NHLPA tells us what (somewhat)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mothra

The Groovy Guru
Jul 16, 2002
7,717
2
Parts Unknown
Visit site
NYFAN said:
Leavitt report, not audit. Was definitely skewed toward ownership. At a cost of 1 million dollars. Did you think it wouldn't say what Bettman wanted it to say? Why did he go and hire Arthur Leavitt, after the league had already looked at 4 teams books with the union ? Maybe because he wasn't getting the scenario he thought he would when that occured ? Having said that, I think they made a mistake not delving into those books, although I would guess there is alot of false information in them if they claim the Rangers lost 40 million!

Are you really suggesting that Arthur Leavitt would stake his reputation on trumped up numbers for the NHL and $1Mil?

get serious
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
NYFAN said:
Are you willing to take a pay cut if your boss mismanages the company?
Would I be willing to take a pay cut fomr 8 million to 6 million? Or the 900,000 to 600,000 that the 3rd liners get?

Sure would. I don't think I'll ever make 6 million in my life, let alone get paid that for playing a game.
 

NYFAN

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
361
0
Long Island
Mothra said:
Are you really suggesting that Arthur Leavitt would stake his reputation on trumped up numbers for the NHL and $1Mil?

get serious
What I am suggesting, is that the numbers they were given, did not include the numbers the PA included in their joint look at 4 franchises. Which explains why their results came back the way they did. I never suggested that he falsified numbers, but he was brought in to verify the numbers Bettman and the owners wished to use, and did not include the numbers the PA wished to include.
 

NYFAN

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
361
0
Long Island
Splatman Phanutier said:
Would I be willing to take a pay cut fomr 8 million to 6 million? Or the 900,000 to 600,000 that the 3rd liners get?

Sure would. I don't think I'll ever make 6 million in my life, let alone get paid that for playing a game.

I bet you would! As usual, the salaries get equated with the average person's. What a joke! Stop looking at the numbers and look at the principles instead. We all would take that pay cut. I would love to play a game for a living, unfortunately, I am not one of the top 600 players in the world in any sport!!
 

NYFAN

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
361
0
Long Island
guymez said:
Source??? Link???

Seeing as you felt it necessary to beat the "its a report not an audit" thing to death (in this and other threads), this might interest you.


Lynn E. Turner is the managing director of the Denver office of Glass Lewis & Co., a financial analytical research firm, and a former accounting professor at Colorado State University. Turner is the former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and one of the chief authors of the Levitt Report.

Turner acknowledged the Levitt Report is not an official audit, because it was not a signed opinion by a CPA and was headed by a man, former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt, who is not a registered CPA. But Turner said it was better than an actual audit.

"If you look at the procedures set forth in great detail in the report that were employed, you will see it is pretty much the same as what would be done in any audit," Turner said. "The work and procedures that were done represent the most comprehensive examination of any sports leagues' operations and financial results, ever."


http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~84~2716041,00.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/lester_munson/01/10/lockout.glossary

there is your link.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)

Phanuthier*

Guest
NYFAN said:
I bet you would! As usual, the salaries get equated with the average person's. What a joke! Stop looking at the numbers and look at the principles instead. We all would take that pay cut. I would love to play a game for a living, unfortunately, I am not one of the top 600 players in the world in any sport!!
What a principal... whether to take 8 million a year or 6 million a year.

I'll bet alot of those morons will be trying to figure that out when the league goes to replacement players. Not to mention when they realize the NHL is placing about 10th in North America, behind even poker when the World Series of Poker outdrew the World Cup of Hockey (US vs. Russia) by almost 10 times.
 

NYFAN

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
361
0
Long Island
guymez said:
Sorry, but I will trust Ms. Turner (a former accounting professor at Colorado State University) over some hack sports writer when it comes to interpreting accounting practices.
OK hows this then:



The Levitt investigators did not look into each individual club's finances, relying instead on the team's own audits. The NHL insists the report made adjustments for discrepancies, but the way they established their benchmarks raised questions.

Take luxury-suite revenue, for instance, a cash cow for NHL clubs. There are more than 2,600 luxury suites in arenas throughout the NHL. With rental fees in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, not including the cost of game tickets and concessions, they pull in hundreds of millions of dollars a year -- which might be expected to be reported as hockey revenue.

But in the Saddledome and most other NHL rinks, rental of a luxury suite also entitles the renter to admission to all other events at the facility -- such as Hitmen and Roughnecks games as well as all concerts, circuses, wrestling and other public events using the facility. The Levitt investigators decided not to individually examine the luxury-suite revenues for each club; instead, the report used a sample of eight clubs to create a formula for luxury suite money.

According to Lynn E. Turner, the former Securities and Exchange Commission chief accountant who oversaw most of the work that went into the Levitt Report, they divided the revenue pie based on hockey's share of the total paid attendance -- not per events -- for all arena dates, and it didn't matter whether the box was actually used for any of the other events.

"The fact that a luxury box is physically empty during an event is immaterial," Turner said in a written response to questions by The Eagle-Tribune.

In short, the formula treated all events as equal in the purchaser's mind. But in arenas such as the Saddledome, where the NHL is the real draw for those who rent luxury suites, the suite licence or membership for an NHL game -- diluted by other events -- would have a lower report ed value using the formula in the Levitt Report (of course, in those arenas where the NHL is a lesser draw -- such as L.A.'s Staples Center or New York's Madison Square Garden -- the opposite could be true). In either case, the question is whether the method accurately accounts for actual hockey revenue or for the profitablity of the arena itself.

The Levitt Report used the same method to determine hockey's cut of revenue from premium club seat licences, arena sponsorship and naming rights and building costs, as well as suite revenues. So, the effect of the Levitt formula of mixing all events together could make the NHL's losses appear greater than they are.

Turner would not comment on who chose the paid-attendance benchmark. The Levitt team did not benchmark revenue from concessions and other sources and or general and administrative expenses, instead relying on the league's own in-house audits.

Which only re-opens the gulf of trust and credibility between the sides ever wider.

"Unless they (NHLPA) agree with your definition of hockey revenue, what's the sense of doing it?" Delgaudio said of the Levitt Report. "You're setting up the rules yourself, without the other person or the other entity agreeing, in this case the Players' Association. And then coming up with that number and saying, 'See?'. . . . So the process didn't solve anything. It's one-sided. They used their own rules in coming up with a conclusion."


quoting your own precious sorces you trust so much!



http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory4.aspx?id=db7a2b8d-056c-4c69-a0a4-5009a92ce9d5
 
Last edited:

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
NYFAN said:
OK hows this then:



The Levitt investigators did not look into each individual club's finances, relying instead on the team's own audits. The NHL insists the report made adjustments for discrepancies, but the way they established their benchmarks raised questions.

Take luxury-suite revenue, for instance, a cash cow for NHL clubs. There are more than 2,600 luxury suites in arenas throughout the NHL. With rental fees in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, not including the cost of game tickets and concessions, they pull in hundreds of millions of dollars a year -- which might be expected to be reported as hockey revenue.

But in the Saddledome and most other NHL rinks, rental of a luxury suite also entitles the renter to admission to all other events at the facility -- such as Hitmen and Roughnecks games as well as all concerts, circuses, wrestling and other public events using the facility. The Levitt investigators decided not to individually examine the luxury-suite revenues for each club; instead, the report used a sample of eight clubs to create a formula for luxury suite money.

According to Lynn E. Turner, the former Securities and Exchange Commission chief accountant who oversaw most of the work that went into the Levitt Report, they divided the revenue pie based on hockey's share of the total paid attendance -- not per events -- for all arena dates, and it didn't matter whether the box was actually used for any of the other events.

"The fact that a luxury box is physically empty during an event is immaterial," Turner said in a written response to questions by The Eagle-Tribune.

In short, the formula treated all events as equal in the purchaser's mind. But in arenas such as the Saddledome, where the NHL is the real draw for those who rent luxury suites, the suite licence or membership for an NHL game -- diluted by other events -- would have a lower report ed value using the formula in the Levitt Report (of course, in those arenas where the NHL is a lesser draw -- such as L.A.'s Staples Center or New York's Madison Square Garden -- the opposite could be true). In either case, the question is whether the method accurately accounts for actual hockey revenue or for the profitablity of the arena itself.

The Levitt Report used the same method to determine hockey's cut of revenue from premium club seat licences, arena sponsorship and naming rights and building costs, as well as suite revenues. So, the effect of the Levitt formula of mixing all events together could make the NHL's losses appear greater than they are.

Turner would not comment on who chose the paid-attendance benchmark. The Levitt team did not benchmark revenue from concessions and other sources and or general and administrative expenses, instead relying on the league's own in-house audits.

Which only re-opens the gulf of trust and credibility between the sides ever wider.

"Unless they (NHLPA) agree with your definition of hockey revenue, what's the sense of doing it?" Delgaudio said of the Levitt Report. "You're setting up the rules yourself, without the other person or the other entity agreeing, in this case the Players' Association. And then coming up with that number and saying, 'See?'. . . . So the process didn't solve anything. It's one-sided. They used their own rules in coming up with a conclusion."


quoting your own precious sorces you trust so much!



http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory4.aspx?id=db7a2b8d-056c-4c69-a0a4-5009a92ce9d5


The bottom line is that it is easy for the NHLPA (and their supporters) to whine about numbers when they refuse to take the initiative to disprove it. Aside from that, maybe yourself or some other PA supporter can show why the players should be entitled to any team generated revenues. They are employees, not partners. They haven't ventured a single penny and yet they expect 'their share' of the revenues.
Classic union mentality. Create a sense of entitlement among a bunch of mostly uneducated people, and rally them against a mythical cause.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
guymez said:
The bottom line is that it is easy for the NHLPA (and their supporters) to whine about numbers when they refuse to take the initiative to disprove it. Aside from that, maybe yourself or some other PA supporter can show why the players should be entitled to any team generated revenues. They are employees, not partners. They haven't ventured a single penny and yet they expect 'their share' of the revenues.
Classic union mentality. Create a sense of entitlement among a bunch of mostly uneducated people, and rally them against a mythical cause.

The players want nothing to do with a "percentage of revenues." That's what the owners want, remember?
 

NYFAN

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
361
0
Long Island
guymez said:
The bottom line is that it is easy for the NHLPA (and their supporters) to whine about numbers when they refuse to take the initiative to disprove it. Aside from that, maybe yourself or some other PA supporter can show why the players should be entitled to any team generated revenues. They are employees, not partners. They haven't ventured a single penny and yet they expect 'their share' of the revenues.
Classic union mentality. Create a sense of entitlement among a bunch of mostly uneducated people, and rally them against a mythical cause.
Actually I believe they wanted nothing to do with revenue linkage, it was ownership that wanted that. The players were happy with a free market system, but that wasn't good enough as owners can't trust each other to exercise fiscal restraint! Just take a look at what went on before the lockout during free agency. The same teams that were crying poverty were going around signing players over and above last seasons payroll!
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
NYFAN said:
Actually I believe they wanted nothing to do with revenue linkage, it was ownership that wanted that. The players were happy with a free market system, but that wasn't good enough as owners can't trust each other!
No, the NHLPA wants a free market system with benefits.

A free market system woudl not include arbitration, guerenteed contracts, pensions and all that good stuff. In the totally free market system, give the players their coin and make them pay for everything else - travel expenses, insurance ect ect. Make them call their own ambulance when they get hit in the throat or eye, or if their shoulder is dislocated, and make them pay their own ambulance and hospital bills.
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
Jobu said:
The players want nothing to do with a "percentage of revenues." That's what the owners want, remember?
Well the players only wanted linkage (of sorts) when the league revenues went up. How convenient.
What I am refering to is their contention that the owners aren't being up front with the revenues being generated (luxury boxes etc.). They wouldn't be concerned about this unless it was going to be used to leverage their position. A postion they have no basis to adopt.
 

NYFAN

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
361
0
Long Island
Splatman Phanutier said:
No, the NHLPA wants a free market system with benefits.

A free market system woudl not include arbitration, guerenteed contracts, pensions and all that good stuff. In the totally free market system, give the players their coin and make them pay for everything else - travel expenses, insurance ect ect. Make them call their own ambulance when they get hit in the throat or eye, or if their shoulder is dislocated, and make them pay their own ambulance and hospital bills.
For you to say that borders on absurd. They are not contractors who are free to negotiate with whoever they want. Lets not add more to an already difficult situation. Health and pension benefits are a must in any negotiation. Some of the other stuff I can see your point.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,662
37,457
shveik said:
Since the NHL keeps saying that the revenues are going to drop, it should not be a problem for the league to accept this clause.

Thank you. :handclap:


I don't beleive that the Clause 7 was a good thing, but if applied properly, I think the NHL would accept.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
NYFAN said:
For you to say that borders on absurd. They are not contractors who are free to negotiate with whoever they want. Lets not add more to an already difficult situation. Health and pension benefits are a must in any negotiation. Some of the other stuff I can see your point.

Negotiation? What negotiation? I thought you wanted a free market. A free market means no union. All negotiations would be between the individual player and the teams. Some players would get health benefits and pensions, some would not. There would be no minimum wage. No guaranteed contracts. No guarnteed per diems. Got a bad knee? Tough. We're not paying for your rehab and oh, by the way, you're cut. That's a free market.
 

NYFAN

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
361
0
Long Island
guymez said:
Well the players only wanted linkage (of sorts) when the league revenues went up. How convenient.
What I am refering to is their contention that the owners aren't being up front with the revenues being generated (luxury boxes etc.). They wouldn't be concerned about this unless it was going to be used to leverage their position. A postion they have no basis to adopt.
Why shouldn't they get that part of the pie included. Isn't it logical to assume, that more luxury boxes are sold in cities where teams are popular and that , for instance, more fans will spend money on the Penguins with Mario playing , therefore more concession sales, more souvenir sales, and a higher premium for advertising.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
NYFAN said:
For you to say that borders on absurd. They are not contractors who are free to negotiate with whoever they want. Lets not add more to an already difficult situation. Health and pension benefits are a must in any negotiation. Some of the other stuff I can see your point.
You wanted to talk about a total free market system, right?

The players did NOT just want just a free market system. They wanted a free market system with benefits. They wanted a free market system with arbitration, guerenteed contracts and expenses paid.
 

NYFAN

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
361
0
Long Island
CarlRacki said:
Negotiation? What negotiation? I thought you wanted a free market. A free market means no union. All negotiations would be between the individual player and the teams. Some players would get health benefits and pensions, some would not. There would be no minimum wage. No guaranteed contracts. No guarnteed per diems. Got a bad knee? Tough. We're not paying for your rehab and oh, by the way, you're cut. That's a free market.
In other words business as usual pre 1964( I think)
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
NYFAN said:
Why shouldn't they get that part of the pie included. Isn't it logical to assume, that more luxury boxes are sold in cities where teams are popular and that , for instance, more fans will spend money on the Penguins with Mario playing , therefore more concession sales, more souvenir sales, and a higher premium for advertising.
I agree

If I were PA president, I'd accept the cap and start arguing what goes towards league revenue. Everything the team and league makes with regards to the players performance that night goes towards revenue. That would included box's for that night and soveniers that pertain to the players and the team.

Seperate business deals should not be included. Things such as parking have absolutely no revalence to the players performance and what they do other then people showing up to the game.
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
NYFAN said:
Actually I believe they wanted nothing to do with revenue linkage, it was ownership that wanted that. The players were happy with a free market system, but that wasn't good enough as owners can't trust each other to exercise fiscal restraint! Just take a look at what went on before the lockout during free agency. The same teams that were crying poverty were going around signing players over and above last seasons payroll!
As I stated to Jobu the players wanted the cap to increase with revenues generated (but not the reverse). This is a linkage of sorts because they know that there are teams which will top out on the cap. This will have an effect (through arbitration, etc.) on moving salaries back up. As for a free market system, if the NHL is viewed as a company then the free market involves the other pro leagues in existance. That is what should be used as a comparison. If you dont want to play in the NHL under their terms (and salary)...go somewhere else. Thats a free market.
IMO for the NHLPA this is all about trying to keep some inflationary clauses in the CBA. Thats why the 24% rollback in and of itself was not the be all and end all for the NHL. The union (and the NHL) knew the players would get this back over time and we would be right back where we started.
 
Last edited:

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
NYFAN said:
Why shouldn't they get that part of the pie included. Isn't it logical to assume, that more luxury boxes are sold in cities where teams are popular and that , for instance, more fans will spend money on the Penguins with Mario playing , therefore more concession sales, more souvenir sales, and a higher premium for advertising.
Your missing the point.
Why should they deserve to be treated as partners? How much capital have they invested?
 

NYFAN

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
361
0
Long Island
Why do you see it that way? If the settlement had been negotiated with a cap, say at 44 mil, based on 2004 revenue. All they needed to do was word it so that as league revenue went up, the cap went up, Not in percentage of revenue, but in actual cap number at the same percentage. They could even have added language which stated that the 44 mil. was a permanent figure until, the league revenue exceeded 2004 levels, at which time proportionate increases to the cap as it relates to revenue would be triggered. WHY does this seem so horrible to everyone ???
 

NYFAN

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
361
0
Long Island
guymez said:
Your missing the point.
Why should they deserve to be treated as partners? How much capital have they invested?
The most important kind. Their physical health and well being.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->