Forbes Magazine Says NHL Owners Overstated Losses

[CanadianChris 0]

In your rush to condemn the salary cap as the bane of everyone's existence, did you consider that Forbes might be the problem here? After all, they didn't have access to anyone's books -- their audit is based on what amounts to hearsay. Just because it's Forbes doesn't mean they're automatically right.

 

Certainly. But Forbes magazine is certainly more reliable than an "independant" study bought and paid for by the people who have the most to gain from its inevitable conclusion. And they did turn out to be right on the MLB article a couple seasons ago.

Well, now having read the Levitt report AND the Forbes report, I'm much less inclined to believe what Forbes has to say. How does Forbes get away with reporting all income from a stadium that the owner of a hockey team also happens to own as hockey revenue? THAT'S how the Kings ended up with an $11-million profit instead of a $7-million loss -- they just happened to share space with the three-time NBA champion Lakers, and the same guy who owns the Kings owns part of the Lakers and the Staples Center. Same with Bill Wirtz and the United Center. Ridiculous.

 

Further, how is a league-commisioned report worthless solely based on the fact that it was commissioned by the league? Levitt does have his own reputation to think of, as does everyone else who had a hand in preparing the report. The fact that Goodenow had the opportunity to go over it with Levitt and refused says all I need to know about that situation.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Further, how is a league-commisioned report worthless solely based on the fact that it was commissioned by the league? Levitt does have his own reputation to think of, as does everyone else who had a hand in preparing the report. The fact that Goodenow had the opportunity to go over it with Levitt and refused says all I need to know about that situation.

 

Goodenow conferring with Levitt on that propaganda piece would be a waste of time. The Players' Union does not have access to the full financial records...

 

The league has denied access to teams' financial records to the players' association and outside parties, other than Levitt.

 

Forbes Magazine, again, is an inpedendant source. Why shouldn't I trust them over a report produced by individuals who have a vested interest in the findings of the report? It is very easy to fudge a report like this, and anyone in accounting can tell you that you can make the numbers say just about whatever you want.

 

Well, now having read the Levitt report AND the Forbes report, I'm much less inclined to believe what Forbes has to say. How does Forbes get away with reporting all income from a stadium that the owner of a hockey team also happens to own as hockey revenue? THAT'S how the Kings ended up with an $11-million profit instead of a $7-million loss -- they just happened to share space with the three-time NBA champion Lakers, and the same guy who owns the Kings owns part of the Lakers and the Staples Center. Same with Bill Wirtz and the United Center. Ridiculous.

 

So while criticising those greedy players, I am supposed to feel sympathetic to owners who own entire arenas and multiple franchises? Poor babies.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Not quite.  Moneyball is a book about the financial dealings of the Oakland Athletics, an MLB team.  Basically, with arbitration, if you feel a player will make too much, you can decline to offer a new contract, thus releasing him.

If you go to arbitration in the NHL Al, and arbitration says "yes, this is his market value" and agrees with the value 100% and he is a tier 2 (I think it is two that I'm thinking of) restricted free agent, the NHL team HAS to sign them. They don't get a choice.

 

I might have the wrong tier, but there is a certain tier that if they win the arbitration, they automatically get re-signed at that price. This is what we are trying to tell you. This type of tier is one that many players have when you have their rights till 30 get. Hence the problem of just releasing them. You can't.

 

Edit:

You can release them but they have to release them through waivers and get tagged with some if not all of the salary. So that isn't feesible either.

You misunderstand. Before a player is eligible for free agency, his rights are retained by a single team. When the team does not have a player under contract, they have three options.

 

1. Reach an agreement on a new contract.

 

2. Proceed towards an arbitration hearing to determine a fair contract.

 

3. Release the player BEFORE offering arbitration.

 

There is the main point. A team is stuck with the contract after arbitration. But they may elect to cut him loose, and a good franchise probably employs someone who can create a fair estimate of what arbitration will grant him. Essentially, you make the decision before the arbitration deadline, and go from there. It's called "non tender".

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

So while criticising those greedy players, I am supposed to feel sympathetic to owners who own entire arenas and multiple franchises? Poor babies.

 

No, you should hate them both and care about yourself. Ie. Dethroning Atlanta in the East.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

So while criticising those greedy players, I am supposed to feel sympathetic to owners who own entire arenas and multiple franchises? Poor babies.

 

No, you should hate them both and care about yourself. Ie. Dethroning Atlanta in the East.

I tried. Ed Wade won't return my phone calls.

[CanadianChris 0]

Well, now having read the Levitt report AND the Forbes report, I'm much less inclined to believe what Forbes has to say. How does Forbes get away with reporting all income from a stadium that the owner of a hockey team also happens to own as hockey revenue? THAT'S how the Kings ended up with an $11-million profit instead of a $7-million loss -- they just happened to share space with the three-time NBA champion Lakers, and the same guy who owns the Kings owns part of the Lakers and the Staples Center. Same with Bill Wirtz and the United Center. Ridiculous.

 

So while criticising those greedy players, I am supposed to feel sympathetic to owners who own entire arenas and multiple franchises? Poor babies.

You missed the point entirely. Why should I believe the Forbes report when they do stuff like this?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Well, now having read the Levitt report AND the Forbes report, I'm much less inclined to believe what Forbes has to say. How does Forbes get away with reporting all income from a stadium that the owner of a hockey team also happens to own as hockey revenue? THAT'S how the Kings ended up with an $11-million profit instead of a $7-million loss -- they just happened to share space with the three-time NBA champion Lakers, and the same guy who owns the Kings owns part of the Lakers and the Staples Center. Same with Bill Wirtz and the United Center. Ridiculous.

 

So while criticising those greedy players, I am supposed to feel sympathetic to owners who own entire arenas and multiple franchises? Poor babies.

You missed the point entirely. Why should I believe the Forbes report when they do stuff like this?

Let me preface this by saying I haven't read the report. Basically, it is a matter of opinion. An arena owner needs events to run their business. Approximately 40 games a year is a significant income generator. If you don't run hockey games, you still have an empty arena to maintnance. I am really not an expert in this regard, and I wish I had someone more enlightened to explain the finer details.

[Lightning Flik 0]

Let me preface this by saying I haven't read the report. Basically, it is a matter of opinion. An arena owner needs events to run their business. Approximately 40 games a year is a significant income generator. If you don't run hockey games, you still have an empty arena to maintnance. I am really not an expert in this regard, and I wish I had someone more enlightened to explain the finer details.

Now, I don't know about you, but even if I own two different teams (for two different sports) and only one sports team makes a profit and one doesn't. It means one team is making money and another isn't. It isn't a collective sum of the money pooled together by one team. Both teams are considered a seperate entity are they not?

 

Hence the team still isn't making money. Even if the guy financing the team IS making money, he's making it from outside revenues that aren't associated with the team (which would be the other team).

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Let me preface this by saying I haven't read the report.  Basically, it is a matter of opinion.  An arena owner needs events to run their business.  Approximately 40 games a year is a significant income generator.  If you don't run hockey games, you still have an empty arena to maintnance.  I am really not an expert in this regard, and I wish I had someone more enlightened to explain the finer details.

Now, I don't know about you, but even if I own two different teams (for two different sports) and only one sports team makes a profit and one doesn't. It means one team is making money and another isn't. It isn't a collective sum of the money pooled together by one team. Both teams are considered a seperate entity are they not?

 

Hence the team still isn't making money. Even if the guy financing the team IS making money, he's making it from outside revenues that aren't associated with the team (which would be the other team).

Here is the article from Forbes' Magazine. I suggest bugmenot.com to bypass the registration process after page one.

 

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/1129/124.html

 

A few quotes...

 

The difference between what the league is stating as losses and our figures has to do with what's included as revenue. For instance, the NHL included only half of the $17 million the New York Islanders got last year for their cable broadcasts. For Islanders owner Charles Wang, who paid $188 million for the team and its cable deal in April 2000, the economic value of owning the team certainly includes the entire cable deal.

 

But for purposes of reporting team results, the league has wide discretion in deciding how much of the off-ice revenue should be included. William Wirtz, who owns the Chicago Blackhawks, also owns half of the United Center, where the team plays. The arena's 212 suites pulled in $15 million last season, none of which is included in the league's numbers. While the United Center is a separate corporate entity from the Blackhawks, the building and team are part of one equation for Wirtz.

 

Now Anschutz is planning on building a $1 billion project around Staples Center that would cover 26 acres and include a 7,000-seat theater, a 1,200- room hotel, restaurants, offices and luxury condos. Timothy Leiweke, who runs AEG, the holding company for Staples Center and the Kings, does not return calls. But in 2000, in a reference to the development around Staples Center, he was quoted in the Downtown News as saying, "If it wasn't for the Kings, none of this would have happened."

[Guest Rrrsh]

Let me ask this question, directed mainly at those who are siding with the players: Do you believe that everything is okay and things should remain the same, or do you believe that something does need to change but don't believe a salary cap is the way to do it?

The latter. Revenue Sharing is needed with a Luxury Tax according to the medium (NOT the avergae) to the Top 15 teams in the league.

[Guest Rrrsh]

A couple points that I would like to make in regards to recent happenings.

 

1. Half of the Vancouver Canucks were sold today. Now, the team was reportedly offered 250 Mill for 100% ownership, but the detials broke down and it didnt get done. But, assuming that the 250 number was correct, its safe to assume that it cost around 125 to get half the Team. And this man is very respected business man. So why the hell would he buy into a league that losses 287 Mill a year. What moron would do that? Well the answer is no one, becuase its becoming more and more obvious that the owners are full of it.

 

2. Bill Daily was on TSN's Off The Record and admitted that Revenue sharing would defiantly be something the league would be considered and is defiantly a form of the cost certanty the league is looking for. So either he and Mr Bettman are on diffrent levels (Bettman has clearly stated that a hard cap is the only way to go) or someone is lying. PLUS, Daily is dreaming if he thinks greedy owners from NY or Detroit are gonna share their profits with Nashville.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

Goodenow conferring with Levitt on that propaganda piece would be a waste of time. The Players' Union does not have access to the full financial records...

 

Correct, in the fact that the NHL isn't willing to turn the financial records fully over to the players and go, do as you may, because, like Forbes has done, the numbers can be interpreted many ways and the NHLPA would likely draw their own conclusions on what counts as revenue and expenses to skew the numbers in their favour to try to draw public support.

 

However, the NHL has offered on many occasions to go over the books collectively with the PA and the PA has refused.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

A couple points that I would like to make in regards to recent happenings.

 

1. Half of the Vancouver Canucks were sold today. Now, the team was reportedly offered 250 Mill for 100% ownership, but the detials broke down and it didnt get done. But, assuming that the 250 number was correct, its safe to assume that it cost around 125 to get half the Team. And this man is very respected business man. So why the hell would he buy into a league that losses 287 Mill a year. What moron would do that? Well the answer is no one, becuase its becoming more and more obvious that the owners are full of it.

 

Those figures are Canadian and the team was valued at $125 American recently.

 

Since John McCaw took over in 1996 the team has lost about $90 million dollars collectively. However, thanks to Brian Burke (possibly the best G.M. in the league over the last few seasons - everyone should give his thoughts on the lockout a look) the team has made about $50 million the past two seasons (both figures Canadian dollars again) which helps offset the massive previous debt as well as making the team a viable investment for a new owner. Remember, even though the league is losing massive amounts of money as a whole, not every team loses money. So as it is, what moron would pass up an opportunity to purchase a team that is making money in an environment that does not have cost certainty especially when there is potential for cost certainty in the future?

 

 

Brian Burke's Solution

 

Without a doubt the best suggestions I have read. Now tell me exactly what is wrong with such a proposal.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

Let me preface this by saying I haven't read the report.  Basically, it is a matter of opinion.  An arena owner needs events to run their business.  Approximately 40 games a year is a significant income generator.  If you don't run hockey games, you still have an empty arena to maintnance.  I am really not an expert in this regard, and I wish I had someone more enlightened to explain the finer details.

Now, I don't know about you, but even if I own two different teams (for two different sports) and only one sports team makes a profit and one doesn't. It means one team is making money and another isn't. It isn't a collective sum of the money pooled together by one team. Both teams are considered a seperate entity are they not?

 

Hence the team still isn't making money. Even if the guy financing the team IS making money, he's making it from outside revenues that aren't associated with the team (which would be the other team).

Here is the article from Forbes' Magazine. I suggest bugmenot.com to bypass the registration process after page one.

 

 

 

A few quotes...

 

The difference between what the league is stating as losses and our figures has to do with what's included as revenue. For instance, the NHL included only half of the $17 million the New York Islanders got last year for their cable broadcasts. For Islanders owner Charles Wang, who paid $188 million for the team and its cable deal in April 2000, the economic value of owning the team certainly includes the entire cable deal.

 

But for purposes of reporting team results, the league has wide discretion in deciding how much of the off-ice revenue should be included. William Wirtz, who owns the Chicago Blackhawks, also owns half of the United Center, where the team plays. The arena's 212 suites pulled in $15 million last season, none of which is included in the league's numbers. While the United Center is a separate corporate entity from the Blackhawks, the building and team are part of one equation for Wirtz.

 

Now Anschutz is planning on building a $1 billion project around Staples Center that would cover 26 acres and include a 7,000-seat theater, a 1,200- room hotel, restaurants, offices and luxury condos. Timothy Leiweke, who runs AEG, the holding company for Staples Center and the Kings, does not return calls. But in 2000, in a reference to the development around Staples Center, he was quoted in the Downtown News as saying, "If it wasn't for the Kings, none of this would have happened."

 

An Interview with Levitt

 

 

Levitt: With regards to the union's concerns, I would say if they have any questions about any aspects of the report that I could meet with them and respond to the ways that they have been critical of the numbers upplied by the league for some years now. We spent a great deal of time on responding to this concern in the report. In other words, one criticism involved was the suggestion that owners were not reporting revenue from affiliated arenas or television outlets that were owned by the same parties. We looked at those very carefully and we audited a number of them, and I can say unequivocally that all of those dollars have been reflected in our study.

 

I simply have not seen any allegation made by the union about the reliability of the study that I can respond to. The criticism has been general, but I would certainly be willing to respond to questions of the report. I think it's kind of tragic that with all of the issues that divide management and players, the focus has been placed on the origin of the report and not its substance.

 

Sports Online: You've been critical in the past of how companies play 'the numbers game' by employing creative accounting and bookkeeping practices. Some feel that's exactly what the NHL is doing here. How do you feel about that assertion?

 

Levitt: We went to great lengths to ensure that wasn't the case by putting together a team that had no connection or affiliation with any of the clubs or their owners. I'm as sure about the numbers we uncovered as anything I've come across. My former chief account, Lynn Turner, had access to the work papers of the major accounting firms that did the audits on the 30 clubs and we did a thorough and exhaustive examination. So knowing this, do I really believe a report that substantiates the numbers is flawed or that we've been duped by some shifty bookkeeping? I don't. I've seen some chicanery in my time, and some pretty crafty accounting, but that isn't the case here. I'm certain of that.

 

Again, I ask, what good does it do the reputation of an independent auditor if these numbers are false? Sure, one company is paying him to do the audit, but if you think that "doctoring" the results of one report to appease your temporary employer is a lot more important than an auditor's reputation you have a lot to learn about the business world.

[Guest Rrrsh]

A couple points that I would like to make in regards to recent happenings.

 

1. Half of the Vancouver Canucks were sold today. Now, the team was reportedly offered 250 Mill for 100% ownership, but the detials broke down and it didnt get done. But, assuming that the 250 number was correct, its safe to assume that it cost around 125 to get half the Team. And this man is very respected business man. So why the hell would he buy into a league that losses 287 Mill a year. What moron would do that? Well the answer is no one, becuase its becoming more and more obvious that the owners are full of it.

 

Those figures are Canadian and the team was valued at $125 American recently.

 

Since John McCaw took over in 1996 the team has lost about $90 million dollars collectively. However, thanks to Brian Burke (possibly the best G.M. in the league over the last few seasons - everyone should give his thoughts on the lockout a look) the team has made about $50 million the past two seasons (both figures Canadian dollars again) which helps offset the massive previous debt as well as making the team a viable investment for a new owner. Remember, even though the league is losing massive amounts of money as a whole, not every team loses money. So as it is, what moron would pass up an opportunity to purchase a team that is making money in an environment that does not have cost certainty especially when there is potential for cost certainty in the future?

 

 

Brian Burke's Solution

 

Without a doubt the best suggestions I have read. Now tell me exactly what is wrong with such a proposal.

Burke is not the GM tho, so making money is no garentee. Plus, they Cancuks lost money just three years ago, so who is to say they couldnt lose money if Nonis fucks up? The point is, the Canucks, like many other NHL franchices, is a money making business and the NHL is full of shit when they tell you otherwise.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

Burke is not the GM tho, so making money is no garentee. Plus, they Cancuks lost money just three years ago, so who is to say they couldnt lose money if Nonis fucks up? The point is, the Canucks, like many other NHL franchices, is a money making business and the NHL is full of shit when they tell you otherwise.

 

Even going by the Forbes account which is like a best case scenario for the NHLPA and their supporters, the NHL has lost OVER $200 MILLION DOLLARS (!!!!) the past two seasons. So even if the NHL and Levitt are full of shit, as you say, they are still losing assloads of money no matter whose proclamations they are and this is apparently something you are failing to see. Will you please go away?

 

As an aside, how can the losses have dropped so dramatically in the Forbes report from 2002-2003 to 2003-2004 when a) attendance figures decreased (always a great sign in pro sports particularly when it's the second straight year) and b) salaries increased and c) ticket prices stayed the same?

 

The best part about the past few years was that the T.V. contract actually generated $120 million per season in rights fees whereas as the new one is worth, um... ZERO.

 

Now, here is another thing that is the NHL's fault but not disputable. Starting around 1998, expansion was used to artificially elevate team revenues and the teams took this money and spent it on players accordingly. At 80 million a pop (distributed around the current teams), and four teams joining in a three year span, this turned into over 10 million each for the current teams. That 10 million was then spent on signing players (or in some cases merely surviving). However, that $320 million extra that teams spent was not based off revenue but rather gains (accountitatively speaking). Approximately, $300 million was spent driving up the market value of the players but the money has since dried up. So again, with a little bit of thinking, how one can dispute the massive losses is beyond me.

[Guest Rrrsh]

Even going by the Forbes account which is like a best case scenario for the NHLPA and their supporters, the NHL has lost OVER $200 MILLION DOLLARS (!!!!) the past two seasons.  So even if the NHL and Levitt are full of shit, as you say, they are still losing assloads of money no matter whose proclamations they are and this is apparently something you are failing to see.  Will you please go away?

Right, and the players acknoladge that and are willing to give rollback up to 150 Mill for next year.

 

Why is everyone defending the Owners not readng that EVERY GOD DAMN TIME I SAY IT

[Guest Rrrsh]

So again, with a little bit of thinking, how one can dispute the massive losses is beyond me.

No one is saying that their hasn't been huge losses.

 

But the owners are still lying and the players are not. Plus, the owners solution is not a way to fix the game, it will hinder it more.

[CanadianChris 0]

 

Even going by the Forbes account which is like a best case scenario for the NHLPA and their supporters, the NHL has lost OVER $200 MILLION DOLLARS (!!!!) the past two seasons.  So even if the NHL and Levitt are full of shit, as you say, they are still losing assloads of money no matter whose proclamations they are and this is apparently something you are failing to see.  Will you please go away?

Right, and the players acknoladge that and are willing to give rollback up to 150 Mill for next year.

 

Why is everyone defending the Owners not readng that EVERY GOD DAMN TIME I SAY IT

You seem not to be able to read what anyone else says...please extend everyone else the same courtesy.

 

Besides, as has been pointed out more than once (now who's not reading?), that's a stopgap solution that offers no substantive help. Over the course of a five-year contract (which is what the union would be going for -- a short-term contract does them no good), salaries would be back at exactly where they are now, if not higher. The rollback doesn't mean shit.

 

But the owners are still lying and the players are not.

How do you know this? Do you have indisputable proof? If so, present it here.

[Red Baron 0]

Burke is not the GM tho, so making money is no garentee. Plus, they Cancuks lost money just three years ago, so who is to say they couldnt lose money if Nonis fucks up? The point is, the Canucks, like many other NHL franchices, is a money making business and the NHL is full of shit when they tell you otherwise.

Canucks lost some of their money because of the poor Canadian dollar, which affected most Canadian teams (minus Toronto, because Canada revolves around Toronto).

 

With the increase of the Canadian dollar these past years, plus selling out almost every game, the company has turned into a profit organization (albiet small). The only team that I don't think made profit last year from Canada was the Oilers because they weren't in the playoffs.

 

Of course everything is a money making business, and it has been since the game started. It's just escalated because of sponsorships, advertising, commercialization, and the popularity of some teams.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

A few quotes from Rsssh

 

The point is, the Canucks, like many other NHL franchices, is a money making business and the NHL is full of shit when they tell you otherwise.

 

No one is saying that their hasn't been huge losses.

 

So, I'm somewhat unclear on your stance here. So the NHL is a money making business and the NHL and anyone else who says otherwise if full of shit? Yet no one (except apperently you) is saying that there haven't been huge losses?

 

And as for the rollback, as Canadian Chris pointed out, it's obvious your not reading anyone else's posts because it has been stated many times that a salary rollback is a short term fix. Sure, it will drop salaries for the moment but they will just grow back up to where they were.

 

Let's take a look at a few more numbers here.

 

Total salary paid out last year was approximately 1.3166 billion. A 10% rollback on that only comes to a little over 130 million. I wonder where the players are getting this extra 20 million from? Rsshh, do you just blindly listen to everything the P.A. spews or do you bother to check some of the facts.

 

On top this, that rollback would save each team (mind you this is only a one-time saving) approximately only 4.3 million for next season. So, going by the Forbes stats (because they are the only ones you will believe), most teams, with the NHLPA's rollback suggestion stand to only break even next year before proceeding to lose money in the years after that. Hey, that's a great plan to fix the game.

[Guest Rrrsh]

 

Even going by the Forbes account which is like a best case scenario for the NHLPA and their supporters, the NHL has lost OVER $200 MILLION DOLLARS (!!!!) the past two seasons.  So even if the NHL and Levitt are full of shit, as you say, they are still losing assloads of money no matter whose proclamations they are and this is apparently something you are failing to see.  Will you please go away?

Right, and the players acknoladge that and are willing to give rollback up to 150 Mill for next year.

 

Why is everyone defending the Owners not readng that EVERY GOD DAMN TIME I SAY IT

You seem not to be able to read what anyone else says...please extend everyone else the same courtesy.

 

Besides, as has been pointed out more than once (now who's not reading?), that's a stopgap solution that offers no substantive help. Over the course of a five-year contract (which is what the union would be going for -- a short-term contract does them no good), salaries would be back at exactly where they are now, if not higher. The rollback doesn't mean shit.

 

But the owners are still lying and the players are not.

How do you know this? Do you have indisputable proof? If so, present it here.

There is nothing for them to lie about, CC. The Owners are the ones making these claims. And more and more are there cracks in thier claims as time passes.

 

 

You are talking out of ur ass with that statement about the salaires raising later on in te e5 year deal. Along with the % rollbacks, the Players are willing to put a cap on the rookies and have a subsational Luxury Tax. So where in that do the salaries raise?

[Guest Rrrsh]

Burke is not the GM tho, so making money is no garentee. Plus, they Cancuks lost money just three years ago, so who is to say they couldnt lose money if Nonis fucks up? The point is, the Canucks, like many other NHL franchices, is a money making business and the NHL is full of shit when they tell you otherwise.

Canucks lost some of their money because of the poor Canadian dollar, which affected most Canadian teams (minus Toronto, because Canada revolves around Toronto).

 

With the increase of the Canadian dollar these past years, plus selling out almost every game, the company has turned into a profit organization (albiet small). The only team that I don't think made profit last year from Canada was the Oilers because they weren't in the playoffs.

 

Of course everything is a money making business, and it has been since the game started. It's just escalated because of sponsorships, advertising, commercialization, and the popularity of some teams.

I agree with everything you said. But what I am saying that even tho they are now making a profit, very recently they were not. So if just recently they turned a profit and the NHl is supposably such a black whole for revenue, why would someone buy? And 125 Mill for 50% at that!

 

The Canucks aren't Detroit or Colorado, they are far from garenteed from repeating their sucsess. That is maginified now that Burke is gone.

[Guest Rrrsh]

A few quotes from Rsssh

 

The point is, the Canucks, like many other NHL franchices, is a money making business and the NHL is full of shit when they tell you otherwise.

 

No one is saying that their hasn't been huge losses.

 

So, I'm somewhat unclear on your stance here. So the NHL is a money making business and the NHL and anyone else who says otherwise if full of shit? Yet no one (except apperently you) is saying that there haven't been huge losses?

 

And as for the rollback, as Canadian Chris pointed out, it's obvious your not reading anyone else's posts because it has been stated many times that a salary rollback is a short term fix. Sure, it will drop salaries for the moment but they will just grow back up to where they were.

 

Let's take a look at a few more numbers here.

 

Total salary paid out last year was approximately 1.3166 billion. A 10% rollback on that only comes to a little over 130 million. I wonder where the players are getting this extra 20 million from? Rsshh, do you just blindly listen to everything the P.A. spews or do you bother to check some of the facts.

 

On top this, that rollback would save each team (mind you this is only a one-time saving) approximately only 4.3 million for next season. So, going by the Forbes stats (because they are the only ones you will believe), most teams, with the NHLPA's rollback suggestion stand to only break even next year before proceeding to lose money in the years after that. Hey, that's a great plan to fix the game.

The other 20 Mill come from a Cap on the Rookies and something else that is very small that escapes me at this time.

 

My stance is that the NHL is losing money, but 75% of it is 6 teams. So, instead of contarcting those 6 teams or creating Revenue Sharing that would help these teams make money, a Salary Cap is a quick fix and hinders teh game long term. A cap is a system that stops Owners frokm being idoits but it still dosn't solve the problem that Edmontin can't afford their Free Agents. In Revenuie Sharing or a Luxury Tax, a team like Nashiville or Florida gets money back from the Big Dogs so they can keep their stars. A cap amkes them ZERO in the revenue category.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

 

Even going by the Forbes account which is like a best case scenario for the NHLPA and their supporters, the NHL has lost OVER $200 MILLION DOLLARS (!!!!) the past two seasons.  So even if the NHL and Levitt are full of shit, as you say, they are still losing assloads of money no matter whose proclamations they are and this is apparently something you are failing to see.  Will you please go away?

Right, and the players acknoladge that and are willing to give rollback up to 150 Mill for next year.

 

Why is everyone defending the Owners not readng that EVERY GOD DAMN TIME I SAY IT

You seem not to be able to read what anyone else says...please extend everyone else the same courtesy.

 

Besides, as has been pointed out more than once (now who's not reading?), that's a stopgap solution that offers no substantive help. Over the course of a five-year contract (which is what the union would be going for -- a short-term contract does them no good), salaries would be back at exactly where they are now, if not higher. The rollback doesn't mean shit.

 

But the owners are still lying and the players are not.

How do you know this? Do you have indisputable proof? If so, present it here.

There is nothing for them to lie about, CC. The Owners are the ones making these claims. And more and more are there cracks in thier claims as time passes.

 

 

You are talking out of ur ass with that statement about the salaires raising later on in te e5 year deal. Along with the % rollbacks, the Players are willing to put a cap on the rookies and have a subsational Luxury Tax. So where in that do the salaries raise?

Oh, goodie. I was worried about the 5 million dollar per year rookie and the players will still make more money after a luxury tax is in place. Most of the players are in Europe, so it's not like they care. Don't the other major sporting leagues have salary caps?

 

The solution to the problem are the following:

 

1. Hang Bettman and Goodenow. The Union and NHL need a fresh start so they need to go.

 

2. Since, I'm tired of defending the Ducks, remove all the NHL teams except for the Original Six and the Canadian teams.

 

3. Ban the trap.

[The Czech Republic 0]

My stance is that the NHL is losing money, but 75% of it is 6 teams. So, instead of contarcting those 6 teams or creating Revenue Sharing that would help these teams make money, a Salary Cap is a quick fix and hinders teh game long term. A cap is a system that stops Owners frokm being idoits but it still dosn't solve the problem that Edmontin can't afford their Free Agents. In Revenuie Sharing or a Luxury Tax, a team like Nashiville or Florida gets money back from the Big Dogs so they can keep their stars. A cap amkes them ZERO in the revenue category.

I see we're typing in oven mitts again

[Cartman 0]

A few quotes from Rsssh

 

The point is, the Canucks, like many other NHL franchices, is a money making business and the NHL is full of shit when they tell you otherwise.

 

No one is saying that their hasn't been huge losses.

 

So, I'm somewhat unclear on your stance here. So the NHL is a money making business and the NHL and anyone else who says otherwise if full of shit? Yet no one (except apperently you) is saying that there haven't been huge losses?

 

And as for the rollback, as Canadian Chris pointed out, it's obvious your not reading anyone else's posts because it has been stated many times that a salary rollback is a short term fix. Sure, it will drop salaries for the moment but they will just grow back up to where they were.

 

Let's take a look at a few more numbers here.

 

Total salary paid out last year was approximately 1.3166 billion. A 10% rollback on that only comes to a little over 130 million. I wonder where the players are getting this extra 20 million from? Rsshh, do you just blindly listen to everything the P.A. spews or do you bother to check some of the facts.

 

On top this, that rollback would save each team (mind you this is only a one-time saving) approximately only 4.3 million for next season. So, going by the Forbes stats (because they are the only ones you will believe), most teams, with the NHLPA's rollback suggestion stand to only break even next year before proceeding to lose money in the years after that. Hey, that's a great plan to fix the game.

The other 20 Mill come from a Cap on the Rookies and something else that is very small that escapes me at this time.

 

My stance is that the NHL is losing money, but 75% of it is 6 teams. So, instead of contarcting those 6 teams or creating Revenue Sharing that would help these teams make money, a Salary Cap is a quick fix and hinders teh game long term. A cap is a system that stops Owners frokm being idoits but it still dosn't solve the problem that Edmontin can't afford their Free Agents. In Revenuie Sharing or a Luxury Tax, a team like Nashiville or Florida gets money back from the Big Dogs so they can keep their stars. A cap amkes them ZERO in the revenue category.

Right, because that's helped baseball SO much.

[CanadianChris 0]

You are talking out of ur ass with that statement about the salaires raising later on in te e5 year deal. Along with the % rollbacks, the Players are willing to put a cap on the rookies and have a subsational Luxury Tax. So where in that do the salaries raise?

There already IS a cap on rookie salaries. It was put in place in the last CBA. Fat lot of good it's done. And thinking that a 20% tax on salaries over $40 million (30% on $50mil, 40% on $60mil) would provide any meaningful relief is absurd. Brian Burke, who you apparently hold in such high regard, sees the proposal as "changing a side-view mirror on a bus that's going off a cliff."

 

And given that salaries rose 6% LAST YEAR ALONE, you'd be a fool to think that salaries would hold firm over a 5-year period after a pitiful 5% rollback.

[starvenger 0]

And given that salaries rose 6% LAST YEAR ALONE, you'd be a fool to think that salaries would hold firm over a 5-year period after a pitiful 5% rollback.

Must be nice to be in an industry where you get raises. I'm in one where they're reducing salaries...

[Guest Ether]

The players are against contraction also, probably even more so than they are against a salary cap. Remember, each team contracted is about 25 jobs lost for the union. It otherwise wouldn't be that bad of an idea, unless your favorite team is one of those teams.