This is getting beyond ridiculous now....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hoss

Registered User
Feb 21, 2005
1,033
0
HockeyCritter said:
Wouldn't it technically be "libel" since it is written?

And I thought he called the idea that the NHL refused to disclose a lie not so much as calling the person a liar.
You're probably right about libel over slander, no arguement from me there. It's too bad people can disagree without calling each other names.
 

Hoss

Registered User
Feb 21, 2005
1,033
0
WC Handy said:
There's no need to. Anyone who paid any attention to this situation over the last year should know that the NHL specifically offered to open the books numerous times to the NHLPA and the union declined every time.
Your claim is an opinion, not a fact.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
I thought Phoenix, Pittsburgh, and Chicago (or St. Louis) all agreed to open their books for the PA but declined the invitation.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Hoss said:
Your claim is an opinion, not a fact.

Did you miss the day of school they taught the difference between opinion and fact?

I'm claiming something happened.

Whether my claim is correct or not, it is still a fact.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
WC Handy said:
Did you miss the day of school they taught the difference between opinion and fact?

I'm claiming something happened.

Whether my claim is correct or not, it is still a fact.

Raises hand

Maybe I missed school that day, but how can something be a “fact†if it is not correct? By definition a fact is something believed to be true or real.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
WC Handy said:
There's no need to. Anyone who paid any attention to this situation over the last year should know that the NHL specifically offered to open the books numerous times to the NHLPA and the union declined every time.
No they did not. Never did and never have until these current meetings (if the reports are accurate). That is why the negotiations have finally started to move ahead.

Until now the NHL owners have adamantly refused to fully disclose and open all the books of the NHL teams and their related corporate entities. They kept offering to review what they were already disclosing. Not much use in that - the NHLPA had already determined that this was not an accurate reflection of league finances.

Levitt offered to discuss his report but since it was based on the URO's already disclosed that was not much an offer.

The NHL claim of disclosure was about as accurate as Bettman's claim that the Levitt Report was a "super audit" - it was not even a regular audit.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
HockeyCritter said:
Raises hand

Maybe I missed school that day, but how can something be a “fact†if it is not correct? By definition a fact is something believed to be true or real.

A fact is just a piece of information and information isn't always accurate.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
WC Handy said:
A fact is just a piece of information and information isn't always accurate.
If that's were true, then why are there laws against printing misinformation/false information (even if you thought it true at the time) - - - that's why magazines/newspapers have to print retractions.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
HockeyCritter said:
I thought Phoenix, Pittsburgh, and Chicago (or St. Louis) all agreed to open their books for the PA but declined the invitation.
Team books (read URO's) not the complete books nor those of the related corporate entities through which much of the revenues pass have been offered.

It also begs the question of which books or reports are being disclosed. The URO style reports or the internal team books which as one NHL executive termed them are "more accurate".

After the Levitt Report came out, Philadelphia Flyers chairman Ed Snider claimed that his team was one of the 19 NHL teams the report said lost money in 2002-03. Flyers' team President Ron Ryan said the Flyers were NOT among the NHL teams who lost money that year. What's up with that?

Ryan in an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer when asked to explain the differences said:

"Where it becomes confusing 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."

Ted Saskin in an interview with The Sporting News noted that the NHLPA was not getting the real financial information:

"We've always said it's not an accounting issue of making sure the numbers add up 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."

And Saskin was then asked if the URO process accurately reflected the financial positions of the teams and replied:

"Absolutely not. 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."

That is why the NHLPA has insited that all the financial information of the team and all their related corporate entities be disclosed and then the negotiations go from there. That appears to be finally happening so we are seeing some progress.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
WC Handy said:
A fact is just a piece of information and information isn't always accurate.

Handy, don't be distracted by this PA henchman into a grammar game from the original valid point that you made. Wetcoaster keeps posting the same bull on several threads about the league not offering to disclose. It is pure unadulterated falsehoods, and he is using standard propaganda techniques. Repeat something often enough and people will believe it.

I too have called him on it. Good for you for calling a spade a spade.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
No they did not. Never did and never have until these current meetings (if the reports are accurate). That is why the negotiations have finally started to move ahead.

Until now the NHL owners have adamantly refused to fully disclose and open all the books of the NHL teams and their related corporate entities. They kept offering to review what they were already disclosing. Not much use in that - the NHLPA had already determined that this was not an accurate reflection of league finances.

Levitt offered to discuss his report but since it was based on the URO's already disclosed that was not much an offer.

The NHL claim of disclosure was about as accurate as Bettman's claim that the Levitt Report was a "super audit" - it was not even a regular audit.

This article says the league offered to open the books THREE YEARS AGO

Los Angeles Kings president Tim Leiweke says they opened their books to the union prior to September 23rd.

Melnyk 'dares' the NHLPA to go through his books in February

"Five years ago that we offered to open our books" - Bettman
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
HockeyCritter said:
Raises hand

Maybe I missed school that day, but how can something be a “fact†if it is not correct? By definition a fact is something believed to be true or real.
Facts can be mistaken such as WC Handy's claim that the NHL has in fact offered to open all the books - they have not until these recent meetings.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
WC Handy said:

As I said it depends upon which books were offered. The NHL owners have never offered to open all the team books and those of their related corporate entities - just the books on which the URO's were based. Fuller disclosure has only happened in the recent meetings and now progress is being made.

And does the NHLPA get to see the team books which Ed Snider of the Flyers said resulted in a loss in the 2002-03 season or the team books which Flyers President Ron Ryan says showed the Flyers made a profit that year??????

"Where it becomes confusing 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."

Here is an explanation of revenue linkage to salaries as proposed by the NHL owners as posted by “Outsider†at the Canucks.com Message Boards. I was given his permission to quote it verbatim.

Say I want you to enter into a "partnership" with me. We discuss it over lunch.

I'm offering you 54% of my total "revenues". That sounds alright with you. You wonder what my actual "revenues" are, and are assured, by me, that the numbers will be provided once I've got your signature on a Legally Binding Contract. Hell....You can even choose any accounting firm/auditing team you wish to go over my numbers so that you're sure everything is fair and square. But in order for you to GET the "numbers", you've got to sign on the dotted line.

So you sign......

And I immediately take the inkpen from my breast pocket, grab a cocktail napkin from the table, and start jotting down numbers.

When I'm finished, I pass the napkin across the table to you, and tell you to go ahead and take it to the accounting firm/auditing team of your choice, have them to check the figures, and let you know what YOUR cut, at 54%, will be.

All is JUST as I said it would be.

I've given you my numbers. It doesn't matter that the numbers I've given you were not exactly what you'd thought they would be, not quite an "in depth look" as to what my "revenues" REALLY are, just the numbers I've CHOSEN to give you. The numbers will stand, however, under the Terms and Conditions of the Contract, as the "real" numbers, as it was never clarified, BEFORE YOU SIGNED THE CONTRACT, just exactly WHAT numbers you would be getting.

Now.....

Take that napkin to your accountant/auditor and have him calculate out your "percentage".

Because 54% of what is written on that cocktail napkin is PRECISELY what you will get.

And not a penny more.

Until recently that was the revenue disclosure being offered by the NHL owners.
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
Let's hope this "the PA refused to look at 'the books'" nonsense is finally put to bed now.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
PepNCheese said:
Let's hope this "the PA refused to look at 'the books'" nonsense is finally put to bed now.
I doubt it.

Bettmanites still believe that the Levitt report was a "super audit" and that it was the NHLPA who initiated the work stoppage.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
The NHL owners have never offered to open all the team books and those of their related corporate entities - just the books on which the URO's were based.

SAYS YOU.

Sorry if I'm willing to take the word of the commissioner and other owners over you... especially since you are providing NO evidence to support your claim.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
WC Handy said:
SAYS YOU.

Sorry if I'm willing to take the word of the commissioner and other owners over you... especially since you are providing NO evidence to support your claim.
I have given you all sorts of evidence - you choose to ignore it.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
I have given you all sorts of evidence - you choose to ignore it.

You have given me nothing. You continue to focus on the Levitt report as if it has some relevence to this discussion.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
WC Handy said:
You have given me nothing. You continue to focus on the Levitt report as if it has some relevence to this discussion.
The Levitt Report was based on the URO's provided by the teams and was all about how revenues were defined using the NHHL owners guide to revenues.

If you fail to see the relevance then that is your problem.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
The Levitt Report was based on the URO's provided by the teams and was all about how revenues were defined using the NHHL owners guide to revenues.

If you fail to see the relevance then that is your problem.


:biglaugh:

You: "The NHL never said they'd open their books to the NHL"
Me: "Yes they did"
You: "The Levitt report was based on URO's"

:help:
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
gscarpenter2002 said:
Handy, don't be distracted by this PA henchman into a grammar game from the original valid point that you made. Wetcoaster keeps posting the same bull on several threads about the league not offering to disclose. It is pure unadulterated falsehoods, and he is using standard propaganda techniques. Repeat something often enough and people will believe it.

I too have called him on it. Good for you for calling a spade a spade.
I posted the truth. No one has yet provided a link in which the NHL has offered full disclosure of all fionancial information. I have posted links and quotes where the NHLPA has stated that they have not received such disclosure.

Both Goodenow and saskin have gone on record as saying so.

As further evidence you have Bill Daly's comments just prior to the lockout that it was his view that the NHLPA was wasting time by asking for the same financial information that they had been seeking for the past five years (i.e form the time of the four team review in 1999).

As Canadian press reported at the time:

OTTAWA (CP) -- The war of words was renewed Thursday after the NHL lashed out at the NHL Players' Association, accusing the union of wasting the league's time and not wanting to find a solution before the impending lockout next month.

Bill Daly, the NHL's chief legal officer and executive vice- president, had steam coming out of his ears following Thursday's four-hour meeting, which came on the heels of Wednesday's five-hour session.

"I'm very frustrated and concerned right now because I think we're engaged in a charade," Daly told reporters.

"The union is not willing to negotiate with us."

The NHLPA has asked for more detailed information on the operation of all 30 clubs during the last three bargaining sessions dating back to last Tuesday in New Jersey. After three meetings and 14 hours, the two sides have got through seven to eight teams.

The union had a different take on the talks.

"It's been healthy dialogue, it's a process we started at the last meeting (in New Jersey), really to start reviewing the business operations and management of the 30 teams," Ted Saskin, the NHLPA's senior director, told the same group of reporters outside the downtown building where the meetings took place.

"It's an ongoing discussion and it's going to continue at our meetings in Montreal next week."

That's hogwash, says Daly.

"We're having a discussion that's completely irrelevant to the process," Daly told The Canadian Press in a separate interview later Thursday.

In a folow-up report CP noted:

The NHLPA began the team-by-team queries Aug. 17 in New Jersey after officially rejecting the NHL's six new proposals, and continued the pain-staking discussion at two days of meetings last week in Ottawa and followed it up this week in Montreal.

Bill Daly, the NHL's executive vice-president and chief legal officer, last week charged the union with wasting time with its queries, saying the NHLPA wasn't really interested in negotiating at this point.

The NHLPA denied those claims, insisting it is engaged in an important dialogue that will possibly lead to a proposal from its side.

Daly in a follow-up broadcast interview said he was very frustrated with the NHLPA keeping after the same financial information they had been asking for the past five years.

Clearly this is not the first time that the NHLPA has been seeking the information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->