Re: Who is really to blame??
by yoyodyne on Monday, February 21, 2005
Yes, I am one of those hurling brickbats at Bettman's (spit) head. I am also of the opinion that Goodenow has invested too much of his personal reputation in the issue to be of any use to the players' association. As for the financial health of the league, the single greatest loss of income that the owners bewail is the tv money. When their bank accounts were flush with the amounts from Fox and ESPN/ABC etc., they had no problem pushing huge contracts across the table towards any player the wanted to sign. Quite honestly, though, to castigate any player over the 75% of league revenues issue is spurious. If the league revenues increase ten-fold (say, because the owners get off their asses and market this product to increase the popularity of the game) then the player cost is no longer 75% of the revenue. I'm sure this topic came up on several occasions at their chin-wags. I figure the players have offered to link salaries to income, but only if the linkage allows for increased earnings when revenues rise as much as salaries fall as revenues fall. Sherry Ross in a N. Y. Daily News article wrote, "The owners hoped the NHLPA reps would be too cowed to notice the lack of revenue sharing, which indicates that the owners want the players to share their debt but sure as heck don't wnat to share any spoils with one another."
As for Bettman (spit) trying to fix the problem (much of which has come from his inspired leadership) of the poorer clubs, it is an owners problem which he is trying to solve on the players' backs. The lockout was an easier path for him to take and paint the players as the bad guys in the media than the alternative--convincing the thirty ownership groups to come up with a financial plan in which they, themselves, offered financial support to each other. They did not choose to pool their resources, split the income equitably among themselves (which would have leveled the field between them) and admitted that once that cash was spent, that was all there is. Nope, team profit is team profit and go stuff it Florida seems to be their attitude. I am dumbfounded that Bettman (spit) finds it acceptable to unite thirty ownership groups together to bust the union instead of using his powers to bring thirty ownership groups to agreement on a problem of his own creation.
As for the owners taking all the risks, seriously, when's the last time an owner worried about his future after a knee injury? How many owners have taken the sole financial risk at building an arena? The only reason no one hears a team owner threatening to move the franchise anymore is, thanks again to his holiness Bettman (spit), that only market left untouched is in Tripoli. Yes, they took a financial risk when they got caught up in the spiel Bettman (spit) played out to them. But now that he hasn't delivered the dough, they want answers. His response was to blame the players. No sympathy for this toad of a man.

Re: Who is really to blame??
by F.T.B on Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Nowhere did the players say they would accept linkage. If they did,there would be a deal,just like the other major leagues. As far as revenue sharing,when your at opposite ends of the philosophy spectrum,it's difficult to come up with a good plan until it is known how much revenue should go to salaries. Once that happens,then a revenue sharing plan could be put forth. As far as ownership not taking the risks.They take all the financial risk .If a player gets hurt,there is something called insurance where they will be paid the remainder of their contract and whatever their own policies cover. Health insurance is paid by the employer,but i do sympathize with that argument. If the players go into the tank to screw a coach or if they get injured and the team misses the playoffs,the owners are the ones losing out considering they have made an investment of approx.45 million a year so that the team performs and makes the playoffs to have a chance at the big prize. the players miss the playoffs,they go home and they aren't out any dollar amount. I wrote this before Saturday's bullshit events on both sides. That doesn't change my argument the Sideshow Bob has to go now. Both sides leaders should go ASAP,let Daly and saskin/linden come to a deal because they probably would have a long time ago.




Re: Who is really to blame??
by yoyodyne on Thursday, February 24, 2005
Correctly stated that the players have not said anything about linkage in the public media. Such is the nature of the beast in contract negotiations. What goes on in the conference room usually stays there with little leaking out to the public in an official statement.

To sharpen some of your other points, though, an injured player compensated by personal/team insurance policies removes the player's financial cost from the team's ledger.

To address the owner's financial risk, take for your example the magnanimous offer by the Sens' Melnyk where he offered to open the Sens' books to player review, but couldn't because that rotter, Bettman, wouldn't let him. First, Bettman is obstructing resolution (as we have agreed). More importantly was Saskin's response in which he thanked Mr. Melnyk for the offer, but asked that the Corel Centre's books also be brought for examination, since Mr. Melnyk has a sizable stake in that venture's profitability (according to the URO, 22 of 30 teams have a 50% or greater stake in the arena in which the team plays). The players' point against linkage/salary cap remains unsullied. How can they negotiate a CBA which will accomodate their needs over the length of the CBA when they are denied an opportunity to examine the main point proferred by the owners? The owners claim that they are going broke, but only allowed the PA to examine the records for four teams after the publication of the URO. Even so, the PA's examination of those four teams revealed $52 million un/under-reported assets. (See Goodenow's response to URO on NHLPA website) Even using the owners' numbers from the URO, the poor play seems to be in the front office. Crunch their numbers and you will see that, on average, each team spends 38 3/4% of revenue on team costs. Are these costs sacred and inviolable? If it were really a concern for a team's financial health, why are not all areas of the operation under such scrutiny? One might add, cynically, that the owners would not want their base salary as president and ceo touched because they have done such a fine job of running the organisation. Another point along this line uses my favourite AHL team as an example. The Baby Pens carry 23 players and a front office of 24. Kinda like the place where I work where we seem to have 4 managers for every employee. To finish this argument, should the owners get player salary to their preferred 54% of revenue (allowing that the revenues will remain constant [fat chance] and team costs remain constant [fat chance--champagne corks popping in board rooms and huge bonus cheques for top level managers]) this will yield a per team on average profit of $4 million (if my math is correct [never was my best subject] the figure is $4.772 million US), based on the only numbers the URO provides.

If the owners want to settle this disagreement, then the players have every right (and their negotiators every responsibility) to see all the revenue generated from their labours, not just the ones the owners wish to display. Link salary to revenue, fine, but when the revenues go up, so should the players' salaries, as much as when revenues go down, down go salaries.

Believe whomever you wish in this debate, but my feeling that these owners did not get to the position of franchise ownership through their own highly moral behaviour, which mediates my firm belief that they are the side being less than honest in these matters. They are employing the fans disdain for this lockout (no hockey) to put pressure on the players to settle for a less than equitable CBA.




Re: Who is really to blame??
by F.T.B on Thursday, February 24, 2005
Once again,i am not blaming the players as much as I am blaming the leader of the players. They were offered a look at the books for a long time but they have refused to do so.They could bring their own guy in and do whatever they want. Arthur Levitt has a reputation that is second to none in the financial reporting world so the PA (Goodenow) is afraid that what he says is true. As far as arena revenue goes,it should only be for hockey realted events,not rock concerts,wrestling matches,whatever. Goodenow seems to think that hockey players generate that revenue as well. I am all for opening the books to all NHL hockey related revenue, The owners were a problem and a mess for a long time..pretty much from the 50's to the 90's..I agree with that. However,this time there are needs for cost cutting and everyone recognizes that,even Goodenow but he's to focused on beating Bettman rather then the betterment of the sport and the survival of Edmonton,Ottawa,Calgary,etc.




Re: Who is really to blame??
by yoyodyne on Thursday, February 24, 2005
There's the rub. As we have agreed that Bettman and Goodenow have exceeded their usefulness to negotiations and should be shunted to the sidelines, I will offer no more comment on their efforts. The sticking point before, now, and tomorrow will always be a question of the owners placing the accounting books on the table uncooked. The PA's in baseball, football, basketball and every other major play for pay sport do not fear the truth, but they fear locking into a multi-year contract which limits their earning potential because it may be based on less than honest numbers. The economic reality of the situation is that these businessmen set up shell corps. and third-party service companies and so on, each of which derives a cut of the pie from the game preventing a true understanding of the financial state of the league. In other words, the owners, singing the blues on the way to the poor house, are probably making profits on the ancilliary enterprises while the books show the teams losing money. And that's the problem, as the cheques to support these anciliary enterprises are cut by the team and increase the amount of team expenses. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. As I have stated before, Mr. Melnyk's offer is magnanimous but disingenuous.

I will not presume to speak for the players or their PA, but I am old enough to realise that the owners are attempting to break the PA. They are trying to negotiate a CBA which advantages their interests. If they were willing to bargain in good faith, then they should call for another meeting with the PA and either bring the real books or try to meet the PA half way. Their pronouncements about their love of the game and disappointment at not being able to put the show on the ice must be leavened with the thought that they are trying to keep as much of the revenue as they can. We, the fans, are being used as the fulcrum in their efforts to break the players' backs.