PDA

View Full Version : Has anybody heard


LongDistanceFan
10-04-2001, 06:07 PM
that the mlb owners and the union is talking about canceling the labor talks until next yr....... i heard that from a msg board from another site............ has anybody heard anything of this?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-04-2001, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
that the mlb owners and the union is talking about canceling the labor talks until next yr....... i heard that from a msg board from another site............ has anybody heard anything of this?

They would be idiots to do anything but extend the current labor contract. Of course they are idiots, so who's to say what they will do.

LongDistanceFan
10-04-2001, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


They would be idiots to do anything but extend the current labor contract. Of course they are idiots, so who's to say what they will do. can you imagine if there was a strike. With what happen on sept 11, a baseball strike b/c of money pales to the situation that we are in. i think the players and owners will get the biggest black eye ever.

LongDistanceFan
10-04-2001, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
can you imagine if there was a strike. With what happen on sept 11, a baseball strike b/c of money pales to the situation that we are in. i think the players and owners will get the biggest black eye ever. after gnawing on it for a while, i can to the conclusion that it would be great if the players did strike, with the way the salary is escalating, something needs to stop this.

Daver
10-04-2001, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


They would be idiots to do anything but extend the current labor contract. Of course they are idiots, so who's to say what they will do.

Something was mentioned on one of the Sunday morning talk shows about the fact that they were planning on doing this 2 months ago,but the issue at the time was not being able to make some changes that would require the agreement of the MLB Players Assoc.,which will agree to nothing till they have a new deal.

oldcomiskey
10-04-2001, 06:41 PM
which is more ridiculous though--Frank and maggs and Boomer making the money or fat ass JR raking it all in--the owners are not broke as what they lead you to believe or they wouldve already opened the books

LongDistanceFan
10-04-2001, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
which is more ridiculous though--Frank and maggs and Boomer making the money or fat ass JR raking it all in--the owners are not broke as what they lead you to believe or they wouldve already opened the books and what is whorerod making, i am saying eventually the people are going to get priced out from going to the park and watch a game live instead, if we are lucky on tv. doesn't anybody see this?

oldcomiskey
10-04-2001, 07:04 PM
there all exeptions--this is one---if the stRangers are going to wreck the franchise like that --let them---personally if I lived in Chicago--I would attend every game I could

RichieRichAllen
10-04-2001, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
and what is whorerod making, i am saying eventually the people are going to get priced out from going to the park and watch a game live instead, if we are lucky on tv. doesn't anybody see this?

This is the age old quandry. Should the money go to the owners pockets or the players?

Playing the devil's advocate, do you think if players salaries leveled, we'd see a leveling in the cost of seats/concessions/etc.? Or even, god forbid, a reduction? From where I'm sitting, I doubt it. If anything, additional monies in the owners pockets would wind up just there....in their collective pockets. Either that or pay for more sky boxes or other ademnities for the baseball elitists.

Sorry, but I've always felt that if an owner is willing to pay, I don't blame the players one bit. As a matter-of-fact, it's the owners bed, let them lie in it. If we really want to see prices come down, people need to stop showing up at the ballpark.

LongDistanceFan
10-04-2001, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by RichieRichAllen


This is the age old quandry. Should the money go to the owners pockets or the players?

Playing the devil's advocate, do you think if players salaries leveled, we'd see a leveling in the cost of seats/concessions/etc.? Or even, god forbid, a reduction? From where I'm sitting, I doubt it. If anything, additional monies in the owners pockets would wind up just there....in their collective pockets. Either that or pay for more sky boxes or other ademnities for the baseball elitists.

Sorry, but I've always felt that if an owner is willing to pay, I don't blame the players one bit. As a matter-of-fact, it's the owners bed, let them lie in it. If we really want to see prices come down, people need to stop showing up at the ballpark. devils advocate aside, its a catch 22 situation, i just saw the prices go up with the salary increases.......... who is to know the whole truth of the salary.

LongDistanceFan
10-04-2001, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by RichieRichAllen

If we really want to see prices come down, people need to stop showing up at the ballpark. in addition, if we stop going, it will the owners leveraged to move the club, i would hate to convert to being a ssCrubs fan.

ps, i hate the fact of a player getting paid what, what is whorerod making.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-04-2001, 07:53 PM
There is absolutely no economic correlation tying increased salary costs to the price of tickets. The owners would be fools not to charge anything less than whatever price maximizes their revenue.

High salaries have been used as an excuse by the owners for why they must charge more for tickets. Many fans believe it. Any excuse is sufficient, as long as the fans believe it. The owners would invent another excuse if payroll costs weren't so effective.

The salary excuse has worked very well for both owners and players. Salary inflation has accelerated nearly every year since 1975. They are both getting rich off of it.

If fans stop going to games, revenue falls. We (collectively) control our own destiny.

LongDistanceFan
10-04-2001, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
There is absolutely no economic correlation tying increased salary costs to the price of tickets. The owners would be fools not to charge anything less than whatever price maximizes their revenue.

High salaries have been used as an excuse by the owners for why they must charge more for tickets. Many fans believe it. Any excuse is sufficient, as long as the fans believe it. The owners would invent another excuse if payroll costs weren't so effective.

The salary excuse has worked very well for both owners and players. Salary inflation has accelerated nearly every year since 1975. They are both getting rich off of it.

If fans stop going to games, revenue falls. We (collectively) control our own destiny. very good, and your arguments are sound....... but if we do stop going, the owner will likely move the team or are you saying the fans as a collective whole?

Daver
10-04-2001, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
There is absolutely no economic correlation tying increased salary costs to the price of tickets. The owners would be fools not to charge anything less than whatever price maximizes their revenue.

High salaries have been used as an excuse by the owners for why they must charge more for tickets. Many fans believe it. Any excuse is sufficient, as long as the fans believe it. The owners would invent another excuse if payroll costs weren't so effective.

The salary excuse has worked very well for both owners and players. Salary inflation has accelerated nearly every year since 1975. They are both getting rich off of it.

If fans stop going to games, revenue falls. We (collectively) control our own destiny.

The part of the argument that is not coming up,and the small market teams are mainly concerned with,is revenue sharing.George Steinbrenner makes millions above and beyond what every other team in MLB does in TV rights alone,and therefore can take his payroll to the outer limits without affecting his bottom line,whereas the Expo's games are not even televised.
The small market teams would like to see an arrangement similar to what the NFL has,where EVERYTHING is paid into a fund and doled out equally to each team,thereby leveling the economic playing feild so to speak.The players Assoc. is not in favor of that for fear it will take their bargaining leverage away from them,which in a way it will.I see no end to this mess,which was started by the owners that now have to try and fix it.

But then again what the hell do I know?

Paulwny
10-04-2001, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by daver


.I see no end to this mess,which was started by the owners that now have to try and fix it.



I always wonder how the owners ever became successful in their other businesses, they don't seem to understand baseball.

Daver
10-04-2001, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


I always wonder how the owners ever became successful in their other businesses, they don't seem to understand baseball.

Most of them are successful businessmen BEFORE they buy baseball teams.

LongDistanceFan
10-04-2001, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by daver


The part of the argument that is not coming up,and the small market teams are mainly concerned with,is revenue sharing.George Steinbrenner makes millions above and beyond what every other team in MLB does in TV rights alone,and therefore can take his payroll to the outer limits without affecting his bottom line,whereas the Expo's games are not even televised.
The small market teams would like to see an arrangement similar to what the NFL has,where EVERYTHING is paid into a fund and doled out equally to each team,thereby leveling the economic playing feild so to speak.The players Assoc. is not in favor of that for fear it will take their bargaining leverage away from them,which in a way it will.I see no end to this mess,which was started by the owners that now have to try and fix it.

But then again what the hell do I know? is this the same person who only post 1 sentence at a time............ :)

great post.

Paulwny
10-04-2001, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by daver


Most of them are successful businessmen BEFORE they buy baseball teams.

Ergo: buying a baseball team turns one into a stupid person. I still don't understand how you can successfully run a corporation and yet be so stupid in baseball dealings.

Daver
10-04-2001, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


Ergo: buying a baseball team turns one into a stupid person. I still don't understand how you can successfully run a corporation and yet be so stupid in baseball dealings.

They aren't stupid,for the most part the owners make tons of money off their teams,just in the apparell market alone.The minority of owner's are losing their ass,hence their hope for a collective bargaing agreement.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-04-2001, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
very good, and your arguments are sound....... but if we do stop going, the owner will likely move the team or are you saying the fans as a collective whole?

Yes I'm referring to fans as a whole, because that's the only way to view the market. There are 30 teams in baseball. To hear the owners tell it, only 10 markets support their teams well enough for them to earn a profit.

Yes, any market that doesn't support their team will be threatened with a franchise relocation. To the extent another market has resources to make a new home for a team, the threat must be taken seriously. I never said this wouldn't be painful.

:)

But consider this point...

MLB is not like the NFL where all the teams share equally in the TV revenue. (I'm talking national money where the NFL derives nearly all its income). Instead, each baseball team derives most of its income from local TV and gate receipts. As the owners themselves have told the rest of us a thousand times, the small markets can't compete with the big markets bacause the local revenue isn't there to compete with the NY Yankees.

Thus an MLB owner's threats to move are far more hollow than an NFL owner's. There is no way a baseball team could survive in Green Bay, but the Packers do just fine there because they share equally at the NFL's revenue trough alongside the NY Giants.

Why don't the MLB owners want to share revenue? Probably because they still think they've got a shot at breaking the players union. To their way of thinking, eliminate the union and all their troubles are solved.

This has been their strategy for over 30 years now and it hasn't worked yet. The MLB owners are nothing if not stubborn. (Stupid, too).

:)

Paulwny
10-04-2001, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by daver


George Steinbrenner makes millions above and beyond what every other team in MLB does in TV rights alone,

I heard that Steinbrenner has said he would share some of his revenue with small market teams if there's a guarantee that the owners would add this money to their existing player payroll and not pocket the money. So far, no reply from the small market owners.

LongDistanceFan
10-04-2001, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Yes I'm referring to fans as a whole, because that's the only way to view the market. There are 30 teams in baseball. To hear the owners tell it, only 10 markets support their teams well enough for them to earn a profit.

Yes, any market that doesn't support their team will be threatened with a franchise relocation. To the extent another market has resources to make a new home for a team, the threat must be taken seriously. I never said this wouldn't be painful.

:)

But consider this point...

MLB is not like the NFL where all the teams share equally in the TV revenue. (I'm talking national money where the NFL derives nearly all its income). Instead, each baseball team derives most of its income from local TV and gate receipts. As the owners themselves have told the rest of us a thousand times, the small markets can't compete with the big markets bacause the local revenue isn't there to compete with the NY Yankees.

Thus an MLB owner's threats to move are far more hollow than an NFL owner's. There is no way a baseball team could survive in Green Bay, but the Packers do just fine there because they share equally at the NFL's revenue trough alongside the NY Giants.

Why don't the MLB owners want to share revenue? Probably because they still think they've got a shot at breaking the players union. To their way of thinking, eliminate the union and all their troubles are solved.

This has been their strategy for over 30 years now and it hasn't worked yet. The MLB owners are nothing if not stubborn. (Stupid, too).

:) GREAT POST!, well thought out, so going back, the owners should have something similar to what the nfl has.... right. I agree with this logic........ plain and simple.

Daver
10-04-2001, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


I heard that Steinbrenner has said he would share some of his revenue with small market teams if there's a guarantee that the owners would add this money to their existing player payroll and not pocket the money. So far, no reply from the small market owners.

I have never heard that,and I doubt it if it was said,George was as much responsible for the last lockout as Reinsdorf was.

Here is what George spends his excess money on

http://www.nhra.com/2001/gallery/tf/Mike_Dunn.jpg

LongDistanceFan
10-04-2001, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by daver


what would you do if you had his money problems.. nice car.

Paulwny
10-04-2001, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by daver


They aren't stupid,for the most part the owners make tons of money off their teams,just in the apparell market alone.The minority of owner's are losing their ass,hence their hope for a collective bargaing agreement.

Agreed, but their dealings with the players union are laughable.

Paulwny
10-04-2001, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by daver


I have never heard that,and I doubt it if it was said,George was as much responsible for the last lockout as Reinsdorf was.

Here is what George spends his excess money on

http://www.nhra.com/2001/gallery/tf/Mike_Dunn.jpg

They all do it. Ralph Wilson owner of the Buff. Bills owner a stable of race horses payed and supported by Bill's Enterprises. Think of the money they would make if they new how to deal with the player's union.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-04-2001, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
GREAT POST!, well thought out, so going back, the owners should have something similar to what the nfl has.... right. I agree with this logic........ plain and simple.


If the owners are truly interested in balancing the competitive playing field, the best way to do it is share revenue the way the NFL does. However, unlike the NFL, they must share their local TV money in addition to the national money. MLB's national TV revenue is a pittance compared to the local money. Revenue-sharing won't work without local money tossed in.

Please note that the owners DO NOT need approval of the MLBPA to institute revenue sharing. This is not an issue for the collective bargaining agreement UNLESS the owners try to tie revenue-sharing to how the players are compensated (such as a payroll tax). This is precisely what the owners have been trying to do.

Thus the MLBPA is skeptical of the MLB owners' motives for talking revenue-sharing. Nothing is stopping the owners from doing it amongst themselves, yet they only support the concept if the players' salaries are affected.

So basically the owners' position is "we support revenue-sharing as long as the revenue comes out of the players' salaries." Naturally the MLBPA won't go along, and that's where 30 years of labor strife repeatedly occurs.

Daver
10-04-2001, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


They all do it. Ralph Wilson owner of the Buff. Bills owner a stable of race horses payed and supported by Bill's Enterprises. Think of the money they would make if they new how to deal with the player's union.

Actually there is a lot of money to be made in owning racehorses,I thought it was a hobby myself till I worked at Hawthorne racetrack in Cicero for 4 months and talked to some of the horse owners.I'm not saying they are all making money,but there is more money in it then I would have thought.

Paulwny
10-04-2001, 08:59 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by daver


Actually there is a lot of money to be made in owning racehorses,I thought it was a hobby myself till I worked at Hawthorne racetrack in Cicero for 4 months and talked to some of the horse owners.I'm not saying they are all making money,but there is more money in it then I would have thought. [/QUOTE

In Winning or tax loop holes?

Daver
10-04-2001, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
[QUOTE]Originally posted by daver


Actually there is a lot of money to be made in owning racehorses,I thought it was a hobby myself till I worked at Hawthorne racetrack in Cicero for 4 months and talked to some of the horse owners.I'm not saying they are all making money,but there is more money in it then I would have thought. [/QUOTE

In Winning or tax loop holes?

The guys I talked to did nothing else but raise and maintain racehorses,so I wouldn't know about the tax end of it,I do know that the horse owners get paid just to have their horse on the track,whether they win or sniff other horses butts all the way around the track.

Daver
10-04-2001, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



If the owners are truly interested in balancing the competitive playing field, the best way to do it is share revenue the way the NFL does. However, unlike the NFL, they must share their local TV money in addition to the national money. MLB's national TV revenue is a pittance compared to the local money. Revenue-sharing won't work without local money tossed in.

Please note that the owners DO NOT need approval of the MLBPA to institute revenue sharing. This is not an issue for the collective bargaining agreement UNLESS the owners try to tie revenue-sharing to how the players are compensated (such as a payroll tax). This is precisely what the owners have been trying to do.

Thus the MLBPA is skeptical of the MLB owners' motives for talking revenue-sharing. Nothing is stopping the owners from doing it amongst themselves, yet they only support the concept if the players' salaries are affected.

So basically the owners' position is "we support revenue-sharing as long as the revenue comes out of the players' salaries." Naturally the MLBPA won't go along, and that's where 30 years of labor strife repeatedly occurs.

Very good point PHG.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-04-2001, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny

I heard that Steinbrenner has said he would share some of his revenue with small market teams if there's a guarantee that the owners would add this money to their existing player payroll and not pocket the money. So far, no reply from the small market owners.


This is a great point. It really cuts to the core of why collectivism has its flaws, too. If Steinbrenner sends $10 million to his counterpart in Minnesota, the Twins aren't even one iota a more competitive team if Pohlad simply sticks the money in his pocket. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent Pohlad from doing just that.

Look at the NFL. You have guys like Bidwell in Arizona, and McCaskey in Chicago who don't do a thing to field a more competitive team, but can rake in the profits equally with any other team in the league.

Revenue-sharing by definition is anti-competitive. The only way to fix this phenomenon is to create disincentives for not spending more money--a minimum payroll tax, for example. Still, if K.C. or Minnesota don't spend the money wisely, they're still crappy teams. There is no substitute for brains; not even money can make up the difference.

Personally, I support revenue sharing amongst the owners. However I can see the flip-side of the argument, too.

LongDistanceFan
10-04-2001, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



This is a great point. It really cuts to the core of why collectivism has its flaws, too. If Steinbrenner sends $10 million to his counterpart in Minnesota, the Twins aren't even one iota a more competitive team if Pohlad simply sticks the money in his pocket. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent Pohlad from doing just that.

Look at the NFL. You have guys like Bidwell in Arizona, and McCaskey in Chicago who don't do a thing to field a more competitive team, but can rake in the profits equally with any other team in the league.

Revenue-sharing by definition is anti-competitive. The only way to fix this phenomenon is to create disincentives for not spending more money--a minimum payroll tax, for example. Still, if K.C. or Minnesota don't spend the money wisely, they're still crappy teams. There is no substitute for brains; not even money can make up the difference.

Personally, I support revenue sharing amongst the owners. However I can see the flip-side of the argument, too. and there-in lies your flaw to revenue sharing

CLR01
10-05-2001, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by RichieRichAllen
Sorry, but I've always felt that if an owner is willing to pay, I don't blame the players one bit. As a matter-of-fact, it's the owners bed, let them lie in it. If we really want to see prices come down, people need to stop showing up at the ballpark.


I agree and disagree, while i do agree that if an owner is willing to pay then the player should shoot for the moon (ie. arod, hicks was stupid enough to drop a $25 million a year contract on his lap so crongrats to him for breaking the bank. But i still feel he is overpaid). However the players going on strike because they don't make enough is BS. Remember there wouldn't be the threat of a strike if the owners were willing to pay. I don't care how much the owners are making, the fact is they are they own the team, so any profits they make is theirs to keep. They are the ones who take all the "risks" that comes with owning the team, not the players. If something were to happen and the team was losing money it would be the owner losing it, the players would still be getting paid. The players union could easily be broken. If the players want to strike, fine let them. After a while the majority of the players will realize that the money they made does not go as far as they thought it would. Let them see what it is like to work a 9-5 job and not a very good one either, most of them never attended college and just coasted through high school. Let them now what it is like to have a $50,000 property tax due, insurance for 3 cars one of them most likey an exotic with a nice premium, another property tax due for the house they bought their parents with no income coming in. Let them take care of their kids, pay their usual monthly bills, travel like they normally do, spend a couple of days a week playing golf on world class courses, feed their wifes hunger to shop, again with no income coming in. In a couple of years the non-superstar players will cross the line and pressure everyone else to do the same. Only problem with this is the owners dont have the balls to do it. For anyone who thinks the owners are wrong and they should pay up, go buy a buisness or start your own and in a couple of months or years come back and tell me with a straight face that you still think the players dont make enough.