ceber
Registered User
If the players are well paid, and fairly paid, what difference does it make how revenues are counted?
if the players can't get - good luck to ya - the reference to ballard was merely an example to illustrate the history of mis-trust -djhn579 said:I'm looking for something that will stand up in a court of law, not hear say, and not something that is over 25 years old...
I've seen people compare Forbes' numbers to Levitt's numbers, even though Levitt saw the books and Forbes' numbers are compiled from public information, not from the actual books. It would be impossible for these numbers to match up, so this is not proof either.
If someone has better information on where Forbes get's their numbers, please correct me. Everything I have seen on their site makes me believe that they just research information available in the public domain (articles, financial statements from public companies...).
mr gib said:if the players can't get - good luck to ya - the reference to ballard was merely an example to illustrate the history of mis-trust -
Newsguyone said:As it did, the last time the NHLPA got a look at the books of a few teams and caught tens of millions in hidden revenue.
As it would today if the league would open its books, which it will not.
One reason is this: Some owners WANT to lose money.
They make so much money elsewhere that they need to balance it for tax purposes.
well saiddjhn579 said:And that is part of the problem. They are eventually going to have to trust one another...
mr gib said:union dues - there was a check floating around the internet about 5 years ago - sandis whats his face - every two weeks the players have a deduction on their checks that goes to the pa - he was making about 65 k each pay period - the dues if i can remember were around 2400 bux - so its a percentage - i also saw a jose canseco check - he made about 100 k - the dues were taken off that check too - tom you are so right - all the union wants is to work this out - bettman won't move -
i hazard to guess its a fixed percentage - the more a guy makes the more he pays -I in the Eye said:I wonder if it's a fixed percentage of each player's earnings (i.e. a fixed % of player 'revenue') or a 'free market' negotiated percentage between the individual player and the NHLPA... hmm...
mr gib said:i hazard to guess its a fixed percentage - the more a guy makes the more he pays -
djhn579 said:Do you have proof that these teams are hiding money? If so could you post it so the rest of us can see the facts?
If the players and the owners are ever going to be "partners", there will have to be some agreement on what is and is not hockey revenue.
This agreement can also include limits on what is shared between these other businesses.
The players choose not to come to any agreement because once they do, they will no longer have a strong case when they claim the owners are lying to them and hiding revenue.
I in the Eye said:Shades of hypocracy (from an NHLPA POV)... do you think?
Why should what the NHLPA has the ability to earn be restricted?
ceber said:If the players are well paid, and fairly paid, what difference does it make how revenues are counted?
No offense man, but it is REALLY hard to follow what you're saying or to figure out what your point is sometimes.mr gib said:its so frustrating - in canada fans flip over salaries - in america when tiger woods made - 100 mil in 02 and 71 mil in 03 - shaq 30 mil - kevin garnett - 27 mil - david beckham - 65 no one is outraged by the high numbers - a partnership exists - thats all the players want - its maddening that post ted lindsay - and that freak eagleson - that bettman can't come clean and wipe the slate and start fresh - the players have been screwed and will continue to get screwed - remember in 94 - the consensus was the players lost big time - look what happened - a cap is gonna screw things up again - bettman has proved he just can't do it -
sorry - stream of verbal poop -Sotnos said:No offense man, but it is REALLY hard to follow what you're saying or to figure out what your point is sometimes.
The days of the players getting "screwed" are over, I think.
Smail said:The NHLPA is only looking at books to critize them.
The hidden revenue they "caught" is that they don't agree with general accounting principles (ie: they want other shows revenue at the rink to count in "hockey revenue" and so on).
I doubt the NHLPA would want an accountant to audit the NHL for fear that he'd find all the accounting principles used as decent enough and revenues being split accordingly.
Tom_Benjamin said:Nobody claims the teams are hiding money. It is about how much GM Place should charge for rent to the Canucks. It is about how much of the $25 million that went to Orca Bay to name the rink "GM Place" was generated by the players. It is about how much of the BC Lottery money should go to the rink. It is about the number of hot dogs and programs that are sold at the games.
The players think John McCaw should look at the revenues of Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment and, based on that, decide how much he can afford to pay to players. The owners want a negotiated formula that arbitrarily splits out the revenues of the hockey team from the larger entity and then pegs player payrolls to the arbitrary result.
That simply can't be in the player's best interests. Every team has a different arena deal, every team has a different deal around concessions, parking, advertising and broadcasting. Every team has a different deal with the community. Every team defines revenues differently. Every team should define revenues differently. Creating a "correct" or "fair" formula simply can't be done because there is no such thing.
if there's a will then there's a way, yet the players would rather turn away from the will rather than try to find a way
True. The players have decided they don't want to be partners. What's wrong with that? They want to be employees. Employees don't negotiate a definition of revenues. The employer defines them. Employees don't negotiate a share of revenues. They negotiate a pay package, or in the case of the NHL, a framework within which individuals negotiate a pay package.
Revenues and the share of revenues allocated to employee wages is not the business of the worker or the worker's union.
then if they want to be treated like employees then pay them like employees, give them all timecards and have them punch in and out of the dressingroom each and every day they come in, see how long it goes before they long for the days of making seven figures per season
How do you define those limits? Imagine you are Bob Goodenow. A luxury box in Vancouver costs, say, $150,000. The same box in LA costs $250,000, but there are many more events in LA and two teams. In Los Angeles they might sell all the boxes even if the Kings did not exist. A reasonable person might decide 0% of that money is hockey revenue. In Vancouver they would sell zero boxes without the Canucks. A reasonable person might designate 100% of that revenue as hockey revenue. There are 28 other arrangements across the league.
How much of the luxury box revenue across the league should be designated as hockey revenues? What is a fair formula? How on earth does Goodenow - or anybody else - figure that out?
Give Bob a step by step plan to negotiate for the players a fair share of the luxury box money that is generated across the NHL.
simple, during a hockey game the lux. box seats count towards hockey revenue, when any other show is being held in the arena, whether there's ice down or not, then the lux. box seats aren't given toward hockey revenue as it's not hockey that the seats are being used for... that wasn't so hard to figure out was it?
This is not the reason the players do not choose to do this. As I said, it is not about hiding revenue. It is about allocating revenue. The players choose not to come to an agreement over revenues because it is impossible to define a single revenue standard for 30 complicated and dynamic businesses and because it is not necessary to agree about revenues. Revenues are none of the employee's business.
Tom
garry1221 said:nothing is impossible, as has been said before, both sides need to become partners, but if the players really want to be treated like employees then they truly have no say over any of the business dealings and they can't complain if the ave. salary drops 500k, do any employees of any company or corporation have agents?, not that im aware of, so there go the agents and as i said above, throw a time machine in every locker room and the players can punch in and out... and should they forget to punch out then the coach will have to sign them out manually on their card like what happens in just about every other business today
but nope the players wouldn't even think about looking at that because it would give them no power at all instead of the power their struggling to hold onto now. face it, the players want there to be a partnership because without they wouldn't get half of what they do now, they just want to be the partner who sits around and blames everyone else when their business is losing money
simple, during a hockey game the lux. box seats count towards hockey revenue, when any other show is being held in the arena, whether there's ice down or not, then the lux. box seats aren't given toward hockey revenue as it's not hockey that the seats are being used for... that wasn't so hard to figure out was it?
Tom_Benjamin said:It doesn't, unless you are trying to cap payrolls as a percentage of the revenues.ceber said:If the players are well paid, and fairly paid, what difference does it make how revenues are counted?
Tom
ceber said:Why? If players are still paid well, why does it matter what the cap is or how it's calculated? If it really is only a problem when you cap salaries as a percentage of revenue for some reason, then choose some other method. Just cap them at some fixed number, say 37 million and call it done. No revenue calculations, no problem. Reset the number each year to account for inflation, etc. Problem solved. Now who's got Gary's and Bob's phone numbers? I'll give 'em a call and see what they say.
mr gib said:its so frustrating - in canada fans flip over salaries - in america when tiger woods made - 100 mil in 02 and 71 mil in 03 - shaq 30 mil - kevin garnett - 27 mil - david beckham - 65 no one is outraged by the high numbers - a partnership exists - thats all the players want - its maddening that post ted lindsay - and that freak eagleson - that bettman can't come clean and wipe the slate and start fresh - the players have been screwed and will continue to get screwed - remember in 94 - the consensus was the players lost big time - look what happened - a cap is gonna screw things up again - bettman has proved he just can't do it -
Tom_Benjamin said:Nobody claims the teams are hiding money. It is about how much GM Place should charge for rent to the Canucks. It is about how much of the $25 million that went to Orca Bay to name the rink "GM Place" was generated by the players. It is about how much of the BC Lottery money should go to the rink. It is about the number of hot dogs and programs that are sold at the games.
The players think John McCaw should look at the revenues of Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment and, based on that, decide how much he can afford to pay to players. The owners want a negotiated formula that arbitrarily splits out the revenues of the hockey team from the larger entity and then pegs player payrolls to the arbitrary result.
That simply can't be in the player's best interests. Every team has a different arena deal, every team has a different deal around concessions, parking, advertising and broadcasting. Every team has a different deal with the community. Every team defines revenues differently. Every team should define revenues differently. Creating a "correct" or "fair" formula simply can't be done because there is no such thing.
Tom_Benjamin said:True. The players have decided they don't want to be partners. What's wrong with that? They want to be employees. Employees don't negotiate a definition of revenues. The employer defines them. Employees don't negotiate a share of revenues. They negotiate a pay package, or in the case of the NHL, a framework within which individuals negotiate a pay package.
Revenues and the share of revenues allocated to employee wages is not the business of the worker or the worker's union.
Tom_Benjamin said:How do you define those limits? Imagine you are Bob Goodenow. A luxury box in Vancouver costs, say, $150,000. The same box in LA costs $250,000, but there are many more events in LA and two teams. In Los Angeles they might sell all the boxes even if the Kings did not exist. A reasonable person might decide 0% of that money is hockey revenue. In Vancouver they would sell zero boxes without the Canucks. A reasonable person might designate 100% of that revenue as hockey revenue. There are 28 other arrangements across the league.
How much of the luxury box revenue across the league should be designated as hockey revenues? What is a fair formula? How on earth does Goodenow - or anybody else - figure that out?
Give Bob a step by step plan to negotiate for the players a fair share of the luxury box money that is generated across the NHL.
Tom_Benjamin said:This is not the reason the players do not choose to do this. As I said, it is not about hiding revenue. It is about allocating revenue. The players choose not to come to an agreement over revenues because it is impossible to define a single revenue standard for 30 complicated and dynamic businesses and because it is not necessary to agree about revenues. Revenues are none of the employee's business.
Tom
dawgbone said:Tom, you talk alot about stuff being in the players best interest...
What is in all the players best interest?
A capped revenue system where they are guaranteed a healthy % of league revenues in a 30 team league...
or
The current system in an unstable 20-25 team league, where teams are either folding, or being sold and moved to new locations all the time?
mr gib said:its so frustrating - in canada fans flip over salaries - in america when tiger woods made - 100 mil in 02 and 71 mil in 03 - shaq 30 mil - kevin garnett - 27 mil - david beckham - 65 no one is outraged by the high numbers - a partnership exists - thats all the players want - its maddening that post ted lindsay - and that freak eagleson - that bettman can't come clean and wipe the slate and start fresh - the players have been screwed and will continue to get screwed - remember in 94 - the consensus was the players lost big time - look what happened - a cap is gonna screw things up again - bettman has proved he just can't do it -
dawgbone said:The current system in an unstable 20-25 team league, where teams are either folding, or being sold and moved to new locations all the time?