Sometimes I have the feeling that people are just innocent....

Status
Not open for further replies.

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
DementedReality said:
well the story is that 6 teams make up 75% of the losses.

dr

Assuming that this stat is accurate (I have my personal bias and doubts)... that's 20% of all franchises... more than one whole division... Does that not seem significant to you? 20% of the franchises losing, on average, approx. $30 million per year?

If no, imagine 20% of your body covered in cysts or tumors... or 20% of your body covered in a rash... If 20% is not a clear enough sign that something is wrong - that you should go to the doctor to get it treated - then good luck with your 'positive thinking' alternative healing methods... If it's 20% today (significant in it's own right), it could easily become a much higher percentage in the not too distant future... IMO, it's smart to deal with problems once the 'warning signs' present themselves - before it becomes much more difficult to solve - or perhaps too late...

20% is a significant stat... one that IMO, can't be ignored...
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
I in the Eye said:
Assuming that this stat is accurate (I have my personal bias and doubts)... that's 20% of all franchises... more than one whole division... Does that not seem significant to you? 20% of the franchises losing, on average, approx. $30 million per year?

If no, imagine 20% of your body covered in cysts or tumors... or 20% of your body covered in a rash... If 20% is not a clear enough sign that something is wrong - that you should go to the doctor to get it treated - then good luck with your 'positive thinking' alternative healing methods... If it's 20% today (significant in it's own right), it could easily become a much higher percentage in the not too distant future... IMO, it's smart to deal with problems once the 'warning signs' present themselves - before it becomes much more difficult to solve - or perhaps too late...

20% is a significant stat... one that IMO, can't be ignored...

It's not that it's not SIGNIFICANT. It it significant. The problem is more that TOO MANY PEOPLE HERE think it's all RELATED to players salaries or the ACTUAL CBA.

Yes 20% of the league are in a bad shape but more importantly is that it's all the CAUSE of BAD ACCOUNTANTS & BAD MANAGEMENT.

Those people that we don't know their names would have been fired for less than that in a serious company !
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
Well according to La Presse, my guesses were close. I forgot one though. There was the famous day last year when Philadelphias owner said to the press they lost money this year. And then the team president, apparently unaware of what his boss just said, told a reporter that that loss was just on the URO books the union and league ask for. The ones Levitt made his conclusions on. Their REAL books, showed they made a profit.

Gotta love those owners, one chuckle after another.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
Russian Fan said:
It's not that it's not SIGNIFICANT. It it significant. The problem is more that TOO MANY PEOPLE HERE think it's all RELATED to players salaries or the ACTUAL CBA.

Yes 20% of the league are in a bad shape but more importantly is that it's all the CAUSE of BAD ACCOUNTANTS & BAD MANAGEMENT.

Is this an opinion or a fact?

If it's a fact, please provide a link... Please direct me to a source that explains this by analyzing the dynamic interplays that get lumped together under NHL economics. To take seriously your theory, I need something concrete... hard evidence... documents... articles with quoted sources that are 'known and respected'... Prove that 20% of the league are in bad shape because of bad accountants and bad management - not because of player salaries (which btw, player salaries are a part of bad management - so I agree with you here)... Because you're so passionate about it... just don't say it... prove it...

If it's an opinion, you're entitled to it - just don't take it too seriously, or think it's fact... because it's just an opinion...

For my 'facts' (which I don't take all too seriously, but more seriously as 'fact' than the NHLPA supporter side has ever provided) I use the independent report by one of the most well-respected economists in the world...

What do you use? Intuition?
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
I in the Eye said:
Is this an opinion or a fact?
For my 'facts' (which I don't take all too seriously, but more seriously as 'fact' than the NHLPA supporter side has ever provided) I use the independent report by one of the most well-respected economists in the world...

What do you use? Intuition?

Its all I got. The links are out there though.

Most well respected economists in the world? Come on now. This Political appointee? Did you know he wrote a book about not trusting Corporate America? Did you know that all the Enron scandals and corporate accounting scandals that recently devastated the stock market, and was heavily represented by the companies and parent companies of current NHL teams happened on his watch on the stock exchange?

Levitt was paid for a PR appearance only. His own report if you read it, actually contradicts some of the conclusions he suggests in the sound bite on TV, the only thing most people know about. His report was based on the UROs that Philadelphias president has flat out admitted arent a true representation of the situation, but one designed to meet certain reporting requirements for public consumption.

I know he looks like such a trusting old grampa who wouldnt lie to you, and he really didnt. He just said if the NHL continues on its path it is on a treadmill to obscurity. Didnt seem to cause any owners problems getting lines of credit this year. And he is right, if owners continue with the poor boardroom decisions like the owners of NJ, they wont survive. But its not hockey salary related.

And his credibility amongst other CEOs trying to spin their message to the public is not damaged by this. As a public relations consultant, as the NHL paid him to be, his services are very credible.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
thinkwild said:
Its all I got. The links are out there though.

You sound like Moulder ;)

thinkwild said:
Most well respected economists in the world? Come on now. This Political appointee? Did you know he wrote a book about not trusting Corporate America? Did you know that all the Enron scandals and corporate accounting scandals that recently devastated the stock market, and was heavily represented by the companies and parent companies of current NHL teams happened on his watch on the stock exchange?

His word in the report is credible enough for me (and several other individuals - including a good friend of mine who works for Price Waterhouse Coopers, valuating companies - for economic advice and point-of-view - I listen to what he has to say on the subject... My friend knows economics inside/out - and I take his point-of-view on the subject seriously... You personally can choose whatever source of information you want to be credible... As can I... It's all about personal choices... Obviously, if Jesus wrote the report I'd take his findings even more seriously... I'm not going to defend Levitt's character - I'm not his publisist... However, IMO, it's more telling he wrote a book about not trusting Corporate America than if he wrote a book about 'trust Corporate America'... I assume he is credible... as do many others... Perhaps 'one of the most respected' was a stretch... I'll change it to 'some consider, one of the most respected'...

There comes a point when you have to 'pick and choose' what sources to believe in (for example, I guess there are some people who don't believe that humans visited the moon - conspiracy theorists who are entitled to their opinions - but I assume that it is true based on what I consider to be credible sources... I've never visited the moon myself, or seen it with my own eyes... but there comes a point when I choose to believe the word of others)... and since I don't have direct access to the books myself, I put some faith in what Levitt says... IMO, there is no reasonble, good reason for him to lie... hired by the NHL or not, his reputation (and career) is on the line... If the NHLPA had to pay for his bill - they'd likely cry foul (why should we pay for the report!)... If the report was not done at all - the NHLPA would likely cry foul (there was no independent report done... only the owner's word!)... No matter what the NHL does, the NHLPA (and their supporters) will spin it around... That's expected... and just because you don't think he's credible, doesn't mean that he's not credible... He is just not credible to you... And you are not the body that determines what is credible and not in the world... You are just a person entitled to his opinion... as am I...

thinkwild said:
Levitt was paid for a PR appearance only.

That's an opinion...

thinkwild said:
His own report if you read it,

I've read it...

thinkwild said:
actually contradicts some of the conclusions he suggests in the sound bite on TV, the only thing most people know about.

Please elaborate and site specific examples - with links...

thinkwild said:
His report was based on the UROs that Philadelphias president has flat out admitted arent a true representation of the situation, but one designed to meet certain reporting requirements for public consumption.

Source?

thinkwild said:
I know he looks like such a trusting old grampa who wouldnt lie to you, and he really didnt. He just said if the NHL continues on its path it is on a treadmill to obscurity. Didnt seem to cause any owners problems getting lines of credit this year. And he is right, if owners continue with the poor boardroom decisions like the owners of NJ, they wont survive. But its not hockey salary related.

Ya, he does look like a trusting old grampa... the rest of this is just an opinion... He does mention the escalating hockey salary as a major problem in his report... Do you want a link or specific quote? If you take the time to back up your claims with specific 'facts', real numbers, and specific sources, so will I... If you don't find the need to back up your claims... nor do I... Fair?

thinkwild said:
And his credibility amongst other CEOs trying to spin their message to the public is not damaged by this. As a public relations consultant, as the NHL paid him to be, his services are very credible.

I guess one's public relations consultant is another's independent auditor... gotta love perception...
 
Last edited:

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
I in the Eye said:
You sound like Moulder ;)

thinkwild said:
His report was based on the UROs that Philadelphias president has flat out admitted arent a true representation of the situation, but one designed to meet certain reporting requirements for public consumption.
Please elaborate and site specific examples - with links...



Source?

Im just a fan like you trying to make sense of it, and i have read quite a few articles on it over the years. I can provide a link for this one which I recently remember.
AndrewsStarsPage



The NHL and NHLPA have a lot of disagreements when it comes to the economics of the league, and one of the biggest disputes centers around what teams report as revenues. The league stands by the numbers, but the union refers to them as "garbage in, garbage out."

At issue are the revenues reported in the the Unified Report of Operations (URO) filed by league's 30 teams. Those UROs formed the basis for the Levitt Report, which the NHL commissioned and said is an accurate reflection of the league's financial woes. Woes that added up to $273 million in losses for the 2002-03 season.

One of the main disagreements between the two sides is the distinction between hockey related revenue and non-hockey related revenue

The Levitt Report points out that 22 of the 30 teams in the NHL play in arenas that are 50 percent or more owned, operated or controlled by the NHL team or some affiliated or related group.

The report stated, "As a result, these arenas and teams often generate revenues and incur expenses that relate to both hockey and non-hockey activities. In these instances and for URO purposes, teams must determine the amount of revenues and expenses that are associated with operating a professional hockey franchise in the NHL and those amounts of revenues and expenses that are derived from non- hockey activities."

In other words, teams need to determine how to divide up revenues for items such as licensing of suites and club seats, sponsorships, naming rights, fixed advertisements within the arena and distinguish what share goes to NHL related business and what goes elsewhere.

That doesn't apply just to arena revenues, but other facets of a team's business as well. That distinction concerning revenues doesn't sit well with the NHLPA
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.... They now say we were looking at things that don't relate to the hockey business, but that's absurd."

Well, it can be confusing. After the Levitt Report came out, Philadelphia Flyers chairman Ed Snider revealed his team was one of the 19 NHL teams the report said lost money in 2002-03. Team president Ron Ryan said the Flyers weren't among the teams whose bottom line was colored in red ink. So how does that work?

[I]"Where it becomes confusing," Ryan told the Philadelphia Inquirer, "is that it sounds like there are two sets of books. The difference is that the report we make to the league, as directed by the players' association, is different from our own internal audited statement, which we view as the more accurate statement. So we were talking about two different reports." [/I]

The Flyers, if you include just revenues and expenses that fall just within the framework of doing business in the NHL, lost money. If you take everything into account, including activities that fall outside of the NHL, the Flyers weren't among the losers. At least, that's what Ryan indicated.

"I'd be very surprised - shocked - if there was a loss when all the Flyers-related revenue was taken into account," Saskin told the Inquirer. "It's an integrated enterprise. If the Flyers want people to seriously believe they lost money, they better be prepared to back it up."

The Flyers are an integrated part of the Comcast empire. An empire that not only owns the Flyers, but the arena where they play, the cable sports channel that carries the team's games and other enterprises related to the Flyers' business. It makes for a complex arrangement.

"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."

That's why the union has little faith in the URO process. The NHLPA doesn't believe it accurately reflects the financial state of the teams.

"Absolutely not" said Saskin. "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."

The key phrase here is "complete business of owning an NHL franchise." In the union's eyes, the UROs and the Levitt Report paint most of the financial picture, but not all it.

And it probably didn't help that one of key purposes of the Levitt Report was to determine whether the NHL's URO defines revenues comparable to the NFL and NBA, both of which employ salary cap systems.

Or as Bob Goodenow said:
InsideHockey
"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. 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."
 

garry1221

Registered User
Mar 13, 2003
2,228
0
Walled Lake, Mi
Visit site
DementedReality said:
lol ... are you really that naive ? for the love of the game ? give me a break !

dr

uhm no, im actually serious, and im sure i wouldn't be the only one saying this, if you take out players just playing for the $$$ you might end up w/ a less talented organization, but you'd end up with an organization playing w/ total heart and for the game, not just playing to get the bigger paycheck
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
thinkwild said:
Im just a fan like you trying to make sense of it, and i have read quite a few articles on it over the years. I can provide a link for this one which I recently remember.
AndrewsStarsPage

That's an awesome website...

You got that malice was intended, or that there was incompetence from this page??

What I got out of it is that it is a complex equation to determine hockey-related revenue... That it can be confusing and open to interpretation... not as 'black and white' as us fans would like it to be... as such, it is best to use the advice and techniques of experts...

Who does the NHLPA use as their financial expert - to determine what is appropriate to consider when calculating hockey-related revenue, Trevor Linden? Where does the NHLPA get their financial advice from?

IMO, it is not out of the ordinary for the NHL to have two sets of reports (when the NHL and the NHLPA are trying to negotiate and come up with an agreement - IMO, it makes sense for them to look at things 'from both sides')... One that analyzes things based on the NHLPA definition... and one that analyzes things from the independent auditor's definition... Perhaps there's even another set of books that analyzes things from an internal NHL definition - but perhaps this report isn't public because the NHL accountants numbers didn't turn out as favourably from an owner's perspective than the independent auditor's report did - I don't think that the owner's are angels and the NHLPA are devils... I see both sides as simply trying to get as much as they can... Accounting is not 'black and white' - and when decisions (and agreements between two very different parties) have to be made based on as accurate numbers as possible, IMO, it's best to use the outside, unbiased experts to determine the calculations...

There seems to be good 'expert' reasons that explain why the Levitt report defined NHL revenue as they did. 'Expert' reasons that hockey players, and hockey fans like us, just don't immediately understand and consider... As I've read here several times by NHLPA supporters, hockey players aren't businessmen... and even seasoned businessmen hire experts to do complicated accounting...

Me personally, just like I wouldn't be inclined to tell a surgeon how to best perform an operation on me... I wouldn't be inclined to tell a financial expert how to best define and determine revenue... I put faith in their years of training and experience to make the best decisions they can - under the constraint of being human... If I have questions, I'd expect them to answer them... But I wouldn't be so arrogant to say that the experts were wrong when I'm not an expert in the subject myself! Perhaps I'd get a second or third opinion if I didn't like what I was hearing or seeing...

I hope the NHLPA does as well... get a second or third opinion with independent auditors...

As an outsider with far from expert knowledge in accounting, as well as no exposure in day-to-day NHL operations - I have yet to see anything 'concrete' (the page you linked to included) that gives reasonable evidence that the Levitt report is flawed... IMO, the concern you raised (different books) has been answered satisfactory in the same article!

But maybe that's what I want to see (because I'm looking for the report to be credible)... Just like you want to see flaws in the report so that you can discredit it... Perhaps although we are looking at the same blue chair - what I consider to be the colour blue is what you consider to be the colour green...

I'm not arrogant enough to say that you are absolutely wrong, and that I am absolutely right... I am not an expert in accounting nor 'the business of hockey'... And even if I was, we are still entitled to our different points of view...

Us NHL supporters, and you NHLPA supporters are both ignorant to what is going on... or as Russian fan says 'innocent'... To quote Our Lady Peace, 'We are all innocent' ;)

I am trying to look at this with an open mind (trying to look at the chessboard from an overhead perspective) - but I keep levitating towards the owners...

thinkwild said:
Or as Bob Goodenow said:
InsideHockey

Bob Goodenow clearly sees things from a strict NHLPA point-of-view... I don't take anything quoted by him (with those wonderfully scripted adjectives) as an independent, unbiased source... Nor do I with Bettman... I take both what what they say and consider with a 'grain of salt'...

The only thing I consider (as a fan trying to understand the problem) as 'somewhat credible without being a totally biased opinion' is the independent report... It was bound to support either the owners or the players...

It just so happened to support the owner's...

Perhaps have two more independent audits done (one paid for by the NHLPA - with the NHLPA deciding who will do the report)... and one paid for by both - with both the NHL and the NHLPA agreeing to and deciding who will do the report... It would probably take at least a year to do the reports, but IMO, chances are good that there will be no hockey this year or the next at any rate...

Have 'three reports'... I say take the average of all three independent reports, and agree that the averages are the numbers that will be used...

Yes, I live in a simple world :)
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
I in the Eye said:
What I got out of it is that it is a complex equation to determine hockey-related revenue... That it can be confusing and open to interpretation... not as 'black and white' as us fans would like it to be... as such, it is best to use the advice and techniques of experts...

Fine. The players have no problem with this. They figure the experts are the owners. Each one understands their own very complex set of books. They know what revenues are generated by the players. The players don't have to know as long as payrolls aren't specifically tied to them in the CBA. The owners can use any numbers they want and set player budgets accordingly.

Who does the NHLPA use as their financial expert - to determine what is appropriate to consider when calculating hockey-related revenue, Trevor Linden? Where does the NHLPA get their financial advice from?

They don't. Why should they care? The reason the players wanted to see the actual individual reports that make up the URO is that they wanted to know who is losing the money. If it was the Edmonton's and the Nashville's they might respond one way. If it is New York and Washington, they would respond another.

They also wanted to know why the teams were losing money. As it turned out, the big money losers were New York, Washington and St. Louis. Obviously they did not lose money because of the CBA. They did not lose money because other teams drove up the price of players league wide. They lost money because they drove up the price of players on their own team.

Accounting is not 'black and white' - and when decisions (and agreements between two very different parties) have to be made based on as accurate numbers as possible, IMO, it's best to use the outside, unbiased experts to determine the calculations...

No. The NHLPA can ignore the numbers and assume the owners are rational. If they are not rational, it isn't their problem.

There seems to be good 'expert' reasons that explain why the Levitt report defined NHL revenue as they did.

Levitt had about 250,000 reasons to interpret them the way he did.

Me personally, just like I wouldn't be inclined to tell a surgeon how to best perform an operation on me... I wouldn't be inclined to tell a financial expert how to best define and determine revenue...

Sure you would. You would instruct the "expert" - Levitt or anyone else - to construct the books in a way that advantages you. That's why Levitt used the NBA model. Why on earth else would you pay him? It would be very easy to construct the books in a completely different way and produce a completely different answer. There is no one right way. Accountants make their living by knowing several ways and deciding the right way is the way that puts the most money in the pocket of the person paying him. How do you think it works?

In fact you would ask the expert to push the envelope on generally accepted accounting principals. If you are dishonest and run Qwest, you push the envelope so hard you end up paying $250 million in fines to make fraud charges go away. If the owner of Qwest also owns the Los Angeles Kings, would you believe one word he says about a business the SEC does not oversee?

Why? How many owners have been charged or investigated for fraud?

Tom
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
Tom_Benjamin said:
Levitt had about 250,000 reasons to interpret them the way he did.

Let me get this straight. A highly successful Wall Street veteran, former chairman of AmEX and the SEC, can be bought? A man who has already made millions and who obviously knows how to invest his own money can be bought for $250k? He would risk his reputation (which is very high in those circles) for money he doesn't need but could still make consulting for a dozen other projects if he wanted to? The sarcasm should be evident, as the answer is to these questions is obviously no.

Is he (and Turner I might add) above scrutiny? Hell no, nobody is. Challenging what could be added or taken out of his report is a different story. That is a greyer area, everyone agrees to that much. But on the whole, I still think I'm gonna take his word for it. No matter how much of a cynic you are, eventually you have to take someone at his word (unless you yourself can claim as much or more practical knowledge in this specific area). Given that he has done this very type of work at the highest levels for over 20 years and the money he received is immaterial to him, arguing he was bought and the report unduly influenced is a desperate and rather obvious excuse to discredit.

I very far from being an expert in these areas. But I'm also quite far from being a simpleton in these areas as well. Somewhere in the middle with lots to learn and the desire to obtain that knowledge; eyes and ears always open. But it doesn't take too much really to see the reasons he was brought it. They hired Levitt for specific reasons; his obvious expertise and reputation and the fact that the compensation given to him would be irrelevant. To try and make the report look bad, that he was cooking the numbers is ignorance. Plain and simple. I've thought this through from as many angles as I can think of, but this is the conclusion that I've arrived at each time. It's a conclusion you'll get if you ask accounting and economic experts, men and women far more intelligent in this area than either of us. They might believe that a couple of different elements of the report could have been looked at differently, but nothing that would have materially affected the findings.

Questioning his motivation is, for lack of a better word, insulting.
 

Poignant Discussion*

I tell it like it is
Jul 18, 2003
8,421
5
Gatineau, QC
I feel no pity for multimillionaire owners who invested in something

- that doesn't have a first class national TV contract

- that where many others have lost money

- that out of their own greed did a too fast expansion into some debatable cities just to make a fast buck not really giving a damn about the product we would end up with

- that with their peers have offered incredible contracts to some so-so players

Seems like they should have known what they were getting into if they were such good business men
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
I in the Eye said:
That's an awesome website...

You got that malice was intended, or that there was incompetence from this page??

What I got out of it is that it is a complex equation to determine hockey-related revenue...

I think its pretty awesome too. He is an honest observer and gets good info.

No malice. I thought the president was very honest. I got that its complex too. Too complex to say what a player is worth can be measured by UROs.

The president admitted their own AUDITED statements show a profit. Levitt says they lost money. Did Levitt miss it? Missed an audited statement?



Us NHL supporters, and you NHLPA supporters are both ignorant to what is going on... or as Russian fan says 'innocent'... To quote Our Lady Peace, 'We are all innocent' ;)

For sure, but fan perspective is infuencing things, and there seems clear evidence the mob rules perspective permeating as conventional wisdom is clearly out of whack.

Im pretty sure the NHLPA would be aghast to discover anyone thinks I represent their position. As you would like to save owners from themselves, Im more convinced we need to save fans from themselves. They want a salary cap, forgive them lord they know not what they wish for. They think the NFL fan is happy with the monster they have created

At least my innocence leads me to these conclusions. I would love to be convinced otherwise. IT frustrates me that I havent found one argument for the owners yet. Usually im pretty good at moot court, but i cant. Other than, if they have the power to win it, then yes they can have it.
 

sabresfan65

Vegas HAS Hockey!!
Sponsor
May 23, 2004
1,893
348
Vegas
Russian Fan said:
Innocent meaning they don't think before they talk, before they do something.

Argument A : ''I won't cry for players making millions''

Players salary are public notoriety & people put all the negotiations problem on how much a player should make bla bla bla.

Owners most of them if you take a close look , you can find their fortune somewhere on a business review magazine. People just see the owner making deficit but don't think on how they worth.

So they say something stupid like ''I won't cry for players making millions'' but why you don't have any sympathy for a player making 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 millions a year but you do have sympathy for an owner having a fortune between 250,000,000$ to billions for some ???

Argument B : ''Owner have a right to make profit because they are taking all the risk''

OF course they have a right to make profit but find me a book where it says, invest X amount of money & you will make X guaranteed profit ? You have thousands & thousands of fake successfull business but in reality, if you invest 1$ or 100,000,000$ you need to work hard to make profit.

If you were about to go on a business where you invest 1000$ & you will be guaranteed to have 1000$ in return , which fool wouldn't do it ???

So why does people are foolish enough to side with the owners to have a guaranteed profit or a guaranteed no-deficit ???? It just not make sense.

Some owners bought the NHL teams because they were rich & it's a toy for them as simple as that. Why should we sympathize about that owner who hired incompetent staff or give them blank checks with their signatures on it ? Now because they say it's enough , we should sympathize ?

Some owners bought an NHL franchise seriously in order to get a competitive teams & making some money & with the ACTUAL CBA they did it ? WHY ? because they hired competent staff, they have a strategic plan on how to do things & they , as a team, work together to make the best possible solution. Are they handicapped by another owner who paid another guy 4M$, 6M$ , 8M$ ,10M$/year ? of course not. They follow their own plan. If a players is not worth the money he's asking for, he will be trade or unsigned (UFA) or let the player in a LOCKOUT. They made responsible decisions regarding their own ''BUDGET'' that you can call yourself ''COST CERTAINTY'' = budget vs players salary.

If you hired a Bobby Holik 9,000,000$ & you are making 9,000,000$ loss this season, is it the CBA's fault ??

If you personnally having a 50,000$ salary & your lifestyle is 60,000$ /year make you be in debt for 10,000$/year is it the fault of the today cost of thing ? Inflation ? government ?

NHL franchise or simple person who made bad decision in life DESERVE to have debt & deficit because that's the way it is. You need to be responsible in life. Don't blame the market if you can't afford a house because in the last 2 years a house that worth 100,000$ is now worth 150,000$. Don't buy the house or buy it when you will have the budget to go for it. Same thing apply for an NHL franchise, don't blame Detroit for paying Lidstrom 10,000,000$ or Holik 9,000,000$ by the Rangers, you can have a succesfull team without paying those players if you are smart enough & you have a staff competent enough to find players that would fit your budget & worth every penny you invest in a player. If it doesn't work , it happens , live with the decision & try to patch things over until you get rid of that error.

No one in life get blank after making a mistake why should an NHL franchise should be like that ?

Argument C : ''The big Markets have a huge advantage because they can spend more''

Why not ??? Does every company in every economic sector are in the same level of competitivity ? Does Wendy's have the same market power over McDonald's ? Can Wendy succeed even if McDonalds is such powerful ? Can Apple succeed even if IBM is a powerful machine ? Does Kodak, Canon, Olympus, Minolta & others are in the same level filed when it comes to digital camera ???

NHL teams is everything like the reality. You have a big markets & small markets & you defend yourself the way you can & the best teams are not the richest team. It's the teams with the best all-around STAFF that are having the best TEAMS. Maybe Carolina didn't make the playoffs after a stanley cup apperance but can it be because the other team became more competitive against them & the staff made bad decisions ?? Same apply to New Jersey after they won the cup. Same for Anaheim who thought they would be better by letting Kariya-Oates go for Fedorov-Prospal for the same cost !!!! This is not a CBA problem , this is a MANAGEMENT PROBLEM !!!

Argument D : ''The NFL is so successful that's why we should have a cap''

The NFL is so successful because
1- The TV Right revenues sharing game each team a lot of money
2- Every team for some certain product share their revenus
3- The CAP is not a unanimous decision that it's a positive thing said by a lot a NFL GM's. It embrace a lot of mediocrity instead of embracing the quality of building a team.

Arizona, Cincinnati before last year, Dallas before Parcells, St-Louis for a lot of time, San Diego, struggle to be competitive for a lot of years ??? WHY ??? Because of incompetency , because the staff somewhere made BAD DECISIONS!!! the cap wasn't a problem !! The cap wasn't an issue, they simply made bad decisions !!!


Argument E : ''The CBA is the problem why teams are having deficits year after year''

Why is that ??? Because the arbritation game a player 7M$ , they will automatically make a deficit ??? You accept the arbitration. NHLPA usually won arbitration, NHL usually won the 10% qualification except for those players who got a good year & want more but they still have the power to trade him, let him do his lockout & not play for any NHL teams or PAY HIM what he wants if he fit your budget.

If your boss gives you 100,000$ this year & the company loss 100,000$ this year, is this your fault ? or the staff who gave too much salary increase made bad decisions ??

Some teams even if they are a small market teams make deficits not because they are automatically a small market but because you are making BAD DECISIONS. If the Sabres organizations does not make any hope for their fans that they will be competitive this year & they don't make move to make the fans believe they could do something good this year & no one shows in the arena, is it the CBA fault ? is it the FANS fault ? or is it the management fault to not do everything in their hands to make things happens ?

If San Jose did make it by turning the franchise around & winning the division the next year & Buffalo did not succeed , is it the CBA's fault ? is it the players fault ? or is it the MANAGEMENT that aren't good enough to make audacious decision that would transform this team & make the fans believe they should buy some tickets to watch the game ? Same thing apply Calgary vs Edmonton ?

The blame over Philly who did not won any cup since 30+ years, Toronto 37 years, St-Louis, Rangers no playoff in 7 years, is ridiculous.

Detroit & Colorado win most of all because of good drafting, good decisions regarding who to acquire to complete the core that was already develop by the team. Now Detroit is still buying UFA's but why they didn't succeed the last 2 years ? Colorado is now thin in the prospect department , should we feel sorry for them ? If we don't feel sorry because they are now thin in the prospect department why some are so arrogant that they acquired UFA's , signed their players, having a big payroll & winning some cups ? Dallas won a cup but they still try by acquiring some UFA's but it doesn't work. Should we feel sorry for them ? Why some are pointing at them when they are winning but it's ok when they don't succeed ?

Conclusion
People are trying in the name of their ''put your favorite team'' franchise in hope that it's the CBA's fault, that's it's the players salaries fault instead of looking of what can go wrong in their STAFF DEPARTMENT.

I'm from Montreal, we suffer a few years because we had so much POOR MANAGEMENT, it start with Rejean Houle who was VERY POOR in the HOCKEY DECISION & we had ANDRE SAVARD who was SO VERY POOR in the FINANCIAL DECISION that we think it's the CBA's fault if a Craig Rivet worth 2,750,000$ this season, Patrice Brisebois 4,000,000$ this season, Karl Dykhuis 1,600,000$ for reserve defenseman, we had to buy out Randy McKAy 2,250,000$ & it goes on.

This Montreal lack of succss was not the CBA's fault, some will easily say this because this franchise got 45M$ payroll but if the management was making good decisions we could have had the same success for maybe 35-37M$ so the 7-9M$ loss claim in the last few years would be suddenly a even budget.

Why would Montreal should get away of bad decisions? Same apply to any team that hired bad hockey management people & /or bad financial management people. If your GM's is not good financially don't let him do his job (owner) & hired someone who is good financially to make good decisions. If your staff does draft bad for 3-4-5 years in a row, is it the CBA's fault if they stinks for 5 years & 5 years later they still have nothing to show for ???

That why sometimes I have the feeling that people are so innocent & dream in a perfect world for hockey when in real life the rules is so different & it should be the same for NHL hockey.

If we don't have hockey this year, don't blame the players, blame the owners & find the reason why your hockey team lose money or why your team does not succeed last year or the last couple year.

Russian Fan
The problem which I think you fail to see is that the NHL owners are NOT in business against each other. They are in business with each other. They compete against each other on the ice. The Stanley Cup goes to the team that puts the best team on the ice. They are not the owners of a team, they are really the co-owners of the NHL. This is the biggest problem is that most people don't look at it that way. If every team loses money except your team, this is not good for you because you will no longer make that money because you will be out of business because you will have noone to play. The idea should be that each team has the same rules to compete with. I agree that teams should be successful by making good decisions, the problem is that some teams cannot make those decisions strictly because of the product on the ice and some teams can. If the Rangers and the Bluejackets want to sign the same player, which one gets him. The Rangers because they can spend more money. That's what I don't like about the current system. The Rangers haven't struggled because of bad economic decisions but because of bad hockey decisions. What they have done is contribute to driving the price of hockey up for every other team.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
thinkwild said:
I think its pretty awesome too. He is an honest observer and gets good info.

No malice. I thought the president was very honest. I got that its complex too. Too complex to say what a player is worth can be measured by UROs.

The president admitted their own AUDITED statements show a profit. Levitt says they lost money. Did Levitt miss it? Missed an audited statement?

To quote the article you posted above:

The Flyers, if you include just revenues and expenses that fall just within the framework of doing business in the NHL, lost money. If you take everything into account, including activities that fall outside of the NHL, the Flyers weren't among the losers. At least, that's what Ryan indicated.

Maybe Levitt did miss something... but I don't think so... Levitt was analyzing things from a hockey, NHL - Philidelphia Flyers point of view (the economics of NHL hockey)... Not an overall Flyers business point of view (both doing business inside and outside of hockey)... Levitt was only interested in the revenues and expenses generated from doing business in the NHL... That is what the report is for - to give an independent financial picture of the NHL (hockey) business...

I see the NHL as the franchisee (the overall business)... I see the specific franchises as franchises (uniquely-branded businesses that operate under the umbrella of the NHL)... I see the owners as businessmen who have their own companies - and whose franchises are a part of the owners' company...

For example:

Here in Vancouver, Orca Bay bought and owns the Vancouver Canucks NHL franchise... They also owned the Vancouver Grizzlies NBA franchise... They also have concerts and conventions at GM Place... In Vancouver, Orca Bay generates revenues and expenses both inside and outside of hockey... Inside of Orca Bay you have fixed advertising, office employees, lighting expenses, etc... You also had Vancouver Canuck generated revenue, Grizzlies generated revenue, concert generated revenue, etc...

For the Levitt report, only what revenues are generated and expenses are incurred during NHL hockey business should be included... What is the economic health of NHL hockey?... He is not looking at the economic health of Orca Bay... If you look at the two books, they will be different... IMO, it's not that Levitt missed anything... He didn't need to see the internal audited 'overall' business report (which I assume it was)... He just needed to know what NHL franchise revenue and expenses were generated during NHL hockey (I assume that these numbers also came from the internal, overall, audited report - with the franchises needing to determine what percentage of revenue is attributed to hockey operations - from the overall numbers)... I assume that Levitt gave the franchises direction as to what to include and what not to include from each franchises overall internal 'books' (given his expert opinion and experience)... I also assume that he went back to the owners to clarify and/or correct things when something he received wasn't clear or incorrect in his opinion...

IMO, no malice OR incompetence on Levitt's part... I assume that the owner's perhaps attempted to make things look worse then it was (and maybe got away with it here and there - thus contributing to the less than 5% of error in the Levitt report)... But for the most part, given Levitt's skillset and experience (i.e. IMO, he'd likely know when something significantly doesn't add up)...

thinkwild said:
For sure, but fan perspective is infuencing things, and there seems clear evidence the mob rules perspective permeating as conventional wisdom is clearly out of whack.

As long as it personally serves my goal, I'm all for mob mentality :thumbu:

thinkwild said:
Im pretty sure the NHLPA would be aghast to discover anyone thinks I represent their position. As you would like to save owners from themselves, Im more convinced we need to save fans from themselves. They want a salary cap, forgive them lord they know not what they wish for. They think the NFL fan is happy with the monster they have created.

I believe that there is an inherent problem with the CBA... Yes, I believe that some of the owner's run their teams like an EA Sports game (they don't pay attention to revenues and expenses)... which is their right - given the CBA... Also, as George Bushal (sp?) says in a few other threads - 10% of salary budget of the NYR is different then 10% of salary budget of EDM... I can't blame the NYR for paying Holik what they did (given that the NYR can afford to pay that and he fits in their budget) yet something is very wrong to me (fairness issue) when the NYR are driving up the player prices league-wide in the process...

This is what pisses me off... IMO, the real enemy of the NHL is the current CBA - not the players... not the owners... it's the CBA...

To save the owners (and the players) from themselves - IMO, the CBA needs to formally tie a portion of salary to revenue (as player output is variable from year to year - it's not fixed - and us such, IMO, the salary cost - for the sake of fairness AND to keep salaries under control - MUST NOT be an absolute fixed cost)... IMO, the owners need to have the resolve to make it happen - despite whatever pressure the NHLPA exerts... IMO, the NHL needs to have a say in salary - not just the individual franchises...

thinkwild said:
At least my innocence leads me to these conclusions.

My innocence has lead me to my conclusions as well... I don't think I'm mindlessly following the NHL propoganda machine... I don't think I'm being brainwashed...

But then again, how would I know...
 

Solak

Registered User
Dec 24, 2003
761
0
Rochester, MN
Visit site
The worst part is that neither the owners or the players will be hurting if there is no season. Unfortunately it seems that neither side really gives a rats *ss about us..the fans. They interviewed both sides during the World Cup final and both were asked about the fans and both said how "terrible" it was for the fans, but I didn't buy it from either of them. Its a sad sad day.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
cw7 said:
Let me get this straight. A highly successful Wall Street veteran, former chairman of AmEX and the SEC, can be bought?

He was bought. There are lots of ways he could have chosen to do his report. Are you trying to say that a different accountant paid by the players could not come up with an entirely different profit and loss statement? There is only one way to record and define revenue and only one way to define and categorize expenses? That's nonsense.

Leavitt did what he was told. He took the NBA model of defining revenue and the NBA model of defining player expenses and produced a result that says the NHL is doing lousy compared to the NBA. That's fine as long as you accept the NBA model. The NHLPA does not.

Leavitt did what he was told, produced exactly the report one would expect him to produce given those parameters, and collected his fee. What possible risk was there to his reputation?

Questioning his motivation is, for lack of a better word, insulting.

What? You think he did the report for fun? He did it for the money. That was his motivation. That is a fact. He could have chosen lots of different ways to look at the issue and out of all those ways of doing his report, he chose the model the NHL would like to see implemented. What a surprise. What else would you expect?

Since baseball is more similar to hockey in many ways - both in CBA, the number of salaries, and the need for a minor league system - why didn't he compare baseball to hockey? Had Leavitt been hired by the NHLPA he would have made different choices. He probably would have been tasked to examine the individual reports in the context of the individual business models

There is nothing dishonourable about that. It is the nature of the consulting business.

Tom
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
I in the Eye said:
To quote the article you posted above:

The Flyers, if you include just revenues and expenses that fall just within the framework of doing business in the NHL, lost money. If you take everything into account, including activities that fall outside of the NHL, the Flyers weren't among the losers. At least, that's what Ryan indicated.

I dont think they are saying they they want the money from Alannis concerts counted or the dog show. But more things like how much are the advertisers spending for rink advertising during the dog shows? One equal events worth? Why are some teams claiming no luxury seat revenue? Wrong business model?

Melnyk in Ottawa bought the rink and team. Would he buy the rink with no team? The 2 together are one investment. He wouldnt get one without the other.


I believe that there is an inherent problem with the CBA... Yes, I believe that some of the owner's run their teams like an EA Sports game (they don't pay attention to revenues and expenses)... which is their right - given the CBA... Also, as George Bushal (sp?) says in a few other threads - 10% of salary budget of the NYR is different then 10% of salary budget of EDM... I can't blame the NYR for paying Holik what they did (given that the NYR can afford to pay that and he fits in their budget) yet something is very wrong to me (fairness issue) when the NYR are driving up the player prices league-wide in the process...

This is what pisses me off... IMO, the real enemy of the NHL is the current CBA - not the players... not the owners... it's the CBA...

To save the owners (and the players) from themselves - IMO, the CBA needs to formally tie a portion of salary to revenue (as player output is variable from year to year - it's not fixed - and us such, IMO, the salary cost - for the sake of fairness AND to keep salaries under control - MUST NOT be an absolute fixed cost)... IMO, the owners need to have the resolve to make it happen - despite whatever pressure the NHLPA exerts... IMO, the NHL needs to have a say in salary - not just the individual franchises...



My innocence has lead me to my conclusions as well... I don't think I'm mindlessly following the NHL propoganda machine... I don't think I'm being brainwashed...

But then again, how would I know...

I cant see it being the CBA. All the evidence points otherwise.

YOu cant buy a champ, you must grow your own. All the teams that tried to buy it, are leading the parade of money losers in need of revenue sharing. Makes no sense.

If you design an idiot proof system, you will just encourage its continued running by idiots. THis idea that owners need to be saved from themselves is one of the most amazing pieces of conventional wisdom I have ever run across. I really dont know what to make of this. It must be total fear of fans of losing their team. Succumbed to emotional blackmail.
 
Last edited:

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
thinkwild said:
I dont think they are saying they they want the money from Alannis concerts counted or the dog show. But more things like how much are the advertisers spending for rink advertising during the dog shows? One equal events worth? Why are some teams claiming no luxury seat revenue? Wrong business model?.

How much advertisers are spending for rink advertising during the dog shows is not the players concern... What service has the players rendered during the dog show? Why should the players concern themselves over dog show-generated revenue?

Rink advertising revenue generated during a hockey game should be included - but not rink advertising revenue generated during the dog show...

I assume that advertisers typically pay for rink advertising as a lump sum for the year? This lump sum should be broken down by type of event (for accounting purposes)... Some of these advertisers advertise in GM Place - regardless of the event... I.e. de maurier sign above section 118... No way should all of the revenue generated for this ad go towards hockey-related revenue...

Why are some teams claiming no luxury seat revenue? Complex accounting - as explained in the article that you quoted...

thinkwild said:
Melnyk in Ottawa bought the rink and team. Would he buy the rink with no team? The 2 together are one investment. He wouldnt get one without the other.

The two are separate assets... The team is one asset (a franchise of the NHL)... and the rink is another asset (a piece of property not owned by the NHL)... It is possible for the rink asset to generate a significant amount of money outside of hockey... The rink and the team are separate... While they are assets that work complimentary - It is possible and practical for the rink asset to generate revenue on it's own - without hockey...

Why would he buy the rink with no team? Real estate investment? The rink is a seperate piece of property - independent of the NHL... Just like you can sell a bar section of a hotel - while still owning the hotel - and visa versa... Just because two assets are complimentary - it doesn't make them one in the same...

thinkwild said:
I cant see it being the CBA. All the evidence points otherwise.

YOu cant buy a champ, you must grow your own. All the teams that tried to buy it, are leading the parade of money losers in need of revenue sharing. Makes no sense.

If you design an idiot proof system, you will just encourage its continued running by idiots. THis idea that owners need to be saved from themselves is one of the most amazing pieces of conventional wisdom I have ever run across. I really dont know what to make of this. It must be total fear of fans of losing their team. Succumbed to emotional blackmail.

How people cannot see how the CBA is creating the league's problems is equally puzzling to me... I really don't know what to make of this either... It must be total fear of big business taking advantage of the little guy - the blue collar worker... I guess some people are just 'pro-union' - regardless of the industry - regardless of the business...
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
I in the Eye said:
How much advertisers are spending for rink advertising during the dog shows is not the players concern... What service has the players rendered during the dog show? ...

in many cases, if not for the NHL team:

1) the arena to host the dog show could not have been financed, threfore would not exist
2) the rates for the board and other in rink advertising would be significantly lower

Regardless, how about how much the owners make from parking, concessions and other arena related revenues during a hockey game ?

dr
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
I in the Eye said:
... I guess some people are just 'pro-union' - regardless of the industry - regardless of the business...

hardly, in my case a I am about as anti union as one can be. this isnt about protecting or siding with the players. this is about the fact that the owners have taken a scorched earth policy when there is no need too.

a few observations:

1) if the NHL is in such bad shape, why is someone offering 250 million for the Canucks and GM Place ? i mean, if NHL hockey is truly on its deathbed (or pro longed work stoppage) isnt there somewhere better to spend the 250m ? no one would even consider spending the money TO RESEARCH the investment if it was as poor as Bettman claims.
2) the NHL owners are trying to negotiate a home run, when they should be looking for a single or double. you cant get all around the bases in one swing and if they had a more reasonable strategy, they might, in time, get to home base(whatever that may be).
3) the NHL has a "my way or no way" strategy. the NHLPA has said, "we will negotiate anything but a salary cap".
4) The NHLPA has put several hundred million dollars of concessions on the table. the owners laughed at it instead of working with it.
5) Most fans dont understand what they are asking for. The end result of a lower UFA age will make it EASIER for your team to lose its star players, not easier to keep them.

There is NO REASON TO KILL the season over this dispute. If there was, WHY WOULD ANYONE offer 250 MILLION dollars to get into the league ?

DR
 

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
Joe Solak said:
The worst part is that neither the owners or the players will be hurting if there is no season. Unfortunately it seems that neither side really gives a rats *ss about us..the fans. They interviewed both sides during the World Cup final and both were asked about the fans and both said how "terrible" it was for the fans, but I didn't buy it from either of them. Its a sad sad day.

Welcome to the reality of the business world. It's not just hockey. The customer comes last in any labor action, regardless of whether either side is really hurting financially. You're never going to see a headline like UAW calls off GM strike because workers feel sorry for Chevy customers". The NHL is no different than any other product, service, or commodity. If a work stoppage lasts long enough hockey fans will spend their entertainment dollars on something else, just as surely as a Chevy customer will buy a Ford or some other model, no matter how much he loved that GMC pickup. :D In the end, that guy might really come to love his Ford and GM will have lost a loyal customer.
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
DementedReality said:
2) the NHL owners are trying to negotiate a home run, when they should be looking for a single or double. you cant get all around the bases in one swing and if they had a more reasonable strategy, they might, in time, get to home base(whatever that may be).

I believe that you are correct in what they should try to get. Especially since they were owned a couple of times and lost ground. Whatever gains they want to make, you can't make THAT much gain in one single round.

However, I remain skeptical that they really want to make so much gains. I think a lot of it is bull and posturing on their part. I am also not surprised at all that no progress has been made for the next CBA so far. I haven't even followed it that closely. It is only NOW for me that things are getting interesting.

It was so predictable that both sides would play big guy until the last minute. But now we'll see what they are made of. These negociations (or silences, which are part of negociations, sadly) really officially begintomorrow as far as I'm concerned.
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
Tom_Benjamin said:
He was bought. There are lots of ways he could have chosen to do his report. Are you trying to say that a different accountant paid by the players could not come up with an entirely different profit and loss statement? There is only one way to record and define revenue and only one way to define and categorize expenses? That's nonsense.

Leavitt did what he was told. He took the NBA model of defining revenue and the NBA model of defining player expenses and produced a result that says the NHL is doing lousy compared to the NBA. That's fine as long as you accept the NBA model. The NHLPA does not.

Leavitt did what he was told, produced exactly the report one would expect him to produce given those parameters, and collected his fee. What possible risk was there to his reputation?



What? You think he did the report for fun? He did it for the money. That was his motivation. That is a fact. He could have chosen lots of different ways to look at the issue and out of all those ways of doing his report, he chose the model the NHL would like to see implemented. What a surprise. What else would you expect?

Since baseball is more similar to hockey in many ways - both in CBA, the number of salaries, and the need for a minor league system - why didn't he compare baseball to hockey? Had Leavitt been hired by the NHLPA he would have made different choices. He probably would have been tasked to examine the individual reports in the context of the individual business models

There is nothing dishonourable about that. It is the nature of the consulting business.

Tom

Remind me not to do business with the consultants you know then.

My brother has been in the accounting/auditing field for over 20 years. He had a nice, hearty laugh when I talked to him about the stories of Levitt being bought. He thought the story more ridiculous than I did, and he knows so much more about this field than I ever could. He also gave me the "accountants for dummies" version for many of the specifics of the report; what certain items in the report represented, possibilities of differences, etc (like I said, I'm nowhere close to an accounting wiz). I trust his expertise and he's never sugar-coated any discussion we've had since I was but a wee lad. I only have limited experience in other fields, but I have learned a thing or two in my time so I'm not always that easy to fool. All this is why I'm confident when I say that your side of the story doesn't pass inspection.

I'm getting the feeling that an explanation from me won't suffice though. So it would probably be best to do a little research on Levitt, easy enough to do on a computer. Get the skinny on him from other sources. If you keep an open mind, it should be easy enough to see.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Vlad The Impaler said:
However, I remain skeptical that they really want to make so much gains. I think a lot of it is bull and posturing on their part. .

but if the owners have no intentions of going the distance, why start in the first place ?

thats why i am so anti owner, they are fighting for the sake of fighting because thye know the payoff is HUGE and the downside LOW. Look, they already have recieved over 200 million dollars in concessions. Give me a break already, this negotiation is already won by the owners, why kill the season to get more ?

DR
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->