Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
- Sep 26, 2003
- 21,538
- 9,331
Why doesn't the NHLPA want to look at the NHL's books?
- Thread starter Luigi Lemieux
- Start date
- Status
Dark Metamorphosis said:
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the PA had looked at the books but had to sign a non-disclosure agreement to not say anything publically about it, including the fact that they had even looked at them.
After all, that's Bettman's way. Lie about what you can. Use half-truths and distortions to mislead the public. He's a lawyer remember and he's doing his damndest to play the stereotypical lawyer.
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
BlackRedGold said:
The NHLPA did exactly that. They were able to look at the NHL's books, but had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. They are forbidden to comment.
John Flyers Fan said:
To play devil's advocate, why would the PA agree to that? How does Goodenow sell that to the players, especially those who stand to lose the most in all of this? How does Bettman sell it to the owners if the owners know they aren't being completely open?
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
HF2002 said:
If they didn't, they weren't going to be allowed access to see the books.
HF2002 said:
Bettman only needs 8 NHL owners on his side, and he certainly has that. The owners right now are trying to get the best deal possible, and could really care less, what means are being used to get it.
Wouldn't be my startegy, but they've hooked their wagon to Bettman.
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
Thunderstruck said:
And I'm searching old threads and links .... when i find it, you'll be the first to know
John Flyers Fan said:
Here's one from shortly after the lockout started from Maclean's September 27th edition;
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M2ARTM0012662
The league has repeatedly offered to open its books and let the union perform its own audit, but Goodenow has just as repeatedly declined the offer. He refuses to tie salaries to a percentage of revenues, so why bother?
Ohh wait, that doesn't support you claim at all.... I will keep looking as well....
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
copperandblue said:
I wasn't claiming that the NHLPA hired an auditer to perform their own audit. Just that they were able to get a team-by-team breakdown of the Leavitt report, which wasn't shown to the pulic.
In order to see that they had to sign a confidentiality agreement.
==============================================
Also I'm not on the NHLPA's side .... i'm just looking to get a deal done as soon as possible, so I can go back to watching hockey on a nightly basis.
John Flyers Fan said:
The only place I've heard that he only needs 8 owners on his side is to approve a CBA that he recommends to the board. I would think that in all other matters he needs a majority of owners to agree.
The last two or three negotiating sessions in September consisted of the PA going through the league's numbers team by team.
I think it'd be pretty hard to find an article with quotes from the PA saing they saw the books , because wouldn't those quotes violate the confidenitality agreement?
The problem isn't so much wheither the league provides numbers for the PA to look at, its that the PA doesn't trust the league's numbers, and based on the Forbes report and other issues about the Levitt report, that distrust is at least partially justified.
What needs to happen is a government agencey needs to step in an subpeona every team's finances, then arbritate with the two sides to determine what is and isn't hockey revenue. There has to be numbers that both sides accept as legit.
I think it'd be pretty hard to find an article with quotes from the PA saing they saw the books , because wouldn't those quotes violate the confidenitality agreement?
The problem isn't so much wheither the league provides numbers for the PA to look at, its that the PA doesn't trust the league's numbers, and based on the Forbes report and other issues about the Levitt report, that distrust is at least partially justified.
What needs to happen is a government agencey needs to step in an subpeona every team's finances, then arbritate with the two sides to determine what is and isn't hockey revenue. There has to be numbers that both sides accept as legit.
triggrman said:
As long as those 8 are acting in agreement with Bettman.
There still needs to be a majority for anything to be passed.
hockeytown9321 said:
I doubt that it would. Saying that you saw the books is much different from saying WHAT you saw in the books.
Dark Metamorphosis said:
Bettman is talking about the "Unified Report of Operations" when he talks about the league books. Those are not the books of Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment or the Comcast books. They are the books according to how the NHL splits up the revenue between the rinks teams and broadcasters.
The NHLPA was allowed to look at the actual books of four teams, but that's it, and they didn't like what they found. It just set off a dispute about revenue definition. It convinced the NHLPA that every team was different and it wasn't practical to try to define revenues for 30 such diverse operations.
The NHL itself doesn't have books except for the league operations. Teams have books and those books are not open to the NHLPA.
No, they aren't afraid to learn the owners are actually losing money. They recognize it is an impossible task. Consider the Toronto Maple Leafs. The majority owner of MLSE is the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund.
This is how they responded to a question from a retired teacher who wanted to know how his fund expected to make money investing in a hockey team:
The Teachers’ plan has a 58 per cent stake in Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd. (MLSE), which owns the Maple Leafs, Toronto Raptors and the Air Canada Centre. We do not receive cash dividends from our investment; all money stays with MLSE...
Despite the Leafs’ early exit from this year’s Stanley Cup playoffs, Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (MLSE) is the most successful sports franchise in North America. It has also proven to be a good investment for the fund, growing substantially since we first invested in it back in 1994. We make money on such investments by helping the company grow over time and become more successful. Eventually we sell these investments and realize the value.
Note that earnings are retained and the entire return will be taken when the investment is sold. The Teacher's pension fund says MLSE has a value of $740 million with assets of $1.4 billion and liabilities of $650 million. Presumably the value increases every year.
How much of the increase in value should be attributed to the Toronto Maple Leafs each year? How on earth do we expect the NHLPA to sort it out? Can it be anything but arbitrary? The players think that the ownership of MLSE - including the people who run the billions in the Teacher's Pension Plan - can sort it out and set a reasonable player budget. Nobody else can as a practical matter.
Tom
Brought out the big shovel again I see.Tom_Benjamin said:
How are the NBA and the NBAPA able to accomplish this IMPOSSIBLE task?
How are the NFL and the NFLPA able to accomplish this IMPOSSIBLE task?
Are these franchise's finances any simpler?
A smokescreen, plain and simple.
Tom_Benjamin said:
Aside from Thunderstruck's response for the "impossible task".....
Your Maple Leaf analysis doesn't apply to the question at hand.
The question surrounding revenues as it applies is based on the year to year opperation.
The question surrounding the OTPF applies to the continued anticipated appreciation of the franchise.
The two have nothing to do with each other, it would be similar to McCraw selling 50% of his stake yesterday. Does that $100 mil count as hockey revenue? Should the PA be able to count that money as part of the overall NHL revenue if they ever did decide to negotiate a tie between salary and revenue?
Levitt and company had all the books, not only the UROs. They decided what should count as revenue and expenses, not the league or any franchise. So there goes your point...
The NHLPA had a chance to see the real numbers, but they didn't show any interest whatsoever.
The NHLPA had a chance to see the real numbers, but they didn't show any interest whatsoever.
triggrman said:
After I posted that, I thought I might have had it reversed. Stil, that is the only situation where he needs only 8 votes.
shakes
Pep City
Thunderstruck said:
Do you ever actually respond to points? I mean you ask for proof of things, but you never seem to have the need to actually provide any yourself.
Most of everything here is speculation. NO ONE here knows what has been said or done in negotiations. Everything that both these groups have done is known only to them. These are negotiations and in negotiations of this magnitude you are going to have propoganda which is what you seem to be lapping up like a dog does his nuts. Maybe if you get off your high horse, you might be able to look at things a little objectively and not assume just because everyone else doesnt buy into the crap that Bettman and Goodenow spew that they are on this side or that side. I think you just post to get on peoples nerves.
But to answer your question (?) I would think TV deals with those respective leagues probably have something to do with it.
PecaFan
Registered User
shakes said:
So if you have a large tv contract, players and owners can agree on what revenues are, but if it's a small deal, then there's no way to work out a deal?
That makes no sense.
No, the size of the deal only affects the *desire* to make a deal. The NHLPA has no desire to make a deal, because they know they are massively overpaid compared to the revenues of the league.
Sanderson said:
Who decided? The NBA decided because that is the formula Levitt used. Those were his instructions. This is exactly why the players rejected Levitt. They reject the artificial arbitrary division.
The NBA and NFL get away with their systems because the player unions are so much weaker than either the NHLPA or MLBPA. There are too many replacement players available. All the NBA has to do is keep the relatively small number of impact players happy. All the NFL has to do is keep the bettors happy and bettors will bet on anything.
Tom
copperandblue said:
Of course the two have something to do with each other. The bottom line from the profit and loss statement goes directly to the balance sheet.
The $100 million - if that is what it was - is hockey revenue earned over the past ten years but they can't count it now. The players aren't going to negotiate a tie between salaries and revenues.
Tom
- Status
