AXN

Registered User
Feb 10, 2004
1,451
0
The only way you are hearing that Vancouver made money is because they actually had to sell the team. You can't actually claim you lost money and then sell the team for a good price. Now that the team is sold they claim they lost money.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
WC Handy said:
What Bettman said and said it clearly many times was that cost certainty was not NECESSARILY a salary cap and that any system that guarantees player salaries stay at a certain level would be acceptable.

Apparently you hear only want you want...
RIGHT!!!!!!!!!
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
WC Handy said:
What Bettman said and said it clearly many times was that cost certainty was not NECESSARILY a salary cap and that any system that guarantees player salaries stay at a certain level would be acceptable.

Apparently you hear only want you want...
you're just dealing with semantic's - we all know where the BOG is coming from -
 

WC Handy*

Guest
mr gib said:
you're just dealing with semantic's

Hardly. Westcoaster is claiming that Bettman claimed that cost certainty was NOT a cap. That's a blatant lie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->