Simple Poll -- whose side are you on?

[mr gib]

It isn't that simple JW. I am certain most losses are approved through ownership.

Let me ask you the same questions that I ask everyone.

1. You are the Rangers, your revenue is $70 Million a year. You determine that your RFA 27 year old 40 goal scorer is worth $7 million dollars. You sign him.

2. You are the Pittsburgh Penguins, your revenue is $40 million a year. Proportionately you determine that your RFA 27 year old 40 goal scorer is worth $4 million dollars. The player won't sign because he wants to be paid the same as the Rangers 40 goal man. Not coming to a deal, he files for arbitration.

3. You are the agent for the Penguins 27 year old. You file for arbitration using the Rangers player as the comparable. You are awarded $6.75 million. The Penguins have a choice to either not compete on the ice or financially go in the red.

The owners aren't saying they didn't contribute to the mess, but that also doesn't mean they should continue with the same system they have. They need 30 financially and competitively viable franchises.

this is true - but - pittsburgh is an interesting study - the building deal is so bad they're screwed -

phoenix was like that but they finally got their stuff in order - they lost between 5 and 15 mil last year - this year the projections were for a 5 to 15 mill profit - lotsa grey area there -
i agree though - the arbitration process is one the players got away with - it's nut's -

 

[Hoggles]

I'm for the free market, which means I ought to side with the players.
However, I'm against unions, which means I ought to side with the owners.

Uh-oh. My own beliefs conflict with each other. That's never a good sign.

 

[mr gib]

I'm for the free market, which means I ought to side with the players.
However, I'm against unions, which means I ought to side with the owners.

Uh-oh. My own beliefs conflict with each other. That's never a good sign.

believe it or not - in the secret bettman impasse plan - they are trying to determine - if the nhlpa is a union at all - the league has the lawyers on it !

 

[mr gib]

If an owners is allowing his GM's to go into the red he has no reason to blame the players at all. Sometimes you need to look in the mirror to find the problem.

1st i wouldn't pay my 27 year old forward that much money. And if he wants that money and wont pay until he gets it, i would make the smart hockey decision to trade him to a team foolish enough to pay him. I would also have to have faith in my GM to make the right trade. I could end up a Chara and Spezza if he does his job. Or i could end up with a Reasoner and Hetch if he cant do his job. And lets use the Rangers as an example. Not only are they not making the playoffs and are losing money, no one can defend why Sather is still employed. What about St Louis who has been claiming to lose 20 plus million dollars year after year. How is Pleau still employed? They are not any closer to the cup than they were before they bought KT and Weight.

All i'm saying is everyone knew this day was coming yet, it stopped no one from adding payroll. The NHL's numbers point that out, year after year salaries went up and these teams knew they were losing money. Dont you all find it hard to believe all these successful businessmen turn into a bunch of morons once they get their hands on a NHL franchise. Cause if you believe Bettman 2/3 of them dont have a clue whats going on.

I bolded the last part of your statement because what you are saying isn't what the owners are saying. The owners have said or done nothing in terms of revenue sharing. If you want all 30 teams to be on the same levels shouldn't their revenues be the same? Even if salaries come down and the owners get their 31 million dollar caps. Some teams payrolls will be 1/3 less of the other teams. So they might be able to get better players cheaper, but so will the rest of the teams able to afford a 31 million dollar roster. I think NGO put it best when he said it's like the big market owners made a deal with the small market owners in saying we'll accept a salary cap but wont share any revenue.

bringing up the rangers is interesting - the hockey team lost money - the tv network that tv's the rangers made money - they are owned by the same company

 

[mr gib]

I agree with you George... and I side with the owners (however not a hard cap solution)...

But if the Pittsburgh Penguins are in a 're-building mode', IMO, at any rate (even if they could afford him) they should be looking to trade that 27 year old 40 goal scorer for one or two young stud players - to help with their re-building process - and to keep payroll in check during the 'growing pain years'... Even if they could afford him, IMO, the money is best spent trying to develop the young 'core' FASTER and BETTER...

It's the normal evolution of a franchise... Once Pittsburgh slowly and properly develops their young 'core', they'll start having success year after year... and thus, they'll start to generate millions of dollars in profit - and be able to afford their 27 year old 40 goal when it is the appropriate time for them to have that 27 year old 40 goal scorer on their team... When the team has a 'core' that grew up together, is around 27 years old, and they are one of the favourites to win the cup or go far in the playoffs year after year...

the penquins can't even compete for the guy - all the money goes to the arena lease - they don't even get the beer and hot dog money - let alone parking and board ads

 

[me2]

Maybe Chicago is without a plan. What are yyou gonna do, force him to spend. Oh that oughta work.

What if they epxlained to the fans what they were doing. When OTtawa came into the league, they explained we were on a 7-11 year plan to build a team. We had to start from less than scratch, the worst expansion draft in history, and had to wait several years for an NHL arena to be built. But when fans knw the plan , well mostly they bought in.

Washington fans seem to be buying into the rebuilding plan. And they have some good prospects.

NYR fans seem to be almost beggin for the rebuilding to start.

Boston is a bad example to use, because like Wirtz in Chicage, their owner Jeremey Jacobs is a hard line radical slime ball. No cap is going to fix that

Why? He's just doing what "free market" Goodenow recommends: showing fiscal restraint. If more owners joined in we wouldn't have this problem. "Owners set the salaries" "no ones holding a gun to their heads".

Fans should be applauding the tightass GMs.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Gary Bettman should be fired. He's accepting a salary during the lockout. Bob Goodenow is a good friend of David Frost. That says all you need to know about his character.

Bob, Gary, the players and the owners can all kiss my ass.

(For those of you who can't read between the lines, or are missing a chromosome like George W. Bush, I don't support either side).

 

[codswallop]

I dont think this is really getting rid of the competition as in shutting them down. Why would the team move? Its not the markets fault. The owner would go bankrupt if he has spent foolishly as any businessman would. IF NYRs figures are to be believed, they are heavy in debt. That must be what happens when teams lose money. Lets assume they arent lending the money to themselves at treadmill to obscurity rates, but are borrowing from the bank. They have to be making these payments to the bank or explaining why they arent. But if they go bankrupt, they lose money, and someone else buys the team at a better rate and carrys on responsibly. Happened in Buffalo. Happened in Ottawa.

Vancouver old owner sold 5 years ago because he said he couldnt make any money off the team, salaries were out of control. A new owner bought in, managed it properly and made a killing. Was Griffiths wrong or foolish?

I dont thikn the other owners like Jacobs and karmanos are trying to drive Detroit out of business, they are trying to hurt Illitch personally. Thats just the princes they are.

New York isn't really the best example to give when talking about financial conditions, much less using them as any sort of benchmark for other teams in the league. The Rangers have the ability to absorb and/or deal with that debt, which puts bankrupty issues off the menu for them.

But I don't think the point I was trying to make came through clearly. I won't re-hash it though (been down that road before, it never works here). A probable reason is that I view this entire situation from a slightly different angle, a more economic view if you will. I see the NHL in a different market structure, dealing with different dynamics, etc, than others might. Since I'm far from an expert and even explaining what I do know would at best be futile and annoying, there are almost always mixed signals in these discussions. And I come from the premise that I don't have enough real info to make anything close to an accurate assertion, so I often talking in quite general terms (grey as opposed to black and white). Some others, in their hubris, don't operate from that premise. Creates quite the impasse.

I did have more that was on-point, but I don't think it would help at this point. Probably just create more chaos than there already is.

 

[struckmatch]

I'm on the owners side. Only because the players constant dismissal of the league's financial numbers is ridiculous. Arthur Levitt would not put his name and his reputation on something that he wasn't 100% sure about. He won't risk his career to support the NHL owners for no real gain or advantage for him.

The Players dismiss the numbers because if they admit that the league IS in fact losing money, then the Players entire case is gone. Then people will say, "If you know the league is losing money, why aren't you players willing to help?"

Therefore, the players will continue to play the fans for fools and deny the leagues numbers that were audited by a COMPLETE AND ADAMENT PROFESSIONAL WHOM IS THE MOST HIGHLY REGARDED PROFESSIONAL IN HIS FIELD. The players union is basically standing on that one leg, and eventually they will have to hop to the other one.

 

[Habs4Life]

In every other industry, you have to pay the market rate for employees. Why should the NHL be any different? Why should the Penguins get a player at a discount because they can't afford him?

If the Penguins can't pay NHL salaries, why should they have an NHL franchise? Why should the fans in Pittsburgh get NHL hockey at a discount from what the fans in Vancouver or Ottawa pay?

Are you on crack? How can you compare two totally different markets?

 

[YellHockey*]

Are you on crack? How can you compare two totally different markets?

What are you babbling about? Can you make a coherent response so that I can respond?

 

[habitual_hab]

I'm on the owners side. Only because the players constant dismissal of the league's financial numbers is ridiculous. Arthur Levitt would not put his name and his reputation on something that he wasn't 100% sure about. He won't risk his career to support the NHL owners for no real gain or advantage for him.

Sorry, but although Levitt does have an excellent reputation, he was paid to do a job: audit the books that the NHL gave him. So, the question is: Which set of books did the NHL give Levitt? The ones that show horrendous losses or the ones that show how they manipulate the system to show a loss?

 

[Solak]

I'm on the Anti-Bettman side

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Sorry, but although Levitt does have an excellent reputation, he was paid to do a job: audit the books that the NHL gave him. So, the question is: Which set of books did the NHL give Levitt? The ones that show horrendous losses or the ones that show how they manipulate the system to show a loss?

I wonder if the people on the owners side believe their boss when they tell him/her they cant afford to give them a raise, or they are losing money, revenue is down, etc.

 

[joepeps]

Yeah

Like I said in the other post

First off.. it was funny when that guy came on from.. :S Montreal was it? anyways...

Ryan Cartwright of Montreal had a zinger of a pre-taped question, telling Bettman he'd done more harm than good and he should step down.

"Thank you for that ringing endorsement," Bettman shot back. "I'm not planning on going anywhere.



He basically told him to hang up his skates... thats was funny...

On to some more serious talks... They claim they are losing hundres of millions of dollars yet they havn't done, or arn't doing, aything to stop it as of right now.

A). What the hell are owners doing still signing players?????? If there losing so much money why don't they wait until the new CBA for lower contracts? There contradicting thereselves here by saying there losing money and they have no money, and then they sign players for ; what they say ; "OUTRAGOUS AMMOUNTS OF MONEY"!

B). Easy Fix. Teams that are not getting fan base and are losing money, instead of making them increase there debit, Axe them, or move them to another city.

Put in your input

 

[struckmatch]

Sorry, but although Levitt does have an excellent reputation, he was paid to do a job: audit the books that the NHL gave him. So, the question is: Which set of books did the NHL give Levitt? The ones that show horrendous losses or the ones that show how they manipulate the system to show a loss?

Don't you think Levitt would assure that the he wasn't just a pawn in the league's negotiations? He knows the story of the league, I'm sure he asked for the entire financial numbers before he put his career, reputation, and name on the line.

He was paid to do a job, was he supposed to do it for free? The denial of accurate financial records is just a tactic by the NHLPA for reasons I stated above.

 

[codswallop]

Sorry, but although Levitt does have an excellent reputation, he was paid to do a job: audit the books that the NHL gave him. So, the question is: Which set of books did the NHL give Levitt? The ones that show horrendous losses or the ones that show how they manipulate the system to show a loss?

Levitt used to be the head of the SEC and auditing is his speciality. What that basically means is he has seen and knows every trick in the book. He and his assistant of this project (who was chief accountant for the SEC when Levitt held that post) would know where and what to look for, they would also know if that information was false. And please get over the money issue; the man did not need the fee that the NHL paid him. He is already very rich.

People are looking for something out of nothing here. I couldn't believe it when the PA came out saying the report wasn't accurate and Levitt was "bought" by the owners. I thought this to be one of the dumber moves they made, but somehow they managed to convince at least a few fans of this. That is actually a bigger pity, but I won't get into that (rules here would probably frown on it).

 

[habitual_hab]

Levitt used to be the head of the SEC and auditing is his speciality. What that basically means is he has seen and knows every trick in the book. He and his assistant of this project (who was chief accountant for the SEC when Levitt held that post) would know where and what to look for, they would also know if that information was false. And please get over the money issue; the man did not need the fee that the NHL paid him. He is already very rich.

People are looking for something out of nothing here. I couldn't believe it when the PA came out saying the report wasn't accurate and Levitt was "bought" by the owners. I thought this to be one of the dumber moves they made, but somehow they managed to convince at least a few fans of this. That is actually a bigger pity, but I won't get into that (rules here would probably frown on it).

I do not question the integrity of Levitt one bit. The NHL paid Levitt to an audit of one particular set of books they gave him - nothing more, nothing less. I am not suggesting that he was "bought" by the owners. I do question the accounting practices of the books the NHL gave Levitt. Many businesses have seperate sets of books - ones that show what they want the taxman to see and ones that show the actual numbers.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Being on the fans side=being on the owner's side.

So I am on my side, best accomplished by backing the owners. Down with the NHLPA!

 

[codswallop]

I do not question the integrity of Levitt one bit. The NHL paid Levitt to an audit of one particular set of books they gave him - nothing more, nothing less. I am not suggesting that he was "bought" by the owners. I do question the accounting practices of the books the NHL gave Levitt. Many businesses have seperate sets of books - ones that show what they want the taxman to see and ones that show the actual numbers.

And I was simply saying that Levitt and the people that helped him have seen this type of situation time and time again when they worked for the SEC. As private citizens, they don't have the authority to look at everything. But they know where to look and with the experience they have, they would know given the other relevant data if something was out of whack. He wouldn't sign off on a report if he knew that there were discrepancies.

This is the reason why he was asked to do this report. The league was lucky enough that he accepted.

 

[YellHockey*]

So I am on my side, best accomplished by backing the owners. Down with the NHLPA!

But backing the owners only means going without hockey for an indeterminate amount of time.

Down with no NHL hockey!

There's only one thing I care about when it comes to the CBA - that it gives my team a chance to win if they are well run.

Until the owners locked out the players, I had what I wanted.

With the lockout, no one is playing so my team can't win.

Other then the Leafs winning the Stanley Cup, is there anything worse then what we have now, which is no NHL hockey?

I don't care who gets what, just give me my hockey or I'll never give you my money again!

 

[YellHockey*]

And I was simply saying that Levitt and the people that helped him have seen this type of situation time and time again when they worked for the SEC.

Like when Enron snuck past him?

 

[habitual_hab]

Like when Enron snuck past him?

Like the fact that the SEC had, on Levitt's watch, given Enron huge exemptions from securities laws intended to protect investors. In particular, an exemption in 1997 from the Investment Company Act of 1940 cleared the path for the company to both expand overseas and make use of the special partnerships that have caused the company so much turmoil. These partnerships allowed Enron to hide hundreds of millions of dollars of debt. This poses the queestion as to why Levitt should have credibility when his agency helped in opening the door for Enron business practices that resulted in so many people losing their jobs and savings.

But, I'm not questioning Levitt's integrity - just the integrity of the owners.

 

[codswallop]

Like when Enron snuck past him?

I knew somebody was gonna bring this up! Had to take one of the most extreme examples of corporate greed/stupidity, didn't you? Couldn't take any of the hundreds (thousands really) of other examples where you could actually draw some sort of meaninful comparison to this current situation?

Enron was a quagmire that was eventually exposed. Trying to insinuate blame on one man is wrong in more ways than we can count.

Please, don't take my word for it (knowing that you probably won't, I had to say this). Look up the records for this if you like, look up anything relevant to this investigation. Look into Levitt's personal record, what his peers and others respected throughout the industry believe of his professional merits. Unless you're heavy into conspiracy theories, something comes through pretty clearly. But I'll let you figure out what that is, since I have no standing with you and what I say merits little more than scorn at this point.

 

[habitual_hab]

And I was simply saying that Levitt and the people that helped him have seen this type of situation time and time again when they worked for the SEC. As private citizens, they don't have the authority to look at everything. But they know where to look and with the experience they have, they would know given the other relevant data if something was out of whack. He wouldn't sign off on a report if he knew that there were discrepancies.

But:

As private citizens, they don't have the authority to look at everything.

I'm not going to quibble.

The books that the NHL showed Levitt might have been legitimate but NOT acurate.