Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

You Can Say One Thing But Do Another

 

Pesonally, I will be back but I have covered both of the recent lockouts and without a doubt, I see more fans saying they won't be back this time around.

The last lockout, fans understood why it was being done, the game needed fixing, this time, trying to understand why it is happening is head-scratching.

Filed in: NHL Talk, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

 1 2 >       Next »

TheFreak's avatar

A case where a poll is used for the sake of generating news, and also in this case supporting the players union.

Posted by TheFreak on 10/11/12 at 11:55 AM ET

Evilpens's avatar

Yep about the same amount who say they are going on a Diet .............................................................................. Tomorrow

Posted by Evilpens on 10/11/12 at 12:04 PM ET

Avatar

44% of people responding to a poll on a hockey site say they won’t come back to… hockey?

Wow!  Color me impressed.

If you want to impress me, show me that 100% of the people who responded said they’d come back… but 44% fewer people participated in the poll.  That actually means something.

Being pissed off is not remotely the same emotion as not caring, and until people actually stop caring about the NHL they’ll always, always come back.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/11/12 at 12:10 PM ET

Keyser S.'s avatar

2 years robbed of watching datsyuk. If datsyuk doesn’t come back, it’ll take me a while to get back to watching hockey again. If this is going to happen every 6 years why bother watching at all?

Posted by Keyser S. on 10/11/12 at 12:11 PM ET

Avatar

If this is going to happen every 6 years why bother watching at all?

Because you like hockey?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/11/12 at 12:34 PM ET

Red Winger's avatar

If the NHL loses 3% of its fans over this I would be shocked.

The fans will be back, Bettman and Co know it all too well.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 10/11/12 at 12:43 PM ET

Vladimir16's avatar

Because you like hockey?
Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/11/12 at 01:34 PM ET

Hockey and NHL hockey are 2 different things. I loves me some hockey and can’t see a day where I’m not watching it. NHL hockey on the other hand….

Posted by Vladimir16 from Grand River Valley on 10/11/12 at 01:01 PM ET

Avatar

Hockey and NHL hockey are 2 different things. I loves me some hockey and can’t see a day where I’m not watching it. NHL hockey on the other hand….

Here’s the point.  I’ll start believing people are serious about actually giving up NHL hockey when they are serious about giving up NHL hockey web sites.

As long as the people who are wearing the sackcloth are still logging in to their favorite NHL websites everyday to post pics of how terribly, majestically enraged they are over the whole thing, though… nah.  Not buying it.

 

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/11/12 at 01:54 PM ET

Paul's avatar

Actually HHD, website traffic is way down, over 50%.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 10/11/12 at 01:56 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

The game needed fixing last time. And it needs fixing this time, too. The thing is, the fix last time was nowhere near correct, which is the only reason we need to fix it still. And this time, I don’t expect a proper fix, either. That’s why I think more fans (nowhere near 44%) are more likely to stay away. The writing is on the wall. Either the owners get NFL-level control over the players, or we’ll just be doing this same cycle of bullshit every 4-8 years until they do.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 10/11/12 at 02:11 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Why does NFL-level control over the players constitute a needed “fix”, Nathan?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/11/12 at 02:15 PM ET

Avatar

I’ll start believing people are serious about actually giving up NHL hockey when they are serious about giving up NHL hockey web sites.

Great, except that TSN.ca is not a hockey web site, it is a sports web site.  That’s what the s stands for.

Posted by Garth on 10/11/12 at 02:15 PM ET

detroitdan1982's avatar

Actually HHD, website traffic is way down, over 50%.

As much as I’m ashamed to admit it, I haven’t been checking this site nearly as often as I would if there was no lockout. I’m like many others that have become a bit disillusioned by what is going on. It is my dream to work in professional hockey, but this whole process has been incredibly draining.

But there are other things to watch. I’ve been paying way more attention to the Tigers and Lions and have barely even thought about the Wings at all. I don’t think I would ever stay away for good, but I’m not as interested as I once was and the lockout isn’t helping things.

Posted by detroitdan1982 from St. John's, NL on 10/11/12 at 02:16 PM ET

Paul's avatar

Oh I understand that DD1082 and I would probably be doing the same thing.

Although I run this site as my full time job, I still love what I am doing and would not want to do anything else.

But I am and will be taking a hit and I am also worried about other sites, especially those who are independent and depend on their site as a source of income.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 10/11/12 at 02:24 PM ET

JBytes's avatar

I stopped going to matches after the last lockout, but did continue buying Centre Ice every season.  This time around, I’m DONE throwing my money at the NHL.  I will not spend another dime on that league for a long time to come.

Posted by JBytes on 10/11/12 at 02:26 PM ET

Avatar

I won’t be going to anymore games for awhile, I can tell you that. As I will not be buying anymore NHL affilated apparel. When it comes back i’ll watch on tv, but I can assure you I won’t be flipping back an forth through the channels when playoff time comes around. I will instead go to more Michigan hockey games, and finally take in a few Saginaw Spirit games. I had every intention on getting down to the D for part of the Winter Classic. Whether it was the alumni game, the GLI or the game itself. Now, even if it happens, I thing I’d rather stay home, save my money, and watch football games more then I want to go down there. I’ll watch it on tv, but there’ll be a lot more football watching.

I’m pro player on this one. I think its ridicolous that the owners want saved from themselves. They got what they wanted last time, now they want more. The players offer of scaling back they’re % is the way this should move. How fast the % is scaled back is for them to figure out. For them to come out and say give us 24% right now is bull. If my boss told me that, I’d tell to go pound sand. I wouldn’t blame any of the star players if they stayed overseas. If this ESPN tryout works, and they start carrying games, things will get interesting in the NHL imo. Get some more money flowing over there and watch out. I know the KHL has a lot of defficiencies compared to the NHL, but over time things can change, and I’m not sure if the NHL even thinks that is even possible. The KHL is taking baby steps in this thing. And if the NHL isn’t careful they could be on even ground over time. I’m not saying that its going to happen tomorrow. But its plausible. The odds aren’t great, but if this lockout takes another year, those players people pay to see might be better off somewhere else.  And I don’t blame them

Posted by T.B. on 10/11/12 at 02:58 PM ET

Vladimir16's avatar
Here’s the point.  I’ll start believing people are serious about actually giving up NHL hockey when they are serious about giving up NHL hockey web sites.
As 
long as the people who are wearing the sackcloth are still logging in to their favorite NHL websites everyday to post pics of how terriblymajestically enraged they are over the whole thingthough… nah.  Not buying it.
 
Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/11/12 at 02:54 PM ET 

Sorry but I need to vent somewhere. God knows most of my friends could give two shits about the NHL which brings me to this place still. Don’t fret though, it won’t last indefinitely.

Posted by Vladimir16 from Grand River Valley on 10/11/12 at 03:04 PM ET

NIVO's avatar

I have tickets to opening night on Saturday for Toledo Wallye! I’m spending my bucks outside the NHL! Yea its not NHL level, but its hockey dammit, and i gonna get me some. With or without the NHL screwing things up.

Posted by NIVO from underpants gnome village on 10/11/12 at 03:24 PM ET

Avatar

Great, except that TSN.ca is not a hockey web site, it is a sports web site.  That’s what the s stands for.

Excellent point.  So, when you go to TSN.ca and read across the sports tab you get, in order:

NHL, NBA, MLB, CFL, NFL, Curling… and then it goes sharply downhill from there.

The NHL is the biggest sport in Canada.  By a country mile.  Sure, they ‘cover’ a lot of other sports, but the NHL is far and away the biggest one.

Why does NFL-level control over the players constitute a needed “fix”,

Because 57% of HRR in a gate driven league with limited revenue streams is idiotically high.

Actually HHD, website traffic is way down, over 50%

It should be though, right?  Nothing is going on.  I would think traffic dips off once the season ends and picks up once it begins.  The question is whether the traffic stays away once the season starts or not.  As long as there are all kinds of people howling their rage at the heavens I tend to suspect they’ll be back when the hockey is.

It’s the utter, complete silence of the dead the NHL and NHLPA need to fear.  We’re not anywhere close to that point yet IMO.

Sorry but I need to vent somewhere.

I’m right there with you.  I think both sides of this issue are doing pretty much everything they can to annoy me, NHL and NHLPA both.

Fortunately, beer exists!  All is healed!

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/11/12 at 04:04 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

  Why does NFL-level control over the players constitute a needed “fix”,

Because 57% of HRR in a gate driven league with limited revenue streams is idiotically high.

I wasn’t asking you. 

It’s the utter, complete silence of the dead the NHL and NHLPA need to fear.  We’re not anywhere close to that point yet IMO.

ALLES GUT! ALLES GUT! NICHTS IST LOS! NICHTS IST LOS!

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/11/12 at 04:43 PM ET

Vladimir16's avatar

Fortunately, beer exists! All is healed!

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/11/12 at 05:04 PM ET

Amen, brother. Amen.

Posted by Vladimir16 from Grand River Valley on 10/11/12 at 06:05 PM ET

Alan's avatar

When the same man has been behind every lockout in the last 20 years, is it any wonder that fans would be upset?

Sure, they might *say* they’ll never return to the NHL, but many won’t keep that word seriously. It does convey a message, though, and that message is that the fans are none too pleased with the league’s antics.

Posted by Alan from Atlanta on 10/11/12 at 07:12 PM ET

Avatar

I wasn’t asking you. 

You shouldn’t have had to ask anybody, really.  Didn’t you already look at the numbers I spun out shorthand a few days ago?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/11/12 at 07:21 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Didn’t you already look at the numbers I spun out shorthand a few days ago?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/11/12 at 08:21 PM ET

Yes, and I gave them as much consideration as wild guesses deserve.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/11/12 at 07:24 PM ET

Avatar

Then you really didnt look at them.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/11/12 at 09:11 PM ET

Avatar

I keep coming here daily, mostly to see how many more times HockeyinHD has posted CBA>SPC.

Posted by Garth on 10/11/12 at 09:31 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

If you had so much confidence in those numbers, why do you keep parroting 57%?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/11/12 at 09:51 PM ET

Avatar

I keep coming here daily, mostly to see how many more times HockeyinHD has posted CBA>SPC.

As long as it starts to sink in, I couldn’t be happier. wink

If you had so much confidence in those numbers, why do you keep parroting 57%?

You’re JJ-ing again.  They were rough estimates used for a comparison between the NHL and other leagues.  They illustrated that the NHLPA most likely gets a much larger portion of revenue than the other 3 major sports.  The reason I use “57%” in current conversations about HRR is that under current definitions that number is most easily reconciled with current positions.

All of that said, which current major sports league gives it’s players a higher % of HRR than the NHL does?  IMO the answer is ‘none’.  What’s yours?

 

 

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/12/12 at 02:44 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Considering no other leagues produce any HRR, it’s a moot point.  Funny that I’m apparently the one confusing issues when you’re intentionally using a misleading figure.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/12/12 at 06:51 AM ET

Avatar

As long as it starts to sink in, I couldn’t be happier.

The fact that it’s a bullshit argument sunk in a while back.  What isn’t sinking in is why it’s the only thing consistent about your arguments…

Posted by Garth on 10/12/12 at 08:25 AM ET

Avatar

Considering no other leagues produce any HRR, it’s a moot point.  Funny that I’m apparently the one confusing issues when you’re intentionally using a misleading figure.

You’re being deliberately obtuse, it appears.  You pretty clearly know what the intent of my ‘HRR’ comment was with regards to other league, but in case you really actually are that suddenly unable to infer anything at all I will restate:

Which sports give a greater portion of their sport generated revenue to players than the NHL?

The fact that it’s a bullshit argument sunk in a while back.

Interesting.  What exactly about the phrase ‘CBA > SPC’ do you find objectionable?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/12/12 at 09:46 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

You’re being deliberately obtuse, it appears.

Or it appears that you’ve missed the point that Hockey-Related Revenues is a CBA-defined term (from an expired CBA) that doesn’t have enough bearing on actual numbers to continue to be useful.  HRR is not what you’re trying to call “sport-generated revenue”.

If you want to believe Football players’ real take-home is around 1/3rd of revenues, then I’m not going to stand in your way, but you haven’t produced anything that I would confidently call a comparison and you continue to use a number you know to be misleading to strengthen a point you keep changing.

 

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/12/12 at 10:01 AM ET

Avatar

If you want to believe Football players’ real take-home is around 1/3rd of revenues, then NFL players are morons for taking the deal

The NFL must have the world’s WORST union. To play the what may be the most devastating sport in the w rld with no guaranteed contracts and to be used and thrown away on a whim by the owners is nuts. The weakness of these “college” educated athletes to understand how much they give away for a quick payday that they will blow in three years post retirement is mind boggling.  So to compare any negotiation with the NFL is only looking to take the NHL players down to the lowest common denominator.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 10/12/12 at 01:27 PM ET

Avatar

Or it appears that you’ve missed the point that Hockey-Related Revenues is a CBA-defined term (from an expired CBA) that doesn’t have enough bearing on actual numbers to continue to be useful.

Do you actually think the NHL is the only sport which doesn’t back out portions of revenue before computing the size of the pie, JJ?

HRR is not what you’re trying to call “sport-generated revenue”.

Sure it is.  Every league protects portions of expenses from the ‘Revenue’ pot.  That’s why I qualified my numbers as rough estimates rather than precisely defined ISO 9001-class analysis, because we don’t know and we’ll never know the exact similarities and differences between the leagues.

So, given what we do know or can at lease reasonable surmise, I’ve asked you a couple times to tell me which league you think gives it’s players a larger portion of ‘revenues’ than the NHL does.

That leaves you two options, really.  Either answer the question and we can discuss, or refuse to answer the question because you ‘don’t know’.  In the second case, unfortunately, you remove yourself from being able to criticize Owners for asking for the concessions they are.  If you ‘don’t know’ what other leagues give players you really can’t criticize the NHL’s owners for asking for too much.

You have no means of quantitative comparison.

If you want to believe Football players’ real take-home is around 1/3rd of revenues,

It’s not exactly brain surgery, JJ.  If total revenues are x, the revenues allotted for division between Owners and Players is x-y.  That means if the % of ‘sport generated revenue’ allotted to one side is A, the % of actual total revenue before exceptions are placed will be smaller.

The same numerator but with different denominators leads to different percentages.

As I pointed out before, that’s almost certainly where Fehr got that ‘50%’ number he trotted out there.  The NHLPA actually got around 50% of gross revenue.  Once the exceptions and backouts set aside some portion of that gross revenue, though, the NHLPA ended up with 57% of that new, smaller revenue pool.

So the NFLPA doesn’t get their 47-48.5% band of gross revenue.  They get that amount of Net revenue.  Which means their share of gross revenue is going to be smaller than 47-48.5%.

The NFL must have the world’s WORST union.

It’s truly awful. The union leadership is garbage and the NFLPA is not a very unified group of players.  That said, neither side wants to seriously risk the positively ginormous amounts of money both sides make each year, so they mostly play nice.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/12/12 at 03:02 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Do you actually think the NHL is the only sport which doesn’t back out portions of revenue before computing the size of the pie, JJ?

Well the NFL does it… to the entire extent that they create “new business ventures” with the NFLPA. The NBA doesn’t do it. This isn’t a manner of thinking so much as knowing.

That leaves you two options, really.  Either answer the question and we can discuss, or refuse to answer the question because you ‘don’t know’.  In the second case, unfortunately, you remove yourself from being able to criticize Owners for asking for the concessions they are.

So I can only criticize if I’m willing to take guesses about what’s true and what isn’t? That doesn’t make any sense. The discussion about whether the NHL gives the largest cut of revenues among sports is a red herring.

So the NFLPA doesn’t get their 47-48.5% band of gross revenue.  They get that amount of Net revenue.  Which means their share of gross revenue is going to be smaller than 47-48.5%.

https://www.nflplayers.com/about-us/CBA-Download/

“No expense deductions shall be permitted to be taken in calculating AR, and all expense deductions that were previously permitted in the calculation of “Total Revenues” or “Defined Gross Revenues” or “Excluded Defined Gross Revenues” shall not be used in calculating AR”

Basketball is the same way. There are not expense deductions taken in these leagues. You are wrong.

I trust that doing the math isn’t brain surgery, but what you’re doing is cutting into the squishy stuff blindfolded and just assuming that what you’re operating on counts as “brains.”

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/12/12 at 03:45 PM ET

Avatar

Well the NFL does it… to the entire extent that they create “new business ventures” with the NFLPA. The NBA doesn’t do it. This isn’t a manner of thinking so much as knowing.

You may want to walk that comment back a bit.  For instance in the NBA CBA, BRI has some of the following components:

-40% of proceeds from arena signage
-40% of proceeds from luxury suites
-50% of proceeds from arena naming rights
-50% of the proceeds from team practice facility naming rights

Also:

-It also includes income from businesses in which the league, a league entity or a team has an ownership stake of at least 50%.

I see a whole lot of percentages of revenue which aren’t 100’s there, J-ster.  And that last little codicil at the end is a big deal.  It means, essentially, that revenue from businesses in which the league, a league entity or a team have a 49% or less ownership stake is entirely excluded from BRI consideration.

Think that might be something a sharp businessman would take advantage of?  Say, by selling off a 51% portion of concessions to a relative or business associate not directly involved in the ownership or operations of the team?  Or parking?  Or some other food/service business?

And not for nothing, but I’d hazard a guess that Luxury Suite revenue is a pretty prime slice of total revenue, considering that franchises up and move if their stadium doesn’t have enough suites.  So, 60% of Suite revenue and 60% of arena signage (which also has to be pretty major) are cut out of the pie from the get go.

But the NHL doesn’t excuse revenue from their BRI calculations.  Riiiiiiight.  Sure they don’t.

So I can only criticize if I’m willing to take guesses about what’s true and what isn’t? That doesn’t make any sense. The discussion about whether the NHL gives the largest cut of revenues among sports is a red herring.

Not at all.  If the anti-Owner position is that the NHL Owners are being draconian and unfair to NHL players by asking them to take less money again (those evil greedy bastards), yet NHL players have a drastically higher share of revenue than in any other league and these evil greedy awful cuts the NHL Owners are seeking to employ take NHL Players allllllll the way down to… an as great or greater share of league money than any other group of players receive in any other sport?

Well, I don’t think I need to connect those dots for you, do I?  Suffice to say, that’s not exactly what I would call the firmest of rational foundations for discontent.

Basketball is the same way. There are not expense deductions taken in these leagues. You are wrong.

Heh.  Yeah, they just back out 60% of two of maybe the top 5 sources of revenue from the BRI instead of itemizing expenses down line by line.

That’s like totally different, eh?  smile  Totally different as in ‘almost certainly more beneficial to the teams than just backing expenses out, because they can jack up Suite prices at any time and increase their take home while expenses are pretty much fixed.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/12/12 at 04:34 PM ET

Avatar

As a quick addendum before you JJ-up another comment, my initial statement was:

“Do you actually think the NHL is the only sport which doesn’t back out portions of revenue before computing the size of the pie, JJ?”

Note the difference between that statement and your JJ’d:

“Basketball is the same way. There are not expense deductions taken in these leagues. You are wrong.”

I didn’t say the NBA had expense deductions.  I said they backed portions of revenue out from the pie.  Which tye do.

Splat.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/12/12 at 04:40 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I didn’t say the NBA had expense deductions.  I said they backed portions of revenue out from the pie.  Which tye do.

Show me where in the NBA’s CBA this is.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/12/12 at 04:42 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Think that might be something a sharp businessman would take advantage of?  Say, by selling off a 51% portion of concessions to a relative or business associate not directly involved in the ownership or operations of the team?  Or parking?  Or some other food/service business?

Except the NBA’s CBA doesn’t allow this to happen with concessions, so that’s a moot point. It’s specifically in each of those CBAs that this isn’t allowed.

Everything you pointed out is because of non-basketball related costs and streams. There are no direct costs netted from basketball-related revenues like there are with hockey and HRR.

They’re not counted as revenues because of dual and sometimes triple-use items.

yet NHL players have a drastically higher share of revenue

Your definition of drastic is hyperbolic or ignorant.

Heh.  Yeah, they just back out 60% of two of maybe the top 5 sources of revenue from the BRI instead of itemizing expenses down line by line.

not 60, 40… and these are things which are backed out across all leagues, so we’re not even arguing the same thing.  The NHL does the exact same thing with these things and doesn’t even bother calling them direct costs.

So again, the NBA and NFL do not cut direct costs from their revenue pies, which is about a $400M slice in the NHL.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/12/12 at 04:52 PM ET

Avatar

Show me where in the NBA’s CBA this is.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q12

Your definition of drastic is hyperbolic or ignorant.

Oh?  Interesting.  Your disagreement infers you have some form of knowledge about what the relative player shares of revenue are between the leagues.  Would you care to share that information?

All the information I have seen to date sets the NHL player share of gross revenue at right around 50%.  All the information I have seen to date suggests the player share of gross revenue in other sports is between 35-40%.

Yeah, one league having 25-43% more of a share of gross revenues than other major sports is a pretty drastic difference.

not 60, 40… and these are things which are backed out across all leagues, so we’re not even arguing the same thing. 

Math, JJ.  Math.

100% of revenue - the 40% of revenue they give to players leaves… ?

60% of revenue.

In other words, the Owners in the NBA back out 60% of suite rev, and then the remaining 40% is tossed into the BRI pot for the players.

And the reason we’re not arguing the same thing is that you can’t keep it straight in your head what I’ve actually said… even after I specifically add a post to aid you in that endeavor.

My point is that all the leagues back out portions of revenue from the pot before the compute the players share of revenue.  The NHL backs out costs, the NBA backs out portions of revenue, the NFL and MLB do similar things as well.

All of the pro leagues.

To reconnect this back to the discussion, my larger point was in using the fact that pro leagues back out portions of revenue before computing player share to illustrate how players have a higher percentage of Sport Generated Revenue as determined by the CBA than they actually have of the Gross Generated Revenue.

Same numerator, different denominators.

That’s likely why Fehr said the NHLPA ‘only’ got ~50% of HRR.  Because he was using the larger, gross revenue, denominator.

It’s also likely why the NFLPA or MLBPA get a lower percentage of gross revenue than the percentage of ‘Sport Generated Revenue’ determined by their CBAs. 

So again, the NBA and NFL do not cut direct costs from their revenue pies, which is about a $400M slice in the NHL.

I’m curious if you’re able to draw a substantive distinction between a league pulling x amount out of the revenue pie to cover costs and a league drawing out x amount of the revenue pie just because.  Further, I wonder if you’re able to describe why such a distinction, should you be able to magically conjure one up, is even germane to the discussion since I never limited the notion of ‘revenue withholdings’ to simple cost defintions..

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/13/12 at 06:10 AM ET

 1 2 >       Next »

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com