USATODAY.com - Study backs NHL's claim of major financial losses (February 16, 2004)
That should read "Study commissioned by NHL backs NHL's claim..."
The NHLPA countered with: Ted Saskin, the union's senior director of business affairs, said that its examination of four teams' finances ... found revenue and benefits to the clubs had been underreported by $52 million
So, the NHL's 500$ / hr independent accountants claim a 9 million$ / team loss, while the NHLPA's director claims another 13 million$ / team of unreported revenue.
Seeing that the NHL has an already incredibly restrictive free agency for players under 31 (essentially, no other team will ever sign one of these guys without forfeiting upwards of 5 1st round picks, though Scott Stevens was twice involved in such a deal), how an NHL team can lose money is beyond belief.
Free agents, players 31 and older and on their decline phase, continue to get unbelievably generous deals (Holik, Geurin, et al).
Same b.s., different sport.
--posted by TangoTiger at 03:38 PM EDT
Posted 4:17 p.m.,
March 1, 2004
(#1) -
Shredder
What did the Caps get for Stevens the first time?
It really is the same BS, and I spend a fair amount of time on an LA Kings message board. Although many of the mental midgets over there blame the players, wven they are starting to see through the owner's propaganda. The owners have actually set up a propaganda site, but I can't find the link for it right now.
King Kaufman had a good article in Salon the other day that addressed this. He said the same thing I've said before. Both sides need to choose an independent auditor, selected and paid by the union and the owners. Give him complete access (won't happen) and allow him to answer objections. I do think the sport is in worse shape than baseball was, but that's a gut feeling. I still have no sympathy for the owners.
Go Kings!
Posted 5:20 p.m.,
March 1, 2004
(#2) -
tangotiger
I'm trying to remember, but when Stevens first signed with the Blues, they forfeited 5 1st-round picks back to the Caps.
Then, when he was restricted again, NJ claimed him, and NJ had to give up Brendan Shanahan back to the Blues (I think this was arbitrator ruled). In effect, it was a trade. The only thing the "restricted" thing does is it allows a team to trade for a player at full market value.
I seem to remember Dale McCourt 20 years ago was claimed by the Kings from Det (or vice-versa), and there was stiff compensation too.
I'm not sure how Marcel Dionne went from Det to LA after only 2 years.
Posted 7:11 p.m.,
March 1, 2004
(#3) -
Shredder
I knew about the Shanahan one, I just wasn't sure about the first one.
I can't remember how they got Marcel. I was only about two years old. This site says they outbid five other teams for him, but I don't know if there was a trade involved with that. I'm getting my new purple vintage (mid '80s) jersey customized with #16 Dionne this weekend.
The Kings have made a number of crappy moves in which they gave up stiff compensation. They lost the picks that became Ray Borque, Phil Housely, and Kevin Stevens in various deals (for such luminaries as Brian Engblom and Anders Hakanson).