DAYS OF RECKONING WILL SOON BE HERE

[Rock]

DAYS OF RECKONING WILL SOON BE HERE

By Larry Brooks

http://www.nypost.com/sports/41008.htm

March 13, 2005 -- IF GARY Bettman has said it once, he has said it dozens of times throughout the lockout. The NHL, the Commissioner of the Owners has repeatedly testified, would lose less money by not playing the 2004-05 season than by playing it. It's become part of the league's mantra.

But if this is true, then why would the NHL be offering less to the players now than it was a year ago? If an overwhelming majority of clubs are in better financial shape today than they were, say, last June, why wouldn't the league's CBA offers to the PA be more generous than they were last summer?

Days of reckoning are fast approaching as the NHL lurches forward on its path of crisis mismanagement, scabs, replacement options and self-destruction. Forget the Entry Draft, forget training camp, forget the autumn. The first deadline the NHL faces is the one upcoming in approximately two months, when teams are scheduled to send "renewal" invoices to their season ticket-holders.

This past Thursday morning, we sent e-mails to all 30 teams (and copied the league office) requesting the following information: a) the approximate date of invoice mailing; b) whether ticket prices would be lowered, and, if so, by what percentage; c) whether pricing would be dependent upon a CBA being negotiated, and whether pricing would be affected by a league decision to proceed with "replacement players;" and, d) whether current subscribers would be permitted to decline "renewals" while retaining their status and seat locations if "replacements" are used next season.

A senior NHL official contacted us that afternoon, explaining that those decisions had not yet been reached by the clubs, and while teams would be permitted to establish their own policies, the league would issue a directive recommending guidelines pertaining to all issues raised in the e-mail. Meetings on the subject, we were informed, are ongoing.

Understand just how critical is resolution of these issues to the NHL's approach to bargaining with the union

[Triumph]

Oh, wow.

Brooks gets dumber and dumber.

Yes, the league can say "We lost less money THIS SEASON than we would have had we played."

That does not at ALL mean that teams are in better financial shape than they were a year ago. Revenues will be significantly down, so all else remaining equal, they are in worse shape.

[Rock]

I thought the most interesting thing from the article is that Brooks has an "embedded mole" in the owner's meeting.

[Don]

A week ago he said it was time to tone down the rhetoric. That period of "toning down" lasted about 3 1/2 hours. Now he's back to his vitrolic self.

[SueNJ97]

I keep seeing the "mole" from "Austin Powers: Goldmember" and it's just so not a pretty sight.

Then again, maybe his "mole" is Stan and the two of them are putting on this "He said/He said" gag to fool us.

The upshot of this is that Brooks seems to have trouble understanding the impact a lockout COULD have on revenues. That's odd, because, as you'll see later, he has a unique perspective on the difference between fixed and variable costs. Fixed costs are the things that you owe whether or not you operate. Variable costs are the things you don't have to pay if you don't operate. You may recall that when the Habs owner was talking, he specifically cited certain FIXED costs that they still owed, and said they would have made enough revenue, had they played to more than cover them, so no, they were not one of the teams that was losing less money by not playing. That is the correct and TRUTHFUL way to look at things and I commend him. Once there is no CBA, players contracts become VARIBLE costs that don't need to be calculated into the equation for what you count toward that fixed cost amount IF YOU DON'T PLAY. If you chose to honor those contracts while you negotiated a CBA, they would still be fixed costs. There are some clubs that can't even cover those fixed costs (without the players' salaries) if there were a season and they are the ones who are losing less by not having a season.

So Brooks is saying that in order to make these variable costs of the higher-cost players fixed again if the NLRB agrees to let the NHL use replacement players and cut ticket prices, Goodenow would decertify his own union??? Very interesting.

[sheeps]

If an overwhelming majority of clubs are in better financial shape today than they were, say, last June, why wouldn't the league's CBA offers to the PA be more generous than they were last summer?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does this man ever use logic?

"The NHL lost less money this past season, therefore they should be willing to lose more money in the upcoming seasons."

[sundstrom]

Oh, wow.

Brooks gets dumber and dumber.

Yes, the league can say "We lost less money THIS SEASON than we would have had we played."

That does not at ALL mean that teams are in better financial shape than they were a year ago.  Revenues will be significantly down, so all else remaining equal, they are in worse shape.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i was going to write the same thing. It's amazing that this gets passed editors when it is so clearly wrong.

furthermore, under a new cba, the current player contracts would be altered anyway (figuring the 24% rollback plus other considerations - perhaps non-guaranteed contracts), so the threat of them reporting really is no threat at all. they'd come off as clueless a$$holes (or BIGGER clueless a$$holes than they are now depending on your point of view).

i can tolerate the pro-player blindness and the anti-owner hatred. but stating supposed factual information that is flat out wrong and opinions that either have no basis or are easily disproven/discredited have no business being printed.

[LizDevil30]

Either Brooks thinks his readers are dumb or he figures he doesn't have many readers and those that do read him know he's an idiot.

I still can't get the "embedded mole" image out of my head. I picture some ghastly adhesion on Brook's butt. He does talk out his ass.