Thurs 5/12 meeting

[thinkwild]

The suggestion is that 2 independant auditors can look at the same numbers, and one say in trying to paint a picture of what part of the owners revenues are hockey related shows a $280mil loss, and another say there is only a $90mil loss. It depends how you want to show it.

If there is only way to show it, then surely Bettman will allow Goodnow access to all the books, and then let him allocate those revenues.

 

[Wetcoaster]

If memory serves, didn't one of the league's offers include hiring independent auditors/accountants/whatevers (chosen by both the league & the PA), jointly determining what will & will not be considered revenues, and those auditors/accountants/whatevers would then monitor the teams very closely to ensure they reported the numbers correctly within the guidelines that had been mutually agreed upon? There were some very stiff penalties included for teams that tried to hide money.

Yes but there was no agreement on what they would actually audit. Auditing the URO's would be waste of time.

 

[mooseOAK*]

I guess Wetcoaster's post had too many words. Imagine if one of the owners was going through a divorce. And he creates a report showing what his personal revenues are. he ha none, because the team pays him no salary. He draws up a budget but refuses to show any of his paycheques to support it. But says look, i drew up a budget separating what are my personal revenues from my business ones. You can llok at these numbers. Make sure they add up. But you cant see my tax receipts or paycheques to prove it.

And then you say, its a non-issue, he already drew up a budget and said the wife could look at it and ask questions.

Spare me. Attendance figures are known, right? Ticket prices are known, right? There's the bulk of the revenue right there so how can that be hidden? TV, concessions, luxury boxes, all hockey related revenue that can all be estimated very easily by someone with knowledge of how that works. There must be someone the NHLPA can hire that worked for an NHL team that knows the ins and outs.

The NHLPA isn't saying anything, that says a lot.

 

[thinkwild]

"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."

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

You know the real issue here when you get down to it is this...if an owner (or corporation etc) has other assets from their own investments that may benefit from also owning a team do the players have a claim to those revenues?

Seems like a fairly straightforward question and IMO the answer is flatly no.

The players will demand their "share" of an owner who also owns parking lots. That was his capital he put up to obtain that right and the lot may well be as much of a complementary product to the franchise as it the other way around. If the lot makes it easier for fans to attend due to convenience then it is boosting the gate and also the salary of the players. The owner chose to make this investment and he should be the one to get the benefit.

A player signs a contract for a fixed firm price, its not a variable contract based on all the complementary investments that his lawyers can find.

The world doesn't work this way...in non-socialized economic societies that is. This is basically a value added tax that the PA is claiming the right to levy upon the owners of the NHL and I feel like they are way out of line.

If the players want that money they should do one of 2 things - include it in their contract language (which no owner will agree to) or make the investments themselves with their own union dues provided cash.

If the players push on this the owners will be forced to divest in their own franchises as to keep from paying the PA their "tax" money and in the long run the players will be hurting the financial success of their own gravy train.

well, i think the PA side would agree and this is why they have long maintained that since its the owners who know the true value of their collection of investments and the synergies between them, that the right system is the one where each owner can negotiate with the player and make an offer that makes sense for that business.

unlike the hard capped CBA where it is neccesary to determine the level of value of HRI (hockey related income), the old CBA did not require that, it simply let the owner decide how much of his income he wanted to spend on his players.

but since the owners want to "link", it is then neccesary to determine and evaluate all sources of revenue, such as parking lots, concessions and spin off revenues from associated businesses.

seems much simplier for everyone to go with the last CBA, which was just fine if you ask me.

dr

 

[RangerBoy]

Brooks-FOR NHL: NO MEETING, NO HOPE

SO what does Fri day's abrupt cancel lation of the NHLPA's May 24-26 membership meeting truly mean?

It means that anyone who has a vested interest in the sport should be gravely concerned not only about the prospect of opening on time in October, but of the very viability of the NHL as a major- league enterprise in the U.S.

It means that the specter of 2005-06 scab hockey will soon be back on the table, front and center, with plans for a mid-November start to a 60-game replacement season as the agenda.

It means that Gary Bettman — either independently or under the strict instructions of a suicidal Board of Governors — has absolutely no concept of how to close the deal with a union that has already agreed to unprecedented givebacks and to a hard cap in a league that never before has had any restrictions on club spending.

http://www.nypost.com/sports/46586.htm

Larry,Larry,Larry.Does this guy ever stop?

According to Larry,the NHLPA is not at fault.Both sides are at fault in this situation

 

[Donnie D]

Brooks: "It means that Bob Goodenow remains in firm control of the PA despite league attempts to create friction and doubt within the rank-and-file through its floated messages to media and blogging mouthpieces."

Goodenow in having his shill announce that he isn't in trouble convinces me even more that Goodenow is afraid of having to defend his lack of ideas to the membership.

 

[AM]

I can see....

how accounting might seem like rocket science to some peeps.