goalie13 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 While both may be to blame to some degree, the PA seems to have invited discussion many times and keeps getting turned down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 I think you are confusing revenue with income. There would not be double deductions. The truth is we can't take any journalist's stories at face value (including Forbes). We don't know the books. Whenever I see a journalist writing about finance I do a first because all they want is someone to read their story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 @globehockey: Are the NHL owners cracking? Bettman says no http://t.co/l7M4O33y #hockey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 May 16-2012 http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/47311-NHL-files-CBA-termination-notice-to-NHLPA.html As far as CBA talks are concerned, the sides have not held any formal negotiations and are unlikely to do so until after the NHL draft. The NHLPA has received the financial information it has requested from the league and is currently reviewing it to prepare for bargaining. That would leave both sides less than three months to hammer out an agreement in which the owners will be looking to likely reduce the players’ share of hockey related revenues and place limits on long-term contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 @TEAM1040: Kris Versteeg tells @tsn1050radio in Toronto that Bettman and Daly are "cancers' that have been "looting this game for far too long". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooke_Hart Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 I can't think of a duller topic than the CBA but I did read something this morning that got me thinking on it a bit. Something that I read in Elliote Freedman's 30 thoughts column this morning: But I do think some are intimidated by Fehr and I also think many of them saw what happened to Trevor Linden. Eight years ago, Linden decided to break away from then-executive director Bob Goodenow, give in to a salary cap and make the best possible deal. Linden was clobbered for it and his reputation smeared. How does history judge him now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 There are many reasons for ownership to create companies as part of their overall activities other than 'hiding revenue'. Some people like the clarity of forcing a focus on a particular function. ie putting the arena under a seperate entity as it's revenue is not solely derived from the hockey operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Do you only have to pay rent when you're home? The same would apply to their lease. They did occupy the building, they just didn't play there. Their equipment was there. Their logo was still painted on the walls and any decorations (banners for not being the worst in the league one year or something) they have put up were still in place. They were still the tenants regardless whether or not they played in the building. And again, why would they give up their lease if they didn't know when the lockout would end? No one knew from the start of the lockout that it would cost the entire season. That means the team needed the arena available to them whenever hockey might resume. That would certainly have meant they had to keep their lease, and keeping their lease means they paid the rent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 I am guessing that Panthers made sure that their lease term came up at the same time the CBA did. Then an arrangement was made based on games played for the short term. Easily could have been done considering we aren't dealing at-arm's-length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Habitat Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Mobile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 That might have made sense from the team's perspective, but it would not make sense from the city's perspective. Remember, taxpayers put in a significant amount of money to build this arena for the Panthers. They would have wanted assurances that the team would not relocate just a few years later. That's why the Panthers, like most arena lessees, have a long-term lease. Proof: (From Nov, 1999): "The Florida Panthers might get a new owner, but local officials say the team will remain in the new BankAtlantic Center for another 30 years under terms of its lease. Team owner, Wayne Huizenga, has put the team up for sale, but local officials say the team's lease prohibits a move regardless of the owner." Source: http://hockey.ballpa...rs/newindex.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 http://www.forbes.co...orida-panthers/ Forbes footnotes/qualifies (in brief measure) what their valuations include. The information is limited. But less limited than what Bettman offers - a large part of the reason I don't trust him. Why such a tight-fist around information (and communications)? Don't care for his style - of negotiation, communication, public relations - at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Following the money is always a challenge. There are many reasons for ownership to create companies as part of their overall activities other than 'hiding revenue'. Some people like the clarity of forcing a focus on a particular function. ie putting the arena under a seperate entity as it's revenue is not solely derived from the hockey operation. One of the major rationales is limiting liability to the particular function. ie A lawsuit aimed at a function totally seperate from the hockey operation would not impact it. One can also get into the tax ramifications as well. This type of thing doesn't bother me as long as it is obeying the law. The idea that significant HRR revenue is being hidden keeps coming up. I would hardly take Larry Brooks as any expert on anything, refer to Torts. Since the players derive their income as a % of revenue it is absolutely necessary that they be comfortable in that number. It would be an issue which would have to be non-negotiable IMO. To date I haven't seen anything where Fehr has questioned their verification process. It is a great way of 'greying' the process as most players and fans would throw their hands up and question how they would ever understand how it works. When Don Fehr says publically that he doesn't believe the HRR numbers he is receiving then I would be more concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 That's just the life; payment terms, rates etc could be negotiable throughout the term of the lease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 http://www.forbes.co...orida-panthers/ Forbes footnotes/qualifies (in brief measure) what their valuations include. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 My original point being we shouldn't get sucked into a journalist's spin when they use bogus numbers.....no matter which way the journalist might be spinning things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 It's possible to take an interest and appreciate someone at least making the effort to penetrate the wall surrounding the league's books without being sucked in. Both authors are pretty clear that there's nothing definitive in their estimates, that they're just doing the best they can given the info they're privy to. tl;dr - Better than nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 I don't see how it's possible to lie through speculation. The danger is in people taking it as fact, which is basically up to the faith and intelligence of the reader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.