Forbes Magazine Says NHL Owners Overstated Losses

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylc=X3oD...ov=ap&type=lgns

 

NEW YORK (AP) -- The NHL suffered less than half the losses it has claimed the past two years, according to a report in Forbes Magazine.

 

In an article in its Nov. 29 edition, the business magazine -- which did not have access to all of the 30 teams' financial records -- estimates the NHL lost a combined $96 million last season, not $224 million as reported by the league.

 

For the 2002-03 season, in which the NHL stated losses of $273 million, Forbes estimates they were actually about $123 million.

 

The discrepancy occurred because several NHL teams aren't accounting for all their revenue, Forbes reported. The magazine said the NHL included only half of the $17 million the New York Islanders got last year for cable broadcasts, for example.

 

William Wirtz, who owns the Chicago Blackhawks, also owns half of the United Center, where the team plays. Forbes said that the arena's 212 suites pulled in $15 million last season, money that wasn't included in the league's numbers. The United Center is a separate corporate entity from the Blackhawks, the magazine reported.

 

``The Forbes article is factually inaccurate in numerous respects and is not based on any of the actual information that would be needed to support its claims,'' Bill Daly, the NHL's chief legal officer, told The Canadian Press on Friday. ``It is nothing short of irresponsible journalism.''

 

The great losses are why the NHL is shut down now by a lockout, imposed by commissioner Gary Bettman in September following the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement with the players association. Through Friday, 200 regular-season games and the All-Star game were called off.

 

Bettman has vowed to get ``cost certainty'' for clubs, a term the NHLPA says is tantamount to a salary cap and a solution it refuses to accept. The players association countered with a luxury-tax proposal, but that was rejected by the league during the previous negotiating session on Sept. 9.

 

``Forbes' report and conclusions on NHL finances make it very clear the NHL should be negotiating off of our proposals rather than shutting down the game to try to get a salary cap system,'' Ted Saskin, the NHLPA senior director, said in a statement.

 

The NHL stands by its numbers, pointing to the league-commissioned audit by former Securities & Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt. Levitt's study found NHL clubs lost $273 million in 2002-03.

 

Forbes says it spoke with bankers, broadcast sources and league sources while studying arena leases, ticket sales and prices.

 

``Forbes is a highly respected publication by everyone in business, including NHL owners and their investment bankers who use Forbes' analysis and valuations when they buy and sell teams,'' Saskin said. ``The independence and the integrity of Forbes is unquestionable.''

 

The NHLPA has long maintained that it believed the league was exaggerating its losses, which is a big reason collective bargaining has ceased. The lockout is in its eighth week with no meetings scheduled.

 

``It is no surprise that Forbes found the NHL has vastly overstated its losses by not including all of the revenues earned by NHL teams,'' Saskin said. ``We agree with Forbes' conclusion that the NHL should show more transparency and disclose all of an owners' sources of revenue in their financial reporting. We have been saying the same thing for many years.''

 

Now, let us take a look at a specific passage from that report....

 

``The Forbes article is factually inaccurate in numerous respects and is not based on any of the actual information that would be needed to support its claims,'' Bill Daly, the NHL's chief legal officer, told The Canadian Press on Friday. ``It is nothing short of irresponsible journalism.''

 

That sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before?

 

"I don't give any validity to it," Selig said of the Forbes report. "It's so disappointingly wrong, and they knew it. I think it's a very sad day for journalism in America when somebody knowingly writes something that is not only not true but has been told it is not true."

 

No surprises here. The NHL owners, just like the MLB owners, are a pack of lying scumbags. Hopefully, the fans will wake up to this charade, and the owners will come to the bargaining table with a real offer, instead of this salary cap bullshit which the players will not buy, and does not work anyway.

[Guest Rrrsh]

The biggest Red Flag that I had about the first report (Aurthor Levitts report) is that Levitt was hired BY THE NHL OWNERS. How this was allowed to slide by so many is mind-boggiling. Forbes in neutral. And, just like so many other neutral reports, this proves the owners are full of shit.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Ohhhhhhh boy. Who looks worse now:

 

Owners: "We lost 123, I mean 273 million dollars!"

 

or Players: "We want 70 games a year AND no salary cap!"

[Red Baron 0]

I still don't know how you can support the players on this.

 

I say ban NHL Agents, since most of them are in to make some kind of profit.

[Cartman 0]

What evidence is there that says a salary cap won't work?

 

It sure has helped the NFL...

 

and Baseball definitely needs it as well...

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

What evidence is there that says a salary cap won't work?

 

It sure has helped the NFL...

 

and Baseball definitely needs it as well...

Why does baseball need it? Baseball is profitable, and as for competitive balance, baseball has been trying to limit the power of New York teams for eighty years, and it never works. When the reserve clause limited salaries, the Yankees were even more dominant than they are now.

 

If you can't run a profit in a league, that is your own damn fault. Don't expect the work force to pick up the cheque for your imeptitude. And I have never seen a salary cap benefit competitive balance. Just look at the NBA for an example of that.

 

Salary caps do one thing. They take the receipts and stuff them into the pockets of the owners. Will prices go down if players make less money? Of course not. They'll keep charging $40+ a ticket because we'll pay it.

 

If the NHL owners want to become profitable, they should start budgeting a player payroll, and THEN offer contracts. Small market teams can't compete? Its a 16 team playoff. It doesn't matter if there are dominant teams, because the regular season means squat, and anyone can pull off an upset in a short series.

 

All the NHL owners are doing is feeding the public a line of bullshit.

[starvenger 0]

The Leafs are (easily) the most profitable team. I'm SHOCKED. [/sarcasm]

 

Anyways, maybe the NHLPA should note that while the league as a whole may not be in as dire straights as previously cried about, they're still in the red. I'm sure that's a minor detail though.

[bob_barron 0]

I still don't know how you can support the players on this.

 

I say ban NHL Agents, since most of them are in to make some kind of profit.

Because the owners are the one lying about losses and the owners are the idiots who caused salaries to go up.

 

The owners gave Bobby Holik 9 million!

 

If I was the players I'd tell the owners to fuck off as well.

 

I like how the Leafs are the most profitable team- but still raise ticket prices

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Problem is outside the few hockey towns in America, who really cares about the NHL? I mean, I like playoff hockey and all, but my life hasn't been affected at all by the NHL suspending play.

 

Last night I was at the mall and walked into a sporting goods store. I saw a few Penguins merch items and remembered that the Pens weren't playing...

[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.

 

There's this little tidbit, too (source: TSN.ca):

 

Perhaps the best example of the disparity is the Los Angeles Kings, a team that Forbes said made $7.5 million US two years ago.  Reading that, a fan of the team who worked in the financial industry challenged the Kings to open their books to him.

 

Surprisingly, they did.

 

The fan emerged from the process and concluded that the Kings had in fact lost more than $11 million US that season, as opposed to the $7 million US profit as reported by Forbes.

 

I don't think the owners are nearly as in the wrong as everyone's now making them out to be. Regardless of this, the players are still seen as barely willing to budge from the status quo, and aren't going to get much positive public opinion out of it.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Any way you slice it, cutting back to 70 games a year is pretty weak. "Playing is hard!" they say. Come on, they were playing 84 games for a while. 70 is too short.

[treble 0]

The Forbes study said the Red Wings lost $16.4 million last season, which I find hard to believe.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 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.

[Lightning Flik 0]

In your rush to condemn the

There's this little tidbit, too (source: TSN.ca):

 

Perhaps the best example of the disparity is the Los Angeles Kings, a team that Forbes said made $7.5 million US two years ago.  Reading that, a fan of the team who worked in the financial industry challenged the Kings to open their books to him.

 

Surprisingly, they did.

 

The fan emerged from the process and concluded that the Kings had in fact lost more than $11 million US that season, as opposed to the $7 million US profit as reported by Forbes.

 

I don't think the owners are nearly as in the wrong as everyone's now making them out to be. Regardless of this, the players are still seen as barely willing to budge from the status quo, and aren't going to get much positive public opinion out of it.

 

I'd just like to point to the above as the reason why I don't accept Forbes' as "more reliable". That is all. Not saying I'd agree with the owners, just disputing the fact that Forbes hearsay isn't any better unless they have the numbers in front of them.

 

Although, the league does need to get off its ass and just hand the damn numbers over to an independant group.

[Guest Rrrsh]

What evidence is there that says a salary cap won't work?

 

It sure has helped the NFL...

 

and Baseball definitely needs it as well...

A cap has not helped the players in the NFL.

 

 

 

MLB is the most sucsessful League in America in regards to Players wage and Owners profit. It dosn't have it, and it shouldn't.

[Guest Rrrsh]

Regardless of this, the players are still seen as barely willing to budge from the status quo, and aren't going to get much positive public opinion out of it.

UTTER BULLSHIT

 

The Players have offered roll back in wages, a cap on the rookies salaries, major Luxury Taxes. Hell, in one offer, a total of 95 million dollars would be cut from the players.

 

 

What is the owners stance? 31 Mill cap and thats it. In said offer, according to Peirre McGuire, there were owners who were interested in the offer. Untill Betman said no, becuase there was no cap.

[CanadianChris 0]

Regardless of this, the players are still seen as barely willing to budge from the status quo, and aren't going to get much positive public opinion out of it.

UTTER BULLSHIT

How is that utter bullshit? I see it that way. The vast majority of people I know see it that way. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't alter what public perception actually is.

 

The Players have offered roll back in wages, a cap on the rookies salaries, major Luxury Taxes. Hell, in one offer, a total of 95 million dollars would be cut from the players.

The players' last proposal, to put it lightly, was crap. A luxury tax on salaries over $51 million is bailing out a sinking ship with a thimble. And the $95 million saved would a) not begin to cover leaguewide losses, according to the Levitt study, and b) would be temporary -- a one or two-year fix. This league can't afford just a one or two-year fix.

 

The league needs major cost certainty built into the system, because it's impossible to obtain at this point without the players' union crying collusion.

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

A cap has not helped the players in the NFL.

How has the NFL salary cap not helped the NFL players?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

A cap has not helped the players in the NFL.

How has the NFL salary cap not helped the NFL players?

NFL players make far less under the current system than they would in a free market system.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The players' last proposal, to put it lightly, was crap. A luxury tax on salaries over $51 million is bailing out a sinking ship with a thimble. And the $95 million saved would a) not begin to cover leaguewide losses, according to the Levitt study, and b) would be temporary -- a one or two-year fix. This league can't afford just a one or two-year fix.

 

The league needs major cost certainty built into the system, because it's impossible to obtain at this point without the players' union crying collusion.

 

Why should the Players Union have to take the fall for the owners' incompetance. If my job came to me and said "we're idiots, we're losing money, we need you to take a pay cut," I'd tell them to fuck off.

 

Moreover, why is it assumed that the ONLY way to save money is by cutting salaries? Sports teams have many other expenses they could rework.

[Red Baron 0]

First of all there is no player in the league worth more than $6 million.

 

Second. When a star player wants 9 million a season, the owners are going to give it to them, so the players won't play for another team. If that star player goes to another team, he'll lose fan base because of that player. Those star players bring fans to the seats.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Second. When a star player wants 9 million a season, the owners are going to give it to them, so the players won't play for another team. If that star player goes to another team, he'll lose fan base because of that player. Those star players bring fans to the seats.

 

Obviously he's not bringing enough fans to the seats, if the team is losing money. Smart teams know the true value of players, and pay them accordingly.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Competitive balance isn't really an issue in the NHL due to the number of teams that make the playoffs, and there anything can happen. It certainly isn't an issue like it is in baseball where you know the Jays, Os & D Rays never have a chance being stuck in the same division as the Red Sox & Yanks. I know Keip will never agree, but if he is that adamant against the cap, the other alternative is to drop to 154 games and add another round of the playoffs in MLB. That would help too and not affect players salaries.

[bob_barron 0]

First of all there is no player in the league worth more than $6 million.

 

Second. When a star player wants 9 million a season, the owners are going to give it to them, so the players won't play for another team. If that star player goes to another team, he'll lose fan base because of that player. Those star players bring fans to the seats.

I don't think Bobby Holik put one ass in the seat.

 

The players should tell the owners to fuck off. Why should they be punished for the owners opening up the wallet and not tightening on salaries?

[Cartman 0]

What evidence is there that says a salary cap won't work?

 

It sure has helped the NFL...

 

and Baseball definitely needs it as well...

A cap has not helped the players in the NFL.

 

 

 

MLB is the most sucsessful League in America in regards to Players wage and Owners profit. It dosn't have it, and it shouldn't.

Fuck the players. They are playing a game for a living and should consider themselves lucky to be gifted as they are and making the money they make for PLAYING. The cap may hld player salaries down but it keeps more teams competitive every season, which make the league more fun to follow.

 

Baseball, as much as I love it, is lame. We know every year it;s going to be Boston and New York winning their division and sometimes wild card. Toronto, Baltimore, and Tampa bay have absolutely NO chance to be like the NY and Boston. That's unbalanced.

 

Salary Cap is good for fans, bad for players. Nothing at all wrong with that IMHO.

[bob_barron 0]

What about the races for the AL West, NL West, and the wild cards in the respective leagues?

 

Just because baseball doesn't have a cap doesn't mean there's no close races

[Cartman 0]

No, but it would cut down the salaries and allow other teams to keep their players and sign other GOOD players that the Sox, Yanks, Mets, etc. usually horde.

[bob_barron 0]

It doesn't look like the Mets are hordeing any good players.

 

And Oakland has a relatively small payroll as do Minnesota. Both of those teams are very competitive.

 

It's about not overpaying for good players (like Holik) and bringing in young players for cheap and watching them develop.

 

Hockey is different then baseball because 16 teams make the playoffs instead of 8. Tampa Bay didn't have an obnoxiously huge payroll and they won the Cup. The Rangers do and they haven't made the playoffs since 1997

[Red Baron 0]

First of all there is no player in the league worth more than $6 million.

 

Second. When a star player wants 9 million a season, the owners are going to give it to them, so the players won't play for another team. If that star player goes to another team, he'll lose fan base because of that player. Those star players bring fans to the seats.

I don't think Bobby Holik put one ass in the seat.

 

The players should tell the owners to fuck off. Why should they be punished for the owners opening up the wallet and not tightening on salaries?

You must have misread this wrong.

 

If the owners don't pay up a certain price for that star player, then that player will look somewhere else to play, for that price.

 

It's in every sport. Small market teams can't keep their key players, because they ask for too much money, and go to a team with a bigger bank account.

 

PLAYERS HAVE NO FUCKING LOYALTY TO THE TEAM OR SPORT!

[bob_barron 0]

You must have misread this wrong.

 

If the owners don't pay up a certain price for that star player, then that player will look somewhere else to play, for that price.

 

It's in every sport. Small market teams can't keep their key players, because they ask for too much money, and go to a team with a bigger bank account.

 

If a small market team is run correctly then they will do just fine. Look at the Calgary Flames.

 

Yea- And I was saying that the owners overpaid way too many players- who weren't star players. That's the owner's fault for overbidding and driving up the market.

 

PLAYERS HAVE NO FUCKING LOYALTY TO THE TEAM OR SPORT!

 

Why should they bend and accept a salary cap because the people running the team are stupid?