Why doesn't the NHLPA want to look at the NHL's books?

Status
Not open for further replies.

copperandblue

Registered User
Sep 15, 2003
10,719
0
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin 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.

Your not really serious about this are you?
 

YellHockey*

Guest
Thunderstruck said:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
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.

Just keep making up fantasy scenario's to support your position. Pathetic.

I'm not making up fantasy scenarios. I'm saying that Bettman is a dishonest person who has proven that time and time again. What he says means nothing because he isn't believeable.

Thunderstruck said:
FYI
So, who is Bob Goodenow?... He's Harvard educated. He's a lawyer who once battled unions for a corporation. He's a smart man who chooses his words carefully.

source

Hmmm...sounds familiar.

Does this sound familiar?

So, who is Bob Goodenow? He's a former college and pro hockey player. Played junior hockey with a couple of Gordie Howe's kids.

Can a certain lying weasel, who is costing the fans a season of hockey, have that in his background?
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
copperandblue said:
Your not really serious about this are you?

What would you call it? The owners are in this business for the capital gain. That's the point of the investment. Bettman is aiming for a partnership with the players, but the players don't get to share in the best part of the business. What a presumptuous little snot, eh?

Tom
 

NYR469

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
5,785
0
Visit site
John Flyers Fan 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.

exactly and that non-disclosure agreement makes it pointless for them to look at the books anyway...the players can't use the info to their advantage regardless what it says, so why bother? bettman is willing to show the books but the players are only allowed to acknowledge it if the nhlpa decides to agree with him...

and on top of that the nhlpa knows that they will only get partial books anyway...when 'opening' the rangers books, the league will hand over the books on the rangers but won't provide any info on $$ generated by CVC thru MSG, MSG network, etc which leaves lots of revenue unaccounted for and screws up the results. so if you know that you aren't going to be given all the info why bother??

the owners are only willing to let the players see parts of the books that they want them to see and that they know will prove the numbers they have calculated. they aren't letting the nhlpa run their own audit...so really by saying they will open the books, really what they mean is that we'll pass you selected figures and let you double check our math

now that doesn't mean that the owners numbers aren't true, but if you don't trust the figures now because you think info is missing, and then you get to look at a detailed view of the figures with that same info missing then you will continue to not trust those figures and nothing changes...
 

Oiler_Fan

Registered User
Oct 2, 2002
220
0
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin said:
What would you call it? The owners are in this business for the capital gain. That's the point of the investment. Bettman is aiming for a partnership with the players, but the players don't get to share in the best part of the business. What a presumptuous little snot, eh?

Tom

In general, the owners realize a capital gain on the contribution of their wealth. While the players can certainly try to negotiate for some of the gain on that wealth, they certainly have no right to it.

The name calling doesn't make for a great argument, but that's just my opinion.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
shakes 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.

Did the NFL and NFLPA come to a negotiated agreement that links salaries to revenue?

Did the NBA and NBAPA come to a negotiated agreement that links salaries to revenue?

We both know the answer, so why would I need to provide proof of something that is common knowlegde?

Tom likes to obfuscate the basic facts by pretending that the NHL is asking for something that has never been done before and is beyond the scope of human endeavor.

It is obvious that even if the two sides can't agree on the specifics or trust each others numbers, they could NEGOTIATE a ballpark understanding of revenue and the players share of that pie. Two other pro-sports leagues in NA have already done so.

There is nothing that makes the NHL unique or this process impossible. TV deals simply increase the size of the pie.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
Thunderstruck said:
Tom likes to obfuscate the basic facts by pretending that the NHL is asking for something that has never been done before and is beyond the scope of human endeavor.

Reading comprehension problems? The NHL is asking for something that cannot be accurately done. That is a different thing than it has never been done or can't be done inaccurately. Levitt did it based on the NBA model. That doesn't mean "designated basketball revenues" have anything whatsoever to do with real basketball revenues. It is a fake number driven by a formula negotiated by the NBA and the NBAPA.

The NHLPA knows that it can't isolate real hockey revenues and it doesn't want to try. It certainly doesn't want anything to do with an arbitrary formula invented by the NBA or by anyone else. There is no need to negotiate hockey revenues. The owners of each team knows exactly what they are. The players don't really care.

In other words, the NHL thinks NBA players got suckered and they aren't interested in being chumps. The NBA superstars bailed out on the rank and file and the rank and file in the NBA are a dime a dozen.

Why do basketball players get such a tiny share of "designated" revenues? If they had the NHL system maybe they would be getting 75% of the "designated" revenues. Either way "designated" revenues has nothing to do with reality for all 30 businesses in either sport. It is artificial. It is called "designated" because it is fake.

Tom
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Tom_Benjamin said:
The NHL is asking for something that cannot be accurately done. That is a different thing than it has never been done or can't be done inaccurately. Levitt did it based on the NBA model. That doesn't mean "designated basketball revenues" have anything whatsoever to do with real basketball revenues. It is a fake number driven by a formula negotiated by the NBA and the NBAPA.
HMMM...now where have I seen this concept before?

The NHLPA knows that it can't isolate real hockey revenues and it doesn't want to try. It certainly doesn't want anything to do with an arbitrary formula invented by the NBA or by anyone else. There is no need to negotiate hockey revenues. The owners of each team knows exactly what they are. The players don't really care.

In other words, the NHL thinks NBA players got suckered and they aren't interested in being chumps. The NBA superstars bailed out on the rank and file and the rank and file in the NBA are a dime a dozen.

Why do basketball players get such a tiny share of "designated" revenues? If they had the NHL system maybe they would be getting 75% of the "designated" revenues.
Either way "designated" revenues has nothing to do with reality for all 30 businesses in either sport. It is artificial. It is called "designated" because it is fake.

Tom

Perfect, we are finally down to the real heart of the matter.

Funny that you've been prattling on about it being a matter of the players inability to trust Bettman and the owners and their numbers as the major impediments to getting a deal done.

Now by your own admission the numbers don't matter and therefore neither does trust.

The real issue is one of simple greed and the players wanting to hold onto the bigger peice of the pie they have carved out over the last 10 years.

Thanks for spelling the Unions position out so clearly, it's all about maintaing the 75%.

The NBA superstars bailed out on the rank and file and the rank and file in the NBA are a dime a dozen.

Here is something else for you to ponder. The NHL superstar to rank and file ratio is virtually the same as the NBA's with the rank and file being just as replaceable.

Also, factoring in the disproportionate European representation amoungst top line stars and Canadian representation amoungst the rank and file, it isn't too difficult to imagine those same Europeans not being too concerned with how their actions affect the rank and file once push comes to shove and real money is being offered to test their allegiance to the "no cap" principle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
copperandblue said:
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?

Well, if the owners really want a partnership, then that should be counted as hockey revenue.

58% (or whatever the agreed rate) of the sales capital gain should go to the players.

dr
 

SENSible1*

Guest
DementedReality said:
Well, if the owners really want a partnership, then that should be counted as hockey revenue.

58% (or whatever the agreed rate) of the sales capital gain should go to the players.

dr

Right about the same time that players foot the bill for 58% of teams losses each year or return enough salary to ensure that the operating budget never goes into deficit.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Thunderstruck said:
Right about the same time that players foot the bill for 58% of teams losses each year or return enough salary to ensure that the operating budget never goes into deficit.

i thought a salary cap was supposed to guarantee profits....

and i said if the players agree to a cap (sorry, i said partnership), then they should also share in the capital gains.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Of course the $100 million isn't hockey revenue. It's just transferring ownership of the team from one person to another, there's nothing "hockey" related there at all. As evidenced by the fact that it can happen during a lockout.

That's the primary definition of hockey revenue - income derived from the playing of games. Sold tickets, tv broadcasts, concessions during said games, etc.

If John McCaw sold his Rolex watch, you'd declare it hockey income.

Hey, I got a great revenue idea. All they need to do is keep selling the team over and over! They could even include the players in it. McCaw can sell it to Bertuzzi, who sells it to Naslund, who sells it to Trevor, who sells it to Cooke... Why, then they could sell it back to McCaw again, and start the whole cycle all over again!

It's a money printing machine, I tell you. At $100 million a pop, they'd soon have billions of dollars rolling in. And it would all be "hockey revenue", so everyone could take their cut and all be billionaires!
 

SENSible1*

Guest
PecaFan said:
Of course the $100 million isn't hockey revenue. It's just transferring ownership of the team from one person to another, there's nothing "hockey" related there at all. As evidenced by the fact that it can happen during a lockout.

That's the primary definition of hockey revenue - income derived from the playing of games. Sold tickets, tv broadcasts, concessions during said games, etc.

If John McCaw sold his Rolex watch, you'd declare it hockey income.

Hey, I got a great revenue idea. All they need to do is keep selling the team over and over! They could even include the players in it. McCaw can sell it to Bertuzzi, who sells it to Naslund, who sells it to Trevor, who sells it to Cooke... Why, then they could sell it back to McCaw again, and start the whole cycle all over again!

It's a money printing machine, I tell you. At $100 million a pop, they'd soon have billions of dollars rolling in. And it would all be "hockey revenue", so everyone could take their cut and all be billionaires!

:handclap: :handclap: :handclap:
 

chara

Registered User
Mar 31, 2004
894
0
John Flyers Fan said:
If they didn't, they weren't going to be allowed access to see the books.



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.

And they did so when they hired him in the first place.

Bettman's an NBA guy whose mentor was NBA commish David Stern. Stern broke the NBAPA union and imposed a salary cap on them and he also expanded the league. Bettman was hired to do the same for the NHL.

Bettman wanted a salary cap in 94 but the owners didn't have the stomachs for it as a lot of them had new buildings to pay off. The owners are fully behind Bettman as they are the ones who replaced John Ziegler with him. Cost-certainity will be a reality.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
chara said:
And they did so when they hired him in the first place.

Bettman's an NBA guy whose mentor was NBA commish David Stern. Stern broke the NBAPA union and imposed a salary cap on them and he also expanded the league. Bettman was hired to do the same for the NHL.

Bettman wanted a salary cap in 94 but the owners didn't have the stomachs for it as a lot of them had new buildings to pay off. The owners are fully behind Bettman as they are the ones who replaced John Ziegler with him. Cost-certainity will be a reality.

Exactly.

This isn't a matter of right or wrong, but simply a matter of power. The owners have it and are fully prepared to exert it.

Goodnenow's clients will pay dearly for his misread of the owners willingness to do whatever it takes to get an owner-freindly system. The longer this goes on, the worse things will get for the players.
 

ti-vite

Registered User
Jul 27, 2004
3,086
0
PecaFan said:
Of course the $100 million isn't hockey revenue. It's just transferring ownership of the team from one person to another, there's nothing "hockey" related there at all. As evidenced by the fact that it can happen during a lockout.

That's the primary definition of hockey revenue - income derived from the playing of games. Sold tickets, tv broadcasts, concessions during said games, etc.

If John McCaw sold his Rolex watch, you'd declare it hockey income.

Hey, I got a great revenue idea. All they need to do is keep selling the team over and over! They could even include the players in it. McCaw can sell it to Bertuzzi, who sells it to Naslund, who sells it to Trevor, who sells it to Cooke... Why, then they could sell it back to McCaw again, and start the whole cycle all over again!

It's a money printing machine, I tell you. At $100 million a pop, they'd soon have billions of dollars rolling in. And it would all be "hockey revenue", so everyone could take their cut and all be billionaires!

I want in!
 

YellHockey*

Guest
PecaFan said:
Hey, I got a great revenue idea. All they need to do is keep selling the team over and over! They could even include the players in it. McCaw can sell it to Bertuzzi, who sells it to Naslund, who sells it to Trevor, who sells it to Cooke... Why, then they could sell it back to McCaw again, and start the whole cycle all over again!

It's a money printing machine, I tell you. At $100 million a pop, they'd soon have billions of dollars rolling in. And it would all be "hockey revenue", so everyone could take their cut and all be billionaires!

Do you understand the concept of a capital gain?

No one has said that the players should be allowed to split the purchase price. Instead they have said that if the owners want a partnership with the players then the players should get a cut of the capital gain when a franchise is sold.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
BlackRedGold said:
Do you understand the concept of a capital gain?

No one has said that the players should be allowed to split the purchase price. Instead they have said that if the owners want a partnership with the players then the players should get a cut of the capital gain when a franchise is sold.

Are the players going to help out with the losses as well? :dunno:
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
DementedReality said:
what losses ? i thought a salary cap was the magic profit cure ?

dr

Some anti-cap supporters have said that a salary cap will guarantee profits even if teams are run poorly.


If the cap is set at 10% of revenues, most teams will find it extremely difficult to lose money...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->