PDA

View Full Version : A Question for Hal Vickery


crector
11-17-2003, 12:32 AM
Mr. Vickery:


If you are so rich that you can call a $30 Mil. payroll for the Milwaukee Brewers, "measly," then why don't you pony up the money to buy the team? The same question goes for the rest of you who talk about millions of dollars as if it were just so much pocket change.

nasox
11-17-2003, 02:36 AM
I'm not Hal but:

when I talk (and many others I presume) about 30 mil as chump change, it is in relation to other payrolls and what other owners pay. If Steinbrenner pays 150 mil and the Brewers only pay 30 mil, something is terribly wrong.

StillMissOzzie
11-17-2003, 02:43 AM
I'm not Hal either, but:
The owners proposed a salary FLOOR during the last round of labor negotiations, but the players rejected that, because they somehow figured that wherever there's a floor, there must be a CEILING (eg, a salary cap) nearby. The owners did get an increase in revenue sharing, too. And this salary floor? IIRC, it was $45 MILLION !!!

Since Milwaukee is coming in at 33% below the proposed salary floor, I for one feel justified in calling them CHEAP!

And we haven't even discussed the stadium that they got built for them with taxpayer money, either.

SMO
:gulp:

Frank the Tank
11-17-2003, 03:05 AM
I also am not Hal,

But it should be said that $30 Million payroll for the brewers is terribly low given the fact the Brewers were the most profitable team in baseball last year.

hold2dibber
11-17-2003, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by crector
Mr. Vickery:


If you are so rich that you can call a $30 Mil. payroll for the Milwaukee Brewers, "measly," then why don't you pony up the money to buy the team? The same question goes for the rest of you who talk about millions of dollars as if it were just so much pocket change.

That's a pretty ridiculous comment. Obviously, looked at in a vacuum, $30 million may be considered a lot of money. But for a company with the revenue streams that the Brewers have, $30 million is a measly payroll.

poorme
11-17-2003, 07:55 AM
Not only are the Brewers measly, but also stupid, short-sighted, greedy, and unethical.

hsnterprize
11-17-2003, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
That's a pretty ridiculous comment. Obviously, looked at in a vacuum, $30 million may be considered a lot of money. But for a company with the revenue streams that the Brewers have, $30 million is a measly payroll. Especially when teams will spend $30 million for 1 player, let alone a payroll. The Brewers are on a slide, and unfortunately, the people who paid for that ballpark are going to be the ones who pay for it.

jabrch
11-17-2003, 08:09 AM
I'm not Hal either - to set the record straight

But I have other investment vehicles on my priority list to use my money rather than to spend 100mm+ to purchase a baseball franchise. Your command to Hal, to buy a team or shut up really is kinda silly.

Crector, you know fully well what Hal meant. 30mm as a team budget is a pittance in the world of baseball ownership. It is a pittance relative to the TV revenute each team gets. It is a pittance relative to Milwaukee's gate receipts. It is a pittance relative to the spending of almost every other MLB organization.

SaltyPretzel
11-17-2003, 08:14 AM
:threadsucks

bc2k
11-17-2003, 08:47 AM
I never knew how some posts can be literally metally painful. I'm not joking with that description, they're mentally painful. I always thought the ignore list was unnecessary. PHG, thanks for your foresight.

kittle42
11-17-2003, 09:36 AM
I'm just trying to figure out what crector could have been trying to accomplish with this thread.

PaulDrake
11-17-2003, 10:19 AM
In other words if we can't afford to buy a team then we have no call criticizing any baseball owner. That's logical.

CubKilla
11-17-2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by PaulDrake
In other words if we can't afford to buy a team then we have no call criticizing any baseball owner. That's logical.

Especially when we don't have the kind of money baseball owners have but we spend what we do have on an incredibly mediocre product that we know can be better.

voodoochile
11-17-2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by crector
Mr. Vickery:


If you are so rich that you can call a $30 Mil. payroll for the Milwaukee Brewers, "measly," then why don't you pony up the money to buy the team? The same question goes for the rest of you who talk about millions of dollars as if it were just so much pocket change.

:threadsucks

Oh come on... Are you serious?

Let's see...$30M spread over 25 players is an average salary of $1.2M per person. Which is half the current league-wide average.

How any "fan of the Brewers" or even "fan of baseball" could possibly agree with the Brewers decision to take the money and run is beyond me.

BTW, I'm not Hal either...

voodoochile
11-17-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by kittle42
I'm just trying to figure out what crector could have been trying to accomplish with this thread.

That is an interesting question. Are you trolling Hal, Crector? You seem to have an issue with him personally...

34 Inch Stick
11-17-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by crector
Mr. Vickery:


If you are so rich that you can call a $30 Mil. payroll for the Milwaukee Brewers, "measly," then why don't you pony up the money to buy the team? The same question goes for the rest of you who talk about millions of dollars as if it were just so much pocket change.

I tried to put the financing together but that cheap ass Bill Gates was not willing to go along with the partnership. He was going to provide the capital and I was going to provide the inside knowledge. To think he would not value my knowledge at $250 million.

jabrch
11-17-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
I never knew how some posts can be literally metally painful. I'm not joking with that description, they're mentally painful. I always thought the ignore list was unnecessary. PHG, thanks for your foresight.

Is there an ignore button? I haven't seen it.

voodoochile
11-17-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
Is there an ignore button? I haven't seen it.

Click on the profile of the person you want to ignore and then scroll to the bottom of the page. You will find two links there. One adds the person to your buddy list and one adds them to your ignore list.

Lip Man 1
11-17-2003, 12:03 PM
Mr.Crector seems to have an issue with anyone who doesn't take the side of those wonderful, magnanimous, kind-hearted, philantropic, civic-minded owners.

Lip

guillen4life13
11-17-2003, 05:59 PM
Last time I checked, I wasn't Hal, but I haven't checked in a long time. :cool:

A few things to be pointed out, which have been said already.

a) The Brewers had the highest revenue of any team in the majors in 2002 (All Star year, yes, but still).

b) They are playing in a ballpark built by taxpayers' money. They owe it to the fans to put a good product on the field.

c) If the comissioner of the MLB is one of the co-owners of a club, then that club should be doing pretty well.


crector, if you think that a $30M payroll is unacceptable, then I happen to agree, but for different reasons entirely. Baseball players don't deserve to be making any more than $1-1.5M per year. It's just not warranted. If that's your logic, then I happen to agree. BUT, I don't think that's your logic.

The Milwaukee Brewers are screwing their fans over by taking their money, and using it as toilet paper. Come on! Highest revenue in the majors! HIGHER THAN THE SPANKEES! Yet their payroll is 1/5 the Yankees payroll. That's called falling through on your end of the deal. The fans did their job, the Brewers' management isn't doing theirs. Plain and simple.

You obviously have beef with Hal.

Dadawg_77
11-17-2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
Last time I checked, I wasn't Hal, but I haven't checked in a long time. :cool:

A few things to be pointed out, which have been said already.

a) The Brewers had the highest revenue of any team in the majors in 2002 (All Star year, yes, but still).

b) They are playing in a ballpark built by taxpayers' money. They owe it to the fans to put a good product on the field.

c) If the comissioner of the MLB is one of the co-owners of a club, then that club should be doing pretty well.


crector, if you think that a $30M payroll is unacceptable, then I happen to agree, but for different reasons entirely. Baseball players don't deserve to be making any more than $1-1.5M per year. It's just not warranted. If that's your logic, then I happen to agree. BUT, I don't think that's your logic.

The Milwaukee Brewers are screwing their fans over by taking their money, and using it as toilet paper. Come on! Highest revenue in the majors! HIGHER THAN THE SPANKEES! Yet their payroll is 1/5 the Yankees payroll. That's called falling through on your end of the deal. The fans did their job, the Brewers' management isn't doing theirs. Plain and simple.

You obviously have beef with Hal.

They had the highest profit under MLB accounting. Revenue sharing was a major part of the profit.

guillen4life13
11-17-2003, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
MLB accounting

Please explain what you mean.

TornLabrum
11-17-2003, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by crector
Mr. Vickery:


If you are so rich that you can call a $30 Mil. payroll for the Milwaukee Brewers, "measly," then why don't you pony up the money to buy the team? The same question goes for the rest of you who talk about millions of dollars as if it were just so much pocket change.

I am Hal, and I have only one thing to say regarding crector's post:

:troll

MarkEdward
11-17-2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
Please explain what you mean.

In short, many tend to believe that Major League Baseball's accounting practices aren't always, well, honest. For instance, in 2002, MLB claimed the Dodgers lost something like $70 million in 2002, despite playing in one of the largest US markets *and* drawing over three million people to the park.

Daver and Dawg can go into this much deeper, but I hope you get the gist of it. It's shenanigans, more or less.

Daver
11-17-2003, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by crector
Mr. Vickery:


If you are so rich that you can call a $30 Mil. payroll for the Milwaukee Brewers, "measly," then why don't you pony up the money to buy the team? The same question goes for the rest of you who talk about millions of dollars as if it were just so much pocket change.

I have exactly one thing to say to this thread,if you want to question Hal about his column do it via the e-mail link provided at the bottom of his column,to do it here is trolling,nothing more and nothing less.

I kill trolls,and I do it well.Perhaps you should consider going back to the MLB boards,they turn a blind eye to this type of thing,it doesn't work that way here.

Dadawg_77
11-17-2003, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
Please explain what you mean.

Accounting isn't cut and dried as many believe it is. You can play, legally and ethically, with the numbers to paint a pitcher you want to show. Most companies have multiple sets of books, one for SEC statements and one for the tax man, and even another for internal review. Since baseball teams are not publicly owned their numbers are private. What they publish to the public doesn't really mean anything since they could not be audited to the standards of a public company. Even that means little.

One thing to remember is books are disclosed to the union. The first time MLB did so, they forgot to have the union sign a non discloser agreement. Naturally the books hit the press and directly conflicted what MLB was preaching. The owners have purposely mislead the public before so they are not the most trust worthy when they cry poor. Everyone who owns a major league team was successful in another business. To believe some of what MLB says, we are to believe that these guys became business morons the minute the purchase of the team closed.

guillen4life13
11-17-2003, 10:46 PM
I think I understand now. Thanks Dawg

crector
11-18-2003, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by Daver
I have exactly one thing to say to this thread,if you want to question Hal about his column do it via the e-mail link provided at the bottom of his column,to do it here is trolling,nothing more and nothing less.

I kill trolls,and I do it well.Perhaps you should consider going back to the MLB boards,they turn a blind eye to this type of thing,it doesn't work that way here.

If you were to point your browser to: http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2381
and scroll down, you will find the following:

Have a Thought about
Maggs a Goner?

You Can Put it on the Board -- Yes!

Well, that's what I was doing. I put down a question for the author of the piece concerning a statement that he made in his article. Considering that it says that you can do so on the WSI website, I don't see how that can be considered as being "trolling" at all.

Please clarify this for both myself and others who were also under the impression that the articles and statements made in those articles were suitable topics for discussion here on the WSI Forum.

ewokpelts
11-18-2003, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by crector
If you were to point your browser to: http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2381
and scroll down, you will find the following:

Have a Thought about
Maggs a Goner?

You Can Put it on the Board -- Yes!

Well, that's what I was doing. I put down a question for the author of the piece concerning a statement that he made in his article. Considering that it says that you can do so on the WSI website, I don't see how that can be considered as being "trolling" at all.

Please clarify this for both myself and others who were also under the impression that the articles and statements made in those articles were suitable topics for discussion here on the WSI Forum.


Well......you CAN comment on the article...but you're asking a stoopid question. None of us have 150 million to buy the brewers. And if we did, we're not stoopid. Hal's voicing his disgust with Selig for ripping off the milwaukee fans. 30 million for a team that made more money than the yankees in 2001/2002 is absurd. If i had that kind of money i'd shoot myself before buying the brewers.
Gene

p.s. It seems that your comments are inflamatory in nature, and you have a grudge against Hal. Like my grandma used to say: "if you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing at all"

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2003, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by crector
....Well, that's what I was doing. I put down a question for the author of the piece concerning a statement that he made in his article. Considering that it says that you can do so on the WSI website, I don't see how that can be considered as being "trolling" at all.

Please clarify this for both myself and others who were also under the impression that the articles and statements made in those articles were suitable topics for discussion here on the WSI Forum.

Your essential point in starting this thread is quite simple. Anybody who doesn't have $30 million to spend on a baseball team's payroll should not be criticitizing Bud Selig. It's a ridiculous point of view and you've been skewered numerous times in this thread because everyone can read it and see how stupid your point is.

Believe me, you would have been far better off sending an email. The embarrassing nature of your rant would have remained private. Too late now.

PaulDrake
11-18-2003, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Accounting isn't cut and dried as many believe it is. You can play, legally and ethically, with the numbers to paint a pitcher you want to show. Most companies have multiple sets of books, one for SEC statements and one for the tax man, and even another for internal review. Since baseball teams are not publicly owned their numbers are private. What they publish to the public doesn't really mean anything since they could not be audited to the standards of a public company. Even that means little.

One thing to remember is books are disclosed to the union. The first time MLB did so, they forgot to have the union sign a non discloser agreement. Naturally the books hit the press and directly conflicted what MLB was preaching. The owners have purposely mislead the public before so they are not the most trust worthy when they cry poor. Everyone who owns a major league team was successful in another business. To believe some of what MLB says, we are to believe that these guys became business morons the minute the purchase of the team closed. For whatever it's worth you get an A+ from me on this post. Wouldn't we all like to see the true profit/loss margins of all the teams? Especially the White Sox.

thepaulbowski
11-18-2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
Like my grandma used to say: "if you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing at all"

If that rule was in place here, would anybody post? :D:

ewokpelts
11-18-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
If that rule was in place here, would anybody post? :D:

yeah...u got me there....but i was really referring to crector's flaming....you can be critical without being insulting
Gene

Dan H
11-18-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by crector
If you were to point your browser to: http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2381
and scroll down, you will find the following:

Have a Thought about
Maggs a Goner?

You Can Put it on the Board -- Yes!

Well, that's what I was doing. I put down a question for the author of the piece concerning a statement that he made in his article. Considering that it says that you can do so on the WSI website, I don't see how that can be considered as being "trolling" at all.

Please clarify this for both myself and others who were also under the impression that the articles and statements made in those articles were suitable topics for discussion here on the WSI Forum.

Your post was ill advised, but you had every right to make it. This was not trolling whatever trolling is. I don't think anyone should be discouraged from responding to a column on the message board. I thought that was a purpose of WSI. As far as embarassing yourself, I've seen others do a hell of lot worse.

Brian26
11-18-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Dan H
Your post was ill advised, but you had every right to make it. This was not trolling whatever trolling is.

It was ill-advised, and it was subtle trolling. He knows Hal doesn't have 30 million, so it was an obvious attempt to start an argument. None of us are baseball players or millionaires, but we all have the right to criticize our team and its management.

And just to join in the fun... I'm not Hal either. Nor am I the Green Lantern of sector 2814.

34 Inch Stick
11-19-2003, 09:34 AM
While I think discussion about submitted articles should be encouraged (if you are the author wouldn't you want some discussion), it should be presented in a much more respectful manner. Unlike a simple post, an article takes significant time to create. The author is expending his time and energy in presenting something to this board with no hope of remunerative return. At the very least the effort demands respectful replies regadless of disagreement with the assertion.