Pure_Evil
12-17-2004, 12:45 PM
Who do you believe, players, or owners?
Union scoffs at NHL claim
Rick Sadowski, Rocky Mountain News
NHL Players Association officials Thursday released figures to support their claims the NHL used inaccurate financial projections as the basis for rejecting the union's proposal to end the lockout.
"It really highlights how people can play with numbers," NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow said during a conference call.
The NHLPA e-mailed a chart - Exhibit 13 of the counterproposal tendered by the NHL on Tuesday - to reporters that claimed the league would show a $25.7 million profit in 2004-05 if it accepted the union's offer to slash player contracts by 24 percent but would lose a combined $568.5 million over the next three years.
"That's a bunch of hogwash," Goodenow said. "They went and mixed up and diced up some statistics in a blender and came out with what I think are just absolutely ridiculous forecasts."
Ted Saskin, the union's senior director, said the NHL used a 3 percent rate for revenue growth and 12.1 percent for player costs as the basis for its projections, even though the league's own figures over the past 10 years showed an annual revenue growth of 9.4 percent and a 12.1 percent increase in player costs.
Using the latter numbers, the union projected the league would show a profit of $275.5 million from 2005-06 through 2007-08 - a positive difference of $844 million.
Goodenow said the NHL fudged numbers "simply to construct a wholly misleading, illusory and unsupported picture" of the union proposal.
"A 24 percent, $500 million rollback is not an indication of our sitting back," he said. "We reached out to try to set a basis for an agreement that would be fair to everybody to use going forward. The response was, 'Sorry, it's got to be a salary cap.' That's not going to do it."
Goodenow added the league didn't take into account the union offers of a luxury tax, reduction in entry- level contracts and qualifying offers, arbitration changes and revenue sharing.
"It is a lockout that's going to extend for an awful long time if the parties aren't able to try to work together," he said. "We have made all the efforts that we can to try and engage in negotiations that will work for both sides and you see the response we've gotten. "
I know over the last 8 years, the quality of the NHL has gone down the toilet and the cost of seeing games is ludacris, but the labor disute, at least to me, is interesting. The NHL claims it neds the cap because their owners spend money poorly and lack dissaplin. Think about it.. your boss sits down with you and proposes a cap on your advancement in the company because he admitts he's not financially responsable :eek: and you're supposed to buy into that theory :D
Anyway, I'd like to know what some of you think, especially the Canadian hockey fans.
Union scoffs at NHL claim
Rick Sadowski, Rocky Mountain News
NHL Players Association officials Thursday released figures to support their claims the NHL used inaccurate financial projections as the basis for rejecting the union's proposal to end the lockout.
"It really highlights how people can play with numbers," NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow said during a conference call.
The NHLPA e-mailed a chart - Exhibit 13 of the counterproposal tendered by the NHL on Tuesday - to reporters that claimed the league would show a $25.7 million profit in 2004-05 if it accepted the union's offer to slash player contracts by 24 percent but would lose a combined $568.5 million over the next three years.
"That's a bunch of hogwash," Goodenow said. "They went and mixed up and diced up some statistics in a blender and came out with what I think are just absolutely ridiculous forecasts."
Ted Saskin, the union's senior director, said the NHL used a 3 percent rate for revenue growth and 12.1 percent for player costs as the basis for its projections, even though the league's own figures over the past 10 years showed an annual revenue growth of 9.4 percent and a 12.1 percent increase in player costs.
Using the latter numbers, the union projected the league would show a profit of $275.5 million from 2005-06 through 2007-08 - a positive difference of $844 million.
Goodenow said the NHL fudged numbers "simply to construct a wholly misleading, illusory and unsupported picture" of the union proposal.
"A 24 percent, $500 million rollback is not an indication of our sitting back," he said. "We reached out to try to set a basis for an agreement that would be fair to everybody to use going forward. The response was, 'Sorry, it's got to be a salary cap.' That's not going to do it."
Goodenow added the league didn't take into account the union offers of a luxury tax, reduction in entry- level contracts and qualifying offers, arbitration changes and revenue sharing.
"It is a lockout that's going to extend for an awful long time if the parties aren't able to try to work together," he said. "We have made all the efforts that we can to try and engage in negotiations that will work for both sides and you see the response we've gotten. "
I know over the last 8 years, the quality of the NHL has gone down the toilet and the cost of seeing games is ludacris, but the labor disute, at least to me, is interesting. The NHL claims it neds the cap because their owners spend money poorly and lack dissaplin. Think about it.. your boss sits down with you and proposes a cap on your advancement in the company because he admitts he's not financially responsable :eek: and you're supposed to buy into that theory :D
Anyway, I'd like to know what some of you think, especially the Canadian hockey fans.