February 12, 2004

Levitt report released (pdf): quick response of the nhlpa here. independant? i have to read it still.

posted by owl to hockey at 10:59 PM - 10 comments

Jim Kelley does a nice summary of the crappy situation: the owners need to share their data set, though it really doesn't matter that much because the crux of the problem is a cap system(NBA & NFL) vs. market system(MLB).

posted by garfield at 08:53 AM on February 13, 2004

Well after watching the Levitt highlights I can officially say we are headed to a lock out. The owners have backed themselves in a corner and are diggin' a moat. As soon as Levitt said 'I would not under-write or put any of my money in this league' it was over. If only minimal changes are made to the CBA then team values will plummet. They won't be able to give away a NHL team. So the owners have to no choice now... they have to get a much better CBA (read salary cap). The players have stated over and over no matter how bad things are (and they don't think that they are that bad) they will never accept a salary cap. I don't see how these guys are ever going to find any middle ground here. I haven't read the report yet so I can't really comment on it's contents. I haven't read garfield's link yet either. However something that I though was interesting. If you believe the NHLPA the owners are hiding millions of dollars to make the situation worse than it really is. If this is actually the case then why are the owners so unanimous in their support for a cap. All it would take is one owner to say... 'Nope I think this is working fine, and I don't want to risk a huge loss by not playing next year'. Yet not a single one of them (even the ones making money) have said anything like this. That doesn't seem to add up if things really aren't that bad.

posted by camcanuck at 10:56 AM on February 13, 2004

camcanuck: perhaps Bettman has whispered something about kidnapped loved ones in each owner's ear over the past few months? Anyway, if the situation is as bad as the owners say, why don't they simply allow the players to audit the books and settle the situation once and for all?

posted by billsaysthis at 11:18 AM on February 13, 2004

Okay... I have had a chance to skim the report. Nothing overly shocking. One point on the NHLPA response though shows they really don't get it. In section 3 they say: At the outset it is clear the Levitt report, commissioned by the League, is fundamentally flawed when the author "elects" to define hockey revenues on the same basis as used in the NBA and NFL for defining revenues in their salary cap systems. If the author doesn't do this then comparisions between the leagues are impossible. If you don't define revenues the same between leagues then you can't compare the % that goes to the players in each league. This had to be done. As mentioned in the report the NHL and NBA have very similar revenue situations so I don't think the process is flawed. The total losses don't really carry much weight. The % of revenue that goes to the players is the big problem. In the end I don't believe that Levitt would put his name on something unless he was sure about. Unfortunatly he doesn't say how to fix it. ;-)

posted by camcanuck at 02:29 PM on February 13, 2004

Camcanuck, are you aware of Levitt's career? The dude's made his fortune carrying water for, and being one of, the big guys who run things. So why would he put out a report that wasn't favorable to the owners? He was not a good choice if credibility was the criteria.

posted by billsaysthis at 06:25 PM on February 13, 2004

owl, excellent time to revisit that. I've just started reading, but the argument being made thus far is that L.A. King's player salaries increased (19%/yr) faster than revenue (15%/yr), therefore the Kings lacked control of their costs. Is this some fancy sort of double-talk? They might have been out of control, but they're the only ones at the wheel.

posted by garfield at 03:48 PM on February 14, 2004

a player's reaction: "No one held a gun to these owners' heads and said: 'Sign this guy or that guy' or give Alexei Yashin an ($8.4 million US contract this year)," Fitzgerald said. "Sometimes you have to look in the mirror and say enough is enough. But we're not going to stop them and neither would (any worker in any business)."

posted by garfield at 04:11 PM on February 14, 2004

Not a good investment? The facts speak otherwise.

posted by garfield at 04:16 PM on February 14, 2004

garfield: that is one side of the debate, the other is that the nature of the biz is that it should be cyclical - build up (cheap, young players), compete (players have matured, so have their salaries), and finally be outcompeted (with older, very expensive players, lose money) so that you have to move back to the beginning, trading away expensive contracts. the other side seems to be as you stated. but it didn't convince me. that last article you posted makes a good point too, i don't follow the league nearly as much as i follow a team either.

posted by owl at 04:25 PM on February 15, 2004

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.