Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6226 replies to this topic

#2851 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,875 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 02:36 AM

Just to see if I understand you correctly, do you think the old CBA was fine and they should have just rolled it over for another 5 or 10 years?


I think the players thought it was fine, and they weren't wrong in thinking that. It is certainly operable while both sides continue negotiations. Players might be the biggest cost of the league, but the more damaging cost is the markets that can't sustain themselves. The Coyotes owned by the NHL, Florida with dismal attendance, Dallas - a huge market making even bigger losses, the bottom line is if you want to cut costs, cut that in which is most 'in the red'. I'm not saying end these markets entirely, relocation to better markets would work just as well.

To answer your question, yes I think it would have been fine to have extended the CBA, maybe not 5 or 10 as the gap would be significant, but certainly another 2 years or at least use the CBA while negotiations are on going. 43% of 82 games is a lot better than 50% of whatever they will salvage from this season.

My point was, as much as you can vilify the players for not caving, they aren't being aggressive in asking for more than the previous CBA. If the players were as greedy as half these clowns make them out to be, then they would be asking for 60% HRR and UFA after a 3 year ELC; but that is Bettman's childish way of negotiating, not the players.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#2852 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,875 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 02:54 AM

Nah he just thinks Crysby's cute and feels sorry for him...it's got nothing to do with the CBA


Ok I'm going to give you a chance again to formulate something that might resemble a rational thought. The following questions are brief, they will not ask you to explain your answer - as I feel you are incapable of doing so. Based on these leading questions, can you voice your perspective on the current CBA struggle:

If Gary Bettman is red, and the players are blue, which do you prefer?

Are the players greedy for asking what was lawfully guaranteed to them?

Do you find Daly's bald forehead shiny?

When you go to hockey games or buy merchandise, do you do so to proudly support your teams owner?

When a goal gets scored do you yell 'THANK YOU AQUILINI FOR SELFLESSLY BUYING A PROFITABLE TEAM'?

Is 43% of 3.3b greater than 50% of nothing?

When your Mom promises to give you 3 cookies if you finish your dinner, but instead gives you 2 cookies because giving you 3 cookies would leave less cookies for her business partners, does that make you upset?

If you have difficulty with any of these questions, please let me know, I know some of the bigger questions are hard for you.

Edited by Ossi Vaananen, 19 November 2012 - 03:11 AM.

  • 1

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#2853 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:38 AM

Why wouldn't they have charged the Panthers rent for the lost season?


Because they didn't occupy the building for 41+ nights that season.
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#2854 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:41 AM

While I agree that's a good possibility, it's at least an exercise in realizing just how owners separate their teams and their business related to it. Teams are often under a parent sports company, which is just one of the businesses an owner might have. That parent company will have other companies underneath it, designed to keep profits separate to magnify the team's loss. That doesn't mean the owner is losing money as a result of owning a sports franchise.


I think you pretty much just repeated what I am saying with the exception of.......

But in the end the journalist is spinning it unfairly. He is deliberatly neglecting the fact the the hockey operations on their own still don't make money.
(of course we will never know without auditing the books.............something I would be happy to do for you all :) )
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#2855 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,197 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:58 AM

Why wouldn't they have charged the Panthers rent for the lost season? It wasn't know from day 1 of the lockout it would last as long as it did, so it seems presumptuous for them to have released their hold on the arena they would need whenever hockey resumed. Furthermore, what kind of lease would allow a tenant a year off paying simply because they couldn't use it for reasons unrelated to the venue itself?

I absolutely understand your point about the accounting being extremely complicated, but I also see the value in illustrating how they shuffle things around a la a shell game, making it next to impossible to know the truth. That is particularly true being that Forbes likely uses HRR to determine revenue, despite the fact that that number does not include all of the team's revenue and has multiple deductions for costs already taken off. If costs are then applied to that number, it will likely result in some double deductions for the same costs against a lower than actual revenue amount. Therein lies the problem. HRR is designed to limit what players are entitled to share in, not to accurately represent what the team actually makes, even before considering the other layers of companies involved.

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.
  • 1

#2856 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:01 AM

I think the players thought it was fine, and they weren't wrong in thinking that. It is certainly operable while both sides continue negotiations. Players might be the biggest cost of the league, but the more damaging cost is the markets that can't sustain themselves. The Coyotes owned by the NHL, Florida with dismal attendance, Dallas - a huge market making even bigger losses, the bottom line is if you want to cut costs, cut that in which is most 'in the red'. I'm not saying end these markets entirely, relocation to better markets would work just as well.

To answer your question, yes I think it would have been fine to have extended the CBA, maybe not 5 or 10 as the gap would be significant, but certainly another 2 years or at least use the CBA while negotiations are on going. 43% of 82 games is a lot better than 50% of whatever they will salvage from this season.

My point was, as much as you can vilify the players for not caving, they aren't being aggressive in asking for more than the previous CBA. If the players were as greedy as half these clowns make them out to be, then they would be asking for 60% HRR and UFA after a 3 year ELC; but that is Bettman's childish way of negotiating, not the players.


Bettman and Jacobs are running the show very childishly, I agree. The next PA move should be for the players to formally counter. 50/50, make whole, and minimal contracting changes to prevent back diving contracts. I think they should go public with this offer and press hard for an open vote by the owners. Of course Bettman would refuse, but the owners need to step up and chime in without fear of fines. That code of silence has gone far enough.
  • 2

#2857 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:04 AM

I absolutely understand your point about the accounting being extremely complicated, but I also see the value in illustrating how they shuffle things around a la a shell game, making it next to impossible to know the truth. That is particularly true being that Forbes likely uses HRR to determine revenue, despite the fact that that number does not include all of the team's revenue and has multiple deductions for costs already taken off. If costs are then applied to that number, it will likely result in some double deductions for the same costs against a lower than actual revenue amount. Therein lies the problem. HRR is designed to limit what players are entitled to share in, not to accurately represent what the team actually makes, even before considering the other layers of companies involved.


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 :rolleyes: first because all they want is someone to read their story.

Edited by Shift-4, 19 November 2012 - 09:27 AM.

  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#2858 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,098 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:01 AM

I think the players thought it was fine, and they weren't wrong in thinking that. It is certainly operable while both sides continue negotiations. Players might be the biggest cost of the league, but the more damaging cost is the markets that can't sustain themselves. The Coyotes owned by the NHL, Florida with dismal attendance, Dallas - a huge market making even bigger losses, the bottom line is if you want to cut costs, cut that in which is most 'in the red'. I'm not saying end these markets entirely, relocation to better markets would work just as well.

To answer your question, yes I think it would have been fine to have extended the CBA, maybe not 5 or 10 as the gap would be significant, but certainly another 2 years or at least use the CBA while negotiations are on going. 43% of 82 games is a lot better than 50% of whatever they will salvage from this season.

My point was, as much as you can vilify the players for not caving, they aren't being aggressive in asking for more than the previous CBA. If the players were as greedy as half these clowns make them out to be, then they would be asking for 60% HRR and UFA after a 3 year ELC; but that is Bettman's childish way of negotiating, not the players.


While I agree with many of your points, I feel the PA is equally to blame for this debacle. There was ample opportunity for them to get together with the NHL earlier last season, but it just didn't happen. It takes two to tango, and I blame them both equally.

As much as the PA made it clear they were willing to play under the terms of the old CBA while negotiating, I don't feel that was ever an option. Fehr has a history of getting his players to walk out mid-season. I still think it's far better to go through this in the fall than it would be to have this come up in March. Imagine if the Canucks were on a roll and were looking like they could win it all, only to have the playoffs cancelled? They only way they could have kept playing is to renew the old CBA, but the NHL made it perfectly clear they were not prepared to do that. That's my biggest frustration. We could all see this coming, why didn't they both get on with this sooner?

I also think part of the problem with these negotiations is that pretty much everything on the table will be a concession on the part of the players. What does the NHL have to offer back as a concession of their own? Arbitration? That's about it. So the whole goal of the players here is to minimize how much they are giving up.
  • 1
Posted Image

#2859 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:51 AM

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.


Another reason for this set up is the eventual sale of the business.


Edit: businesses

Edited by Shift-4, 19 November 2012 - 11:03 AM.

  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#2860 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:02 AM

While I agree with many of your points, I feel the PA is equally to blame for this debacle. There was ample opportunity for them to get together with the NHL earlier last season, but it just didn't happen. It takes two to tango, and I blame them both equally.


While both may be to blame to some degree, the PA seems to have invited discussion many times and keeps getting turned down. They don't even get an explained answer in negotiations, just a "no". It's too bad the owners individually can't speak, because maybe there is some valid reasons for such draconian changes to player contracting rights. Gary let the owners speak in the last lockout, but only once the season was truly hanging on by a thread. Let's hope that changes sooner rather than later.
  • 0

#2861 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,475 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:22 AM

Because they didn't occupy the building for 41+ nights that season.


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.

Edited by poetica, 19 November 2012 - 11:25 AM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2862 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,098 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:23 AM

While both may be to blame to some degree, the PA seems to have invited discussion many times and keeps getting turned down.


That shoe was reportedly on the other foot during last season. The NHL was requesting meetings since the All-Star break but was turned down as well.

I blame them both.

I agree, it would be great to hear individual owners' take on the whole situation, but since the NHL is looking for concessions from the players, that would be counter-productive to their goal. If the NHL was offering some great new perks in the new deal, then I am sure we would be hearing from owners everywhere on how great a deal it was.
  • 0
Posted Image

#2863 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,475 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:29 AM

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 :rolleyes: first because all they want is someone to read their story.


No, I'm not confused at all. I understand fully that HRR includes multiple deductions for costs, not just revenue. And I understand that if Forbes is using the HRR number, which already includes deductions for some costs, as the base number on which they deduct all operating costs the team declared, they could be deducting costs that have already been deducted when arriving at their estimated loses for the team.

But I'm not arguing that we don't know the truth about their finances. That's my whole point. We don't know and we can't take these owners word that they're poor without proof because the reality the same teams said to be losing money could be making tens of millions a year.
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2864 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70,456 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:43 AM

@globehockey: Are the NHL owners cracking? Bettman says no http://t.co/l7M4O33y #hockey
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#2865 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:54 AM

May 16-2012 http://www.thehockey...e-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.



Granted, the PA needs the financial information to even begin. Why did it take that long to get the info? And how long was needed to review it? And how did we end up opening bargaining so late on June 29? http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?id=9678
  • 0

#2866 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70,456 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 12:13 PM

@TEAM1040: Kris Versteeg tells @tsn1050radio in Toronto that Bettman and Daly are "cancers' that have been "looting this game for far too long".
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#2867 Cooke_Hart

Cooke_Hart

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,821 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 03

Posted 19 November 2012 - 12:14 PM

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?


That last question intrigues me. I remember very clearly Linden breaking away and doing what he could to end the lockout. Do the players need that sort of leadership now, or did he undermine the PA? Average player salaries did rise under the last CBA. What is Linden's legacy?
  • 0
Canucks
Tottenham
49ers
---------------------------

#2868 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,475 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 12:33 PM

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.


Absolutely. There are multiple valid legal reasons to create companies for specific purposes. However, it does create an opportunity for the companies to divide revenue and costs so as to maximum them for each of the individual companies when both companies are owned by the same parent company. Normally that wouldn't be a big deal if it was simply to maximize tax benefits or whatever (as if they need more tax breaks...) However, if they are using their multiple companies to shift profits or costs in order to short the people with whom they have contracts, it becomes a different matter entirely.

Because they are owned by the same company, both are able to work in the interest of themselves and one another in a way two unrelated companies would never do since their ultimate interest is that of the parent company. As such, it is certainly possible that the companies have specifically designed their relationship (via a leasing agreement) to maximize profits for both companies based on their individual contracts with outside entities. For example, the lease could give the team more of the profits from anything that wouldn't be related to HRR than would normally be offered to an arena lessee in order to lower the profit for the arena management company in hopes that they would avoid reaching the threshold that requires them to share profits with the city that built the arena. Or the lease could give more than normal level of profits from certain things that should be included in HRR (such as parking, concessions, or in-arena advertising) to the arena management company to allow the team to declare the deductions for costs while declaring little if any revenue for those things.

I'm not saying either of those situations are true. I have absolutely no way of knowing. I'm only saying it's worth being investigated because, as the article's author noted in his edit message, "a 90% drop in total AOC profitability in a lockout year remains highly interesting when the number of hockey events should only represent roughly one-third of their total revenue."

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.


Fehr hasn't said anything about HRR because the players have not said they want to go after the cap system. They want to get a deal done, and trying to redefine HRR is not something that will make that happen quickly. For proof, just look at the NHL's first offer which included changes to HRR that would have reduced the players' share by about 2% annually. (Reference article.) As stubborn as the NHL has been in so many other things, even they backed off that particular can of worms possibly because they knew that if they wanted to increase the amount of deductions teams can take the players were likely going to demand a full accounting of all deductions made to investigate reports that some teams have been under-reporting revenues and using other creative methods to avoid fully reporting HRR. (For example, it's been reported that teams were deducting portions of luxury boxes for concessions and parking even though they were, under the last CBA, to be included in their entirety as revenue.) Even still, there are some "clarifications" that are supposed to be taking place (though we don't know any specific details).

But my comments about teams' true profits were not about HRR at all. In fact, my entire point was that HRR is, by design, a partial picture. It's certain revenue minus certain deductions. It does not indicate how much money a team actually made, or how much their actual costs were for that matter, and therein lies the problem with using a team's HRR number to try to determine their financial health. Like you said, it's always hard to follow the money. I'm just saying that using HRR as the only guidepost won't ever guide us to the whole truth and I don't trust them enough to just take their word for it.
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2869 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 12:51 PM

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.


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.


No, I'm not confused at all. I understand fully that HRR includes multiple deductions for costs, not just revenue. And I understand that if Forbes is using the HRR number, which already includes deductions for some costs, as the base number on which they deduct all operating costs the team declared, they could be deducting costs that have already been deducted when arriving at their estimated loses for the team.

But I'm not arguing that we don't know the truth about their finances. That's my whole point. We don't know and we can't take these owners word that they're poor without proof because the reality the same teams said to be losing money could be making tens of millions a year.


I would like to think the people at Forbes are intelligent enough to double count.
I am curious as to how you think Forbes has knowledge of team-by-team HRR?
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#2870 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,205 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:14 PM

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/
  • 0

#2871 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:20 PM

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/


Seen it before.

Totally bogus to me when they don't even discuss their methodology for arriving at those numbers.
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#2872 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,475 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:22 PM

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.


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

I would like to think the people at Forbes are intelligent enough to double count.
I am curious as to how you think Forbes has knowledge of team-by-team HRR?


To not double count you mean? Hopefully, but since we don't know where they get their information or how detailed their information is, we don't really know for sure. Again, I'm not saying they are double counting deductions, only that it's possible IF they are using HRR without a detailed list of the deductions that have actually been taken.

I have no idea how Forbes might have (if they even do) team-by-team HRR. How do they have any financial information about the teams at all when they don't release that information publicly? Wherever they get the information, their website lists players' cost, operating income, gate receipts, and revenue for each team specifically. That have to get that information from somewhere.

....

Totally bogus to me when they don't even discuss their methodology for arriving at those numbers.


That was my point exactly. We can't trust the Forbes numbers, and those are the only ones we have showing some teams are losing money each year.

Edited by poetica, 19 November 2012 - 01:23 PM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2873 Mr.Habitat

Mr.Habitat

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,634 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 03

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:23 PM

Mobile
  • 0

#2874 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:31 PM

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



That's just the life; payment terms, rates etc could be negotiable throughout the term of the lease.

To not double count you mean? Hopefully, but since we don't know where they get their information or how detailed their information is, we don't really know for sure. Again, I'm not saying they are double counting deductions, only that it's possible IF they are using HRR without a detailed list of the deductions that have actually been taken.

I have no idea how Forbes might have (if they even do) team-by-team HRR. How do they have any financial information about the teams at all when they don't release that information publicly? Wherever they get the information, their website lists players' cost, operating income, gate receipts, and revenue for each team specifically. That have to get that information from somewhere.

....


:blush: ooops.............yes, you are correct


That was my point exactly. We can't trust the Forbes numbers, and those are the only ones we have showing some teams are losing money each year.


Then quit arguing with me :P

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.

Edited by Shift-4, 19 November 2012 - 01:32 PM.

  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#2875 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,205 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:31 PM

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.

Edited by oldnews, 19 November 2012 - 01:49 PM.

  • 0

#2876 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,091 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:51 PM

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.

Regardless of what articles are written we can likely agree that there are significant revenues left out of HRR that are hockey related and the players have asked for better clarification of this while the owners want to exclude more. Obviously the owners should be penalized for making money off a concert or trade show because they own the building (or have a management agreement or something similar) but neither should the players have to take less HRR but also have the definition of HRR left ambiguous or redefined to be less than it was.

Bettman and Jacobs are running the show very childishly, I agree. The next PA move should be for the players to formally counter. 50/50, make whole, and minimal contracting changes to prevent back diving contracts. I think they should go public with this offer and press hard for an open vote by the owners. Of course Bettman would refuse, but the owners need to step up and chime in without fear of fines. That code of silence has gone far enough.

That's something I agree the players would agree to, and would have agreed to in October or maybe even September (so long as the owners are paying the make whole part). I've said before I think the NHLPA would drop the request to be paid for a full 82 games and the projected amount of associated HRR if they could keep much of the contracting provisions they got in the last CBA.


While I agree with many of your points, I feel the PA is equally to blame for this debacle. There was ample opportunity for them to get together with the NHL earlier last season, but it just didn't happen. It takes two to tango, and I blame them both equally.

As much as the PA made it clear they were willing to play under the terms of the old CBA while negotiating, I don't feel that was ever an option. Fehr has a history of getting his players to walk out mid-season. I still think it's far better to go through this in the fall than it would be to have this come up in March. Imagine if the Canucks were on a roll and were looking like they could win it all, only to have the playoffs cancelled? They only way they could have kept playing is to renew the old CBA, but the NHL made it perfectly clear they were not prepared to do that. That's my biggest frustration. We could all see this coming, why didn't they both get on with this sooner?

I also think part of the problem with these negotiations is that pretty much everything on the table will be a concession on the part of the players. What does the NHL have to offer back as a concession of their own? Arbitration? That's about it. So the whole goal of the players here is to minimize how much they are giving up.

A reasonable post. Both sides took too long saying there was plenty of time - and now were in November with games soon to be cancelled in December.

Operating under the old CBA could only have worked if the NHL had extended it for the optional final year and still put an emphasis on negotiations to have a deal in place before next season. You mentioned that but I don't think it's been brought up enough as another choice the NHL made to try and get concessions earlier yet making little effort to have plausible negotiations sooner.

The players have already made concessions and will likely have to make a few more, but they also had the opportunity to think how they would be affected in a new CBA when they were accepting deals like they did this summer and earlier. They have every right to try and keep some things from being so radically changed, and I think they've said they're aware of how the rising contracts have affect owners by giving up what they have.


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.

I would like to think the people at Forbes are intelligent enough to double count.
I am curious as to how you think Forbes has knowledge of team-by-team HRR?

I'd tend to side with poetica's suggestion, where even if the lease agreement was due for renewal for the 2004/2005 season, the Panthers would have already had to negotiate a new lease in order to have the arena booked for the games they were scheduled for. It would have been too late for them to ask the arena to keep those dates open with the promise to negotiate a lease only once a CBA was signed or those games were cancelled.

I think Forbes had admitted they didn't have the full information on finances (by using HRR) as well as what specifically is deducted under the HRR rules, so there could be double deductions. Granted, it's likely they'd play it safe and anything that was mistakenly adjusted (or not adjusted) probably didn't have a significant impact on the overall tone of the results.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#2877 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,475 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:57 PM

That's just the life; payment terms, rates etc could be negotiable throughout the term of the lease.


"Could be" and "are" are 2 different matters. And even if that were true, it would simply prove the incestuous relationship between the 2 companies because I can't believe 2 companies not related would have a lease where the sports team could release their short-term hold on the arena with little warning at no cost but retain their long-term hold. A deal that mitigated damages might make sense, say by reducing their rent any amount paid by another event that was able to take place during the time the team was supposed to have the arena but weren't using it due to the lockout. But just allowing them to not pay rent on the arena, leaving it sitting empty for a significant portion of the year? No respectable management company would ever allow that unless they were controlled by interests beyond their own.

Then quit arguing with me :P


Quit arguing with me! :P

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.


I agree. I just think that goes both ways. We shouldn't get sucked into the NHL spin that teams are losing money when they aren't offering any proof. Of course journalists are forced to used unverified numbers if the NHL doesn't release the real ones. Until they do, I don't believe them either.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2878 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 02:03 PM

http://www.forbes.co...orida-panthers/

Forbes footnotes/qualifies (in brief measure) what their valuations include.


But not how they arrive at them.
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#2879 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,964 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 02:47 PM

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.


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.
  • 0

#2880 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 02:48 PM

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.


Between a lie and nothing I would rather have nothing.
  • 1
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.