Well, technically that's true. You never typed L-I-E. But you previously said...
Let's break that down a little bit... what kinds of things does a reasonable person not believe? Things they think are mistakes and things that they think are lies.
You sure weren't implying that the statements had some honest mistakes.
Then you added...
So you think a CA can make the numbers show anything? Doesn't that imply that that you actually think the statements could be completely made up?
Now an accountant could conceivably make up a set of numbers that actually makes more sense and is a closer depiction of financial reality that their client's numbers... but I don't think that's what you are getting at.
You are suggesting that a CA will make up numbers that bear no resemblance to reality and what's another word for that? Oh yeah, that'd be a lie.
You're absolutely right that lots of Financial Statements are unaudited and based on client's documents, but if you had ever bothered to look at the Esks' Financial Statements you would have seen an Auditor's Report and nowhere on them would you see "Unaudited"
You're dismissing information that you haven't even looked at.
It does not matter what anyone thinks financial statements say. If the league signed a contract with the CFLPA to get their SMS that the salary cap would be set at 56 percent of revenues they should honor that.
I think it does. A $4.2 million salary cap on $14 million of revenue looks about right to me. But IMO a $4.2 million salary cap on $20 million of revenue would be too low.
The best evidence I have seen with respect to league finances is the Eskimos' Financial Statements. IMO it is ridiculous for someone to say that they're going to ignore the best evidence we have.
I didn't see anywhere in the TSN article where it says that the CFL is breaking an agreement.
If the CFL doesn't think revenues will go up, then the salary cap shouldn't go up either. Attendance was down 1.6% this year and the league has the same TV contract as last year. That's a pretty good reason to keep the salary cap where it is.
The CFL needs to be a break-even enterprise to survive and grow. Since player salaries are the single biggest expense for a team, the salary cap is extremely important to the health of the CFL.
How does $4.2 million translate to 56% of either $14 million or $20 million? And the cap is based on the preceding year's gross revenues, not what the league thinks it will make in the current year. Unlike the NHL, there are no funds held in escrow pending the league's year end financial picture.
I have never heard that the CFL salary cap is tied to revenues. And if the cap is tied to prior year revenues, in 2009 there was no new TV contract and a decrease in attendance, so the league probably had flat revenue. So if the 2010 cap is tied to 2009 revenues, I wouldn't expect to see a salary cap increase.
I'm pretty sure that the NFL and NHL salary caps are tied to revenue... something like 54% for the NHL and 57% for the NFL.
It is doubtful that the CFL salary cap is 56% of revenue because overhead and administration will take up a larger share of a $15 million business than a $100 million or $200 million dollar business.
I'd like to be proven wrong though. Does anybody have a link that indicated that the CFL salary cap is 56% of revenues?
Why not? How many real-world unions have collective bargaining agreements with compensation tied to revenue?
The salary cap being tied to revenue is not necessarily best for the players or the teams. The CFL is a small club with only 8 teams and fewer than 400 players. And the CFL can't afford to piss off the players so much that they strike, and the players don't want another 50 CFLPA members out of work if another team fails.
I could be wrong. Feel free to provide a source for the SMS being tied to 56% of revenue.
Can't find a link yet, but when the cap was instituted in 2005, the Calgary Herald reported it was to be 56% of gross revenues, and was set at $3.8 million that year. It was subsequently raised to $4.05 million, then to $4.2 million. The article (I have a clipping of it, but not just sure where it is) also quoted a player rep as stating that the league at one time was paying an average of about 70% of gross revenues to players. Stampeders' president Ted Hellard has been quoted as saying that the league's average ticket price is $38. Average attendance is about 29,000 per game for nine home games ($9.918 million). Each team receives 1/9 of the TV ($15 million this year) and national sponsorship ($10 million last year) monies (the league office also takes 1/9) and is expected (as of 2005) to raise at least $2.5 million in local corporate sponsorship. There is also skybox and suite revenue, though I have no idea what this may amount to, and there should also be revenue from concessions (and parking at some stadiums). SI magazine has stated that concessions generally amount to 25-40% of a team's ticket revenue. The league is not dealing fairly or in good faith with the players; now that NFL Europe and AFL are gone it will only get worse.
You are correct Gern.
I recall the formula and how the latest increase of a couple years back of some $150K was done because the league revenues went up.
I bet dollars to donuts how the league is trying to play hardball and are floating the nonsense of reducing the number of Canadians. It is all part and parcel of Negotiations 101 and currently a smoke screen by the league.
Some of us and myself included are suggesting the cap should be at $5M and based on some of the gross figures which have come out recently on the community owned teams, hell even that number could be grossly unfair to the players.
It is indeed about time the league brings the players out of the dark ages and salaries increase.
I think it is 56 percent of the gate averaged out between the 8 teams.
League has been making big increase in revenues in other areas like corporate sponsorship and wares. It is the players that are out in the community all year round making hundreds of appearances and then they have to tape their cleats and gloves giving them zero opportunities for product sponsorship…
Teams aren’t rich but they can see the revenue increase that is coming their way between expansion money, increase tv , merchandise, corp everything is up. Just would like players opportunities to make money go up along with the league. They are the guys on and off the field, sending the mascots to community events is not going to get you much corp. sponsorship…