wouldn't a luxury tax further competetive imbalance?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Pepper said:
Wrong again. They didn't want to trade Dough Weight, they HAD to trade him because they couldn't afford his salary. They had no choice but to trade him or lose him for nothing.

Pay attenion.

how come OTT can afford Alfreddson ?

dr
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Thunderstruck said:
Because the most restrictive form of hard cap is the only system available to achieve cost certainty right?

The lengths pro-PAers will go in ignoring reality is quite impressive.

thats what the NHL wants ....

dr
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,390
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
DementedReality said:
how come OTT can afford Alfreddson ?

dr

Realistically - because Melnyk is willing to fund the team to win the Cup.

I do think that you are missing a key point. Deadline deals would still occur because in your Fleury example the Av's would only be on the hook luxury tax wise for Fluery salary while on the team (about 1 month left in the regular season). It would be VERY difficult to trade expensive players with multiple years left on a contract however, but it's like that now.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
DementedReality said:
thats what the NHL wants ....

dr

Keep repeating the same lie over and over, it won't make it any more true.

The NHL is clearly on record stating they will discuss ANY SYSTEM that links salaries and revenues.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
The NHL is clearly on record stating they will discuss ANY SYSTEM that links salaries and revenues.

If that is true, then great!

This fan has no issue with that premise. The concern is with the knee-jerk reaction among many fans for a restrictive, hardcap.

Their line: it will restrict the escalation of ridiculous salaries and make for an even playing field with regard to payrolls.

Both true.

However, it will also allow for teams to lose talent at a younger age (by virtue of a likely tradeoff in the UFA age), will force teams to jettison quality players solely to get under the artificial cap, facilitate more roster instability year-to-year and most likely ensure that championships teams will lose talent and thus any ability to remain on top year-to-year. Read: forced mediocrity, (See: NFL. Oh, where have you gone recent SuperBowl Champs/Finalists like Tampa Bay, Oakland, Carolina, NY, Baltimore? People talk about the horror of "cinderellas" - playoff teams who quickly disappear in the NHL. That is commonplace in the "glorious" :shakehead NFL.)

The NHLPA should be willing to link overall league revenue to salary structures, not unlike the NBA does. However, it does not have to be acheived through a draconian hardcap. (Seems to me that the abundance of hardcappers simply wish to punish "overpaid" players and successful, well-run franchises, but that's another story.)

None of this is presented from a "pro-NHLPA" perspective, nor an owner's perspective. It is presented from what is best from a fan's persepctive. Perhaps some (many) have no qualms with rooting simply for the jersey, and having a never-ending merry-go-round of roster changes on a yearly basis. No long-standing identity of players (save for a couple), much like today's NFL, as contracts are dispersed with regularity.

This fan appreciates consistency year-to-year, even if it does not result in the Cup. The NYI team that exists today, albeit a mediocre one, resembles in great part, the same team formed in the summer of 2001. The best teams in the league retain their core talent. That will not be the case in a hardcap world.

Some may be willing to make that tradeoff. Be careful what you wish for.

Simply wish the hardcappers would open their minds to other options. For a hardcap will not solve the problems of the NHL. It speaks nothing at all to generating additional revenue, nor will it ensure lower overall salaries. (Check out the history of salaries in the post-hardcap NFL. A brief reduction, followed by continued overall escalation. Meanwhile, under a much less restrictive system, the median MLB salary has decreased significantly - to ~$800,000 - since the last CBA in 2002. Yet, ironically, many pro-hardcappers never acknowledge this point.)

Just my opinion.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
me2 said:
Aren't Ottawa losing money?

For the hundredth time, Ottawa is not losing money.

Do you have a hard time remembering things or are you just being belligerent, like your idol, the little fella?
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
BlackRedGold said:
For the hundredth time, Ottawa is not losing money.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists...ssListType=Misc&uniqueId=318444&datatype=Misc

Forbes has them losing money in 2003-04, US$5m, and that is before loans, depreciation and other extras. You know Forbes, the pro-NHLPA bible on economics?

The government is giving them major tax breaks, writing off debts. How many hundred million did Ottawa lose since the 1990? Kicking butt, model financial franchise.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=24155&hubName=
Report: Senators lost $83 M in six years

TSN.ca Staff

1/22/2003

TORONTO (CP) - The Ottawa Senators have lost more than $83 million on operations over the last six years, according to financial figures obtained by the Globe and Mail.

The figures show the Senators had significant losses every season from 1996-97 to 2001-02. The losses range from $22.8 million in 1997-98 to $8 million in 2000-01.

The information is contained in documents obtained by the newspaper under access to information and material prepared by lawyers and auditors during a failed bid to refinance the club last year.

I'm just curious where the long term profitability and stability is? Maybe writing off hundreds of millions of loans and debts, restructuring their taxes to 20%, etc, might just make them break even in a good year.

Do you have a hard time remembering things or are you just being belligerent, like your idol, the little fella?


lol at you. :joker:
 
Last edited:

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
me2 said:
OK, so much did Ottawa make?

At the time these books were published, they carried a $19 million interest charge. That money was owed to the owners - Covanta and Bryden. If the team had the cash, they got paid. If the team didn't have all the cash, the team debt to the team owners went up. You have to work really hard to turn a business with a positive cash flow into a bankruptcy involving $490 million in debt, and Bryden turned the trick.

When Bryden tried to sell the whole works as a tax loss, he issued a prospectus: Including the mortgage on the Corel Centre, but assuming the team itself was debt free, the Senators turn a profit of $13 million and the Corel Centre $18 million. The losses could be directly traced to debt acquired when nobody put up any money to buy the team. Not the original investors and not Rod Bryden. Not Covanta. All of the money was borrowed.

The whole story says a lot more about the way the NHL does business than the quality of the hockey business in Ottawa or anywhere else. Can you imagine this?

The league awarded an expansion franchise to a bunch of guys with no money who were borrowing the entire expansion fee! They had no rink to play in and no firm plans to build a rink! Then the NHL approved the sale to Bryden even though Bryden had no money and he wasn't paying anything to become owner! A decade later the debt pyramid finally collapses the team and the league has the gall to blame runaway salaries for the demise of the team.

How much chutzpah does that require?

Tom
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
BlackRedGold said:
Who ever said that Forbes was accurate? It had Vancouver barely making any money while they admitted profits were $25M.

Oh that's rich. PA types were all over that report, citing it as definitive proof of how the owner's were lying etc. YOU even praised it's independence, and how that surely made it more accurate than the obvious "bias" of Levitt. To this day, PA supporters still cite the losses as accurate.

Yet, they never cite it when assessing profits. Odd that. :shakehead

And Vancouver has *never* stated what their profits are. That's quite a bone of contention around here, as they will publicly state their losses. That $25 million is media speculation. And given the "quality" of the media around here, it's almost surely wrong.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
PecaFan said:
Oh that's rich. PA types were all over that report, citing it as definitive proof of how the owner's were lying etc. YOU even praised it's independence, and how that surely made it more accurate than the obvious "bias" of Levitt.

I said no such thing. I said that, unlike the Levitt report, it was impartial but I never praised it for its accuracy.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
PecaFan said:
And Vancouver has *never* stated what their profits are. That's quite a bone of contention around here, as they will publicly state their losses. That $25 million is media speculation. And given the "quality" of the media around here, it's almost surely wrong.

"The Canucks have made a profit of $45 million the past two years, but to do that ``we've had to fire on all cylinders to make money,'' said Nonis.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=98932

Seems you are wrong.

DR
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,875
Missouri
DementedReality said:
"The Canucks have made a profit of $45 million the past two years, but to do that ``we've had to fire on all cylinders to make money,'' said Nonis.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=98932

Seems you are wrong.

DR

Actually the only part of that Nonis said is "we've had to fire on all cylinders". The first part regarding the $45 mil is not part of the Nonis quote but instead a "fact" interjected by the journalist. The question Nonis was commenting on could have easily been in regards to any profit the canucks and not that specific number. Especially given that in all other stories that kept on mentioning that number it was always a speculative number and one consistentnly denied as the correct number by the canucks and the outgoing Burke. The $45 mil may be right but I believe it is probably in regards to Orca Bay and not just the canucks portion of Orca Bay. While the revenues are more than Edmonton and Calgary the higher payroll will offset that. I find it hard to believe they made that much more of a profit given the fairly early playoff exits.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
tantalum said:
Actually the only part of that Nonis said is "we've had to fire on all cylinders". The first part regarding the $45 mil is not part of the Nonis quote but instead a "fact" interjected by the journalist. The question Nonis was commenting on could have easily been in regards to any profit the canucks and not that specific number. Especially given that in all other stories that kept on mentioning that number it was always a speculative number and one consistentnly denied as the correct number by the canucks and the outgoing Burke. The $45 mil may be right but I believe it is probably in regards to Orca Bay and not just the canucks portion of Orca Bay. While the revenues are more than Edmonton and Calgary the higher payroll will offset that. I find it hard to believe they made that much more of a profit given the fairly early playoff exits.

do you have proof that Nonis didnt say it ? seems like he did and unless you can prove otherwise, why should we believe it ?

dr
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,875
Missouri
DementedReality said:
do you have proof that Nonis didnt say it ? seems like he did and unless you can prove otherwise, why should we believe it ?

dr

Ummm you have NO proof he did say it. It isn't up to me to prove somebody didn't say something. You have to prove he did say it. This doesn't. I haven't seen anything that does have such a quote while I've read time and time again how the organization has denied that number.
 
Last edited:

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
tantalum said:
Ummm you have NO proof he did say it. It isn't up to me to prove somebody didn't say something. You have to prove he did say it. This doesn't. I haven't seen anything that does have such a quote while I've read time and time again how the organization has denied that number.

i dunno man, i gave you a link to a credible site with a direct quote in quotations. you are the one claiming he didnt really say that.

im just asking you to prove it wrong.

dr
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,875
Missouri
DementedReality said:
i dunno man, i gave you a link to a credible site with a direct quote in quotations. you are the one claiming he didnt really say that.

im just asking you to prove it wrong.

dr

you gave no such thing. The $45 mil was not in quotation marks and was NOT part of what Nonis was quoted as saying. He was quoted saying the hit on cylinders part. The writer of the article has attached the profit number a number in which most articles prior to that qualified with "it is widely believed the canucks made $45 mill...). There is no quote in which Nonis or anyone from the canucks has specified the profit as being $45 mil while there have been comments to the contrary. Atleast from what I've ssen. Including Burke who has said the canucks made a profit the past two years but not near what is reported in the media and he then also used the hitting on cylinders comment to make that profit.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
It's no use to argue with posters like that, it should be obvious to everyone that Nonis didn't give any profit numbers himself, it's the reporter making it up himself.

Just the fact that DR edited the quote that blatantly speaks for itself, extremely misleading to say the least. He has no credibility whatsoever after pulling lame stunts like that.
 

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
DementedReality said:
do you have proof that Nonis didnt say it ? seems like he did and unless you can prove otherwise, why should we believe it ?

dr

You can use the quote tags to avoid confusion over who said what.

The Canucks have made a profit of $45 million the past two years, but to do that ``we've had to fire on all cylinders to make money,'' said Nonis.

It can't be claimed that Nonis said something unless the quote is directly attributed to him. All that's attributed to Nonis is, "we've had to fire on all cylinders to make money,''. Since he's not responding to a quote mentioning the $45 million it also can't be assumed he's implicity acknowledging the truth of the statement. The part about the Canucks making a $45 million profit the past two years is tsn editorial comment.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
BlackRedGold said:
I said no such thing. I said that, unlike the Levitt report, it was impartial but I never praised it for its accuracy.

Right. You praised the independence of the report, just for the sake of it?
If it's no more accurate, why point out the independence? Why not point out it was printed on magazine stock, instead of 24 pound paper like the Leavitt report? That'd be just as relevant to the discussion.

But anyways, glad to see that even PA types such as yourself now clearly see the Forbes stuff isn't worth the paper they are printed on.

And trust me DR, there is no public quote by the Canucks saying how much profit they made. You can search for years, you won't find it.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Buffaloed said:
You can use the quote tags to avoid confusion over who said what.



It can't be claimed that Nonis said something unless the quote is directly attributed to him. All that's attributed to Nonis is, "we've had to fire on all cylinders to make money,''. Since he's not responding to a quote mentioning the $45 million it also can't be assumed he's implicity acknowledging the truth of the statement. The part about the Canucks making a $45 million profit the past two years is tsn editorial comment.

point made, my mistake.

dr
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Tom_Benjamin said:
At the time these books were published, they carried a $19 million interest charge. That money was owed to the owners - Covanta and Bryden. If the team had the cash, they got paid. If the team didn't have all the cash, the team debt to the team owners went up. You have to work really hard to turn a business with a positive cash flow into a bankruptcy involving $490 million in debt, and Bryden turned the trick.

When Bryden tried to sell the whole works as a tax loss, he issued a prospectus: Including the mortgage on the Corel Centre, but assuming the team itself was debt free, the Senators turn a profit of $13 million and the Corel Centre $18 million. The losses could be directly traced to debt acquired when nobody put up any money to buy the team. Not the original investors and not Rod Bryden. Not Covanta. All of the money was borrowed.

The whole story says a lot more about the way the NHL does business than the quality of the hockey business in Ottawa or anywhere else. Can you imagine this?

The league awarded an expansion franchise to a bunch of guys with no money who were borrowing the entire expansion fee! They had no rink to play in and no firm plans to build a rink! Then the NHL approved the sale to Bryden even though Bryden had no money and he wasn't paying anything to become owner! A decade later the debt pyramid finally collapses the team and the league has the gall to blame runaway salaries for the demise of the team.

How much chutzpah does that require?

Tom


So you agree Ottawa didn't/doesn't deserve a team. The team couldn't generate enough revenue to stay viable in its old rink nor could it generate enough revenue from its new rink to pay for it. Payroll problems are not it doesn't look good. Took a near free rink to make them almost viable.

So how much did they make this year, after interests, depreciation etc?
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
me2 said:
So you agree Ottawa didn't/doesn't deserve a team. The team couldn't generate enough revenue to stay viable in its old rink nor could it generate enough revenue from its new rink to pay for it.

Well, the NHL did approve worse ownership groups. Didnt one guy not even have any money? Spanos? It was a huge risk granting an expansion franchise to a an ownership group with no money or rink, and a lot of obstacles to a rink. But it did work. The team was making enough money. to pay for it. It went bankrupt forunrelated reasons. Covanta went bankrupt because of Enron, and Bryden because he didnt invest any real money. Do you not believe it, or just want to ignore it? If only they had been bought with money instead of putting it on a credit card. Regardless, the Sens now have options to compete in the best league in the world. No one knows how much they are making now, but the $5mil loss figure just doesnt jive with the information released on the prospectus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->