TSN on the COLD WAR PERSONALITIES

[AM]

thats what happens

Notice if anyone takes a PA stance on any subject theyre biased and foolish, but if you take the owners side on any subject you're non-biased and just a really smart intuitive thinker.

when you support ideals or sides which are intrinsically unsupportable.

All you have to do is look at the TSN bios and you have the current situation in a nutshell.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

It's probably common knowledge by now, but I was just wondering...as for the $300 million that the owners put together to fund the lockout, how was that accounted for in relation to the $273 mil (or $224 mil depending in which year the "warchest" was assembled) in losses suffered in 02-03 or 03-04? Is it left completely out of the equation, $10 million from each club that simply dissapeared from the league...or did the league make $76 mil last year but have that knocked down to -$224 once each team paid $10 mil to the league?

 

[Timmy]

It's probably common knowledge by now, but I was just wondering...as for the $300 million that the owners put together to fund the lockout, how was that accounted for in relation to the $273 mil (or $224 mil depending in which year the "warchest" was assembled) in losses suffered in 02-03 or 03-04? Is it left completely out of the equation, $10 million from each club that simply dissapeared from the league...or did the league make $76 mil last year but have that knocked down to -$224 once each team paid $10 mil to the league?

That depends on whether or not it was a deductible expense for each team in the year contributed, in which case the refunding of the money if left unused would be taxable income in the year returned. However, given the league's overall losses over the last number of years, the average over say five years would still be at a loss, and thus it would become a moot point.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

That depends on whether or not it was a deductible expense for each team in the year contributed, in which case the refunding of the money if left unused would be taxable income in the year returned. However, given the league's overall losses over the last number of years, the average over say five years would still be at a loss, and thus it would become a moot point.

Let's say the teams paid it in 03-04. If it was a deductible expense, which I would think it should be because if it weren't counted as an expense than it would be counted as profit (you can't just erase $10 million of revenues from your teams books'), than it was counted in the audit which produced $224 in losses, corrent? So really, in 03-04 the league would have made $70+ million, but they went $220+ million into the red because they wanted to fund this lockout, right?

The only other way they could have done it is if they assembled the $300 million over a number of years, let's say each team paid in $2 million per year for 5 years. Then it wouldn't have much affect on the yearly bottom line of the NHL. But if the teams paid it all in one year and counted it as an expense, than really we aren't looking at a bottom line anywhere close to what the NHL is giving, right?

 

[Timmy]

Let's say the teams paid it in 03-04. If it was a deductible expense, which I would think it should be because if it weren't counted as an expense than it would be counted as profit (you can't just erase $10 million of revenues from your teams books'), than it was counted in the audit which produced $224 in losses, corrent? So really, in 03-04 the league would have made $70+ million, but they went $220+ million into the red because they wanted to fund this lockout, right?

The only other way they could have done it is if they assembled the $300 million over a number of years, let's say each team paid in $2 million per year for 5 years. Then it wouldn't have much affect on the yearly bottom line of the NHL. But if the teams paid it all in one year and counted it as an expense, than really we aren't looking at a bottom line anywhere close to what the NHL is giving, right?

Not quite. If they loaned the funds to the league, then the debt on their books is actually an asset. If the funds for the warchest came out of after-tax earnings (if any) by the company, then it's not an expense.

If I go to the bank and borrow 10m and lend that to the league, it is not an expense, and the bank loan and league loan offset each other.

I do not, however, know how it was structured; I am simply pointing out that there are many ways to give 10m to the league without it being an expense. If it is, it is, but I just wouldn't be certain of that.

Anybody know for sure?

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Not quite. If they loaned the funds to the league, then the debt on their books is actually an asset. If the funds for the warchest came out of after-tax earnings (if any) by the company, then it's not an expense.

If I go to the bank and borrow 10m and lend that to the league, it is not an expense, and the bank loan and league loan offset each other.

I do not, however, know how it was structured; I am simply pointing out that there are many ways to give 10m to the league without it being an expense. If it is, it is, but I just wouldn't be certain of that.

Anybody know for sure?

Yea that seems to be the only way in which it wouldn't be counted as an expense, if it were a loan to the league. But if a team lost money, how do they make a $10 million loan to the league? Plus that would mean the league needs to repay the $10 million to each team...that might explain why barely any of it was used as of February.

I would love to know how it is counted for these teams, because as a league $224 million in losses is nothing when you put $300 million in an account for the league to use during an expected lockout. It would almost make it seem like the league didn't have real problems but knew they were going to have a lockout anyway, so they put aside some money for the lockout while at the same time inflating(or creating) losses.