PDA

View Full Version : Baseball needs an enema.....


PavanoBeltran'05
10-10-2004, 11:17 PM
The teams that spend the most money win. They fill the stands because they spent the most money and it feeds itself.

If there was a salary cap in baseball, all teams would have an equal shot, based on their GM's ability.

The Sox would have a chance to do something, as would all the other teams.

I am so tired of seeing the Red Sox and Yankees in the ALCS, and that could all be changed if they couldn't just throw more money around than everyone else.
I want the Chicago White Sox on equal ground with the Royals, Tigers, A's, and Yankees.

The NFL is king because of this fact.
I'm tired of this crap.

npdempse
10-10-2004, 11:23 PM
If this is the case, then baseball has needed an enema since day 1.

Lip Man 1
10-10-2004, 11:42 PM
Pavano says: "The teams that spend the most money win."

No offense but 'duh!'

Welcome to free market economics Pavano. If certain owners can not or aren't willing to try to compete with the 'big boys,' then sell to someone who will. Last I looked there was nothing in the Constitution that said that Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Milwaukee or Montreal / Washington 'deserved' a team. MLB has congressional protection. They can move franchises at will if they choose.

As far as the salary cap in the NFL, ask football fans in Dallas, Minnesota and San Francisco how much they liked it when they saw good teams destroyed by it. Ask the fans if they like seeing good productive players cut loose because 'they make to much money...' One such example was Phil Simms. There are hundreds of others.

A salary cap is another word for 'stupidity protection.' Instead of dumbing down baseball and penalizing teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers, Braves etc that spend money and actually try to win, baseball should be penalizing those teams that DON'T spend the money claiming they 'can't compete.' What BS.

Lip

Dub25
10-10-2004, 11:47 PM
The last 2 champs did not spend the most money.

SomebodyToldMe
10-10-2004, 11:50 PM
Instead of dumbing down baseball and penalizing teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers, Braves etc that spend money and actually try to win, baseball should be penalizing those teams that DON'T spend the money claiming they 'can't compete.' What BS.

GREAT quote!

:gulp:

fquaye149
10-11-2004, 01:09 AM
i'm sick and tired of people crying about the yankees and how they spend money. These armchair owners act as though each win costs a certain amount of dollars.

Ask the Mets, Dodgers, and Cubs how being among the top payroll teams in baseball has panned out as far as making it to the playoffs or past the first round. Ask the Angels if upping their payroll this offseason helped them win a playoff series.

Don't get me wrong - spending is crucial, but I don't hear anyone crying about the Mets and their 120 million dollar payroll. Do you hear any Twins fans saying, "If only we were the Mets . . . ."

They key is timely and smart spending. That's what JR doesn't understand. If he'd open his pockets at the right time (for instance: halfway through last season to dump MANUEL) then we would be a much better team. But as if you can buy wins? NO. The Yankees have the monetary power to potentially assemble a stellar team, but Cashman had to actually go out and make good personnel decisions, and he hasn't always done that (Jeff Weaver, Jose Contreras, Loaiza, etc.)

Cry me a river about it being unfair. The NFL is boring with all its parity and player turnover. watch golf if you want to see perfection as far as this issue is concerned.

SomebodyToldMe
10-11-2004, 01:11 AM
watch golf....
Hey now. Don't say anything you might regret.

There's no need to say such crazy things.

Lip Man 1
10-11-2004, 01:50 AM
Pavano:

Here's three example to help educate you. I know that Daver who keeps a closer eye on this then I do can supply others.

1. In the winter of 2003 Carl Linder the owner of the Reds did an extensive interview with both the Cincinnati Post and Cincinnati Inquirer, he was asked about the Reds payroll for 2003. Linder said he ordered G.M. Jim Bowden to cut the payroll even though the new Great American Ballpark was opening. When asked why (to his credit) he told the truth, because with the number of fans pouring in the Reds wouldn't be getting revenue sharing money!

2. Davis Glass owner of the 'small market' Royals is the heir to the Wal Mart fortune. He is one of the richest men in America according to Forbes Business Magazine. Yet with all that money the Royals are a bottom feeder and he is a labor 'hawk,' having rebuffed ALL attempts to unionize Wal Mart stores and tried to break the MLBPA in the 1994 labor impasse.

3. Carl Pohland owner of the three time Central Division champion Twins another 'small market' franchise is one of the one hundred richest men in the world, worth over two billion dollars. He was again on the list of the richest 500 people in the world according to Forbes Business Magazine. (The story came out two weeks ago). Yet he had the gall to want to contract the franchise for a 180 million dollar buyout from MLB because the people of Minnesota won't build him a stadium with taxpayer money. Awwww my heart bleeds for him and his family. He could build a new 500 million dollar stadium himself with his pocket change.

If you learn nothing else from these facts learn this. Owners got to the position they are in because they are shrewd, brilliant business men. If they were going broke, losing reams of cash and jeopardizing their businesses they would have sold out long time ago.

I wouldn't trust any baseball owner as far as I could throw them. Salary cap my ass.

Lip

FarWestChicago
10-11-2004, 03:06 AM
3. Carl Pohland owner of the three time Central Division champion Twins another 'small market' franchise is one of the one hundred richest men in the world, worth over two billion dollars. He was again on the list of the richest 500 people in the world according to Forbes Business Magazine. (The story came out two weeks ago). Yet he had the gall to want to contract the franchise for a 180 million dollar buyout from MLB because the people of Minnesota won't build him a stadium with taxpayer money. Awwww my heart bleeds for him and his family. He could build a new 500 million dollar stadium himself with his pocket change.I'm guessing math was not your strong suit in school, Lip. $500 million would be 25% of his net worth. And let's not forget net worth is hardly disposable cash. There's always a lot of asset ownership involved. "Pocket change", LOL!!! http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

mdep524
10-11-2004, 12:32 PM
Rick Morrissey had a good column on this Yankee$ subject today:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-041010morrissey,1,4178569.column?coll=cs-home-utility
(for those Trib registered)


Welcome to free market economics Pavano. If certain owners can not or aren't willing to try to compete with the 'big boys,' then sell to someone who will. Last I looked there was nothing in the Constitution that said that Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Milwaukee or Montreal / Washington 'deserved' a team. MLB has congressional protection. They can move franchises at will if they choose.
I agree with you up to a certain point on this issue, Lip. Yes, I think owners who cry "poor" or "unfair!" don't deserve all that much sympathy- they are millionaires, and they knew what they were getting into when they signed on. If they really can't take it, then get out of professional baseball, period.

But... at the same time, at the most basic level, professional baseball is a game, and a game that requires competition to be a successful business. If there were no competitive balance in MLB, what kind of league would you have- it would be like the Harlem Globetrotters. Yes, baseball is a business, but it is a business with different requirements than, say, the energy industry.

Pro sports needs something more than other industries because there is no real "need" of society for sports. Pro sports needs a.) the interest of fans and b.) some level of competitive balance. If consumers weren't "interested" in energy, that would not negate society's need for power plants. If one power source far and away dominated all the others economically and performance-wise, consumer in the market would happily buy from that company.

So to keep baseball as the national pastime, there has to be some effort made to maintain a competitive balance between teams- more of an effort than saying "Last I looked there was nothing in the Constitution that said that Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Milwaukee or Montreal / Washington 'deserved' a team." It's OK for the Yankees to have the biggest payroll in baseball, but just not by the margin it is.

Lip Man 1
10-11-2004, 12:42 PM
West:

Forgive me grand high exaulted mystic ruler.

The point is, a man who is one of the richest men on the planet shouldn't have the gall to ask the state of Minnesota to build a stadium for him.

That was the point of my statement about 'pocket change.'

Lip

Lip Man 1
10-11-2004, 12:49 PM
Mdep:

And I agree with you to a certain extent which is why I suggested that owners who can't cut it get out. Cities that can't support a team are out.

Baseball has far too many teams as is, cutting six or eight, bringing the sport back to say 20-24 teams can only make the existing clubs stronger because they'll be getting more talent. One would think that the teams that are left will be able to survive.

Baseball is a business (it used to be a sport but no longer...) and from what I've been told in business only the strong survive.

Remember the MLBPA agreed to end any claims on contraction once the current CBA expires in 2006. It will be very interesting if the owners go through with their 'threats' to contract 2-4 clubs. (Personally I don't think they will... that position was pure postering for the CBA that was being
negotiated but we'll see...)

Also I find it funny that many of the owners who do the most crying about 'poor' or 'unfair' are getting revenue sharing money (We hear you Bud!!!) What are they doing with that money? Answer: sticking it right in their own pockets laughing all the way to the bank while there teams are STILL garbage...and those owners should be subsidized for 'the good of the sport?'

:?:

Lip

gosox41
10-11-2004, 01:17 PM
The teams that spend the most money win. They fill the stands because they spent the most money and it feeds itself.

If there was a salary cap in baseball, all teams would have an equal shot, based on their GM's ability.

The Sox would have a chance to do something, as would all the other teams.

I am so tired of seeing the Red Sox and Yankees in the ALCS, and that could all be changed if they couldn't just throw more money around than everyone else.
I want the Chicago White Sox on equal ground with the Royals, Tigers, A's, and Yankees.

The NFL is king because of this fact.
I'm tired of this crap.
KW has shown that if he spends more then then Twins 3 years in a row he can still finish behing them.


Bob

gosox41
10-11-2004, 01:18 PM
Mdep:


Baseball is a business (it used to be a sport but no longer...) and from what I've been told in business only the strong survive.

Lip

Professional baseball has always been a business.

Baseball used to be for fun when we were too young to know the difference.


Bob

Flight #24
10-11-2004, 01:56 PM
West:

Forgive me grand high exaulted mystic ruler.

The point is, a man who is one of the richest men on the planet shouldn't have the gall to ask the state of Minnesota to build a stadium for him.

That was the point of my statement about 'pocket change.'

Lip
It's interesting, Lip that one one hand you say owners should be able to move teams, and on the other you slam owners for trying to get the best deal they can from their states.

If Carl Pohlad (or any other owner) can get a deal that provides a better resource base for the Twins to draw upon somewhere else, then he's a fool not to at leats try and get Minnesota to match it.

And there's NO obligation that an owner has, be they rich or poor to subsidize a team.

mdep524
10-11-2004, 01:58 PM
Also I find it funny that many of the owners who do the most crying about 'poor' or 'unfair' are getting revenue sharing money (We hear you Bud!!!) What are they doing with that money? Answer: sticking it right in their own pockets laughing all the way to the bank while there teams are STILL garbage...and those owners should be subsidized for 'the good of the sport?'
Agree with you 100% here, Lip. It's ridiculous.

ma-gaga
10-11-2004, 02:30 PM
If Carl Pohlad (or any other owner) can get a deal that provides a better resource base for the Twins to draw upon somewhere else, then he's a fool not to at leats try and get Minnesota to match it.

And there's NO obligation that an owner has, be they rich or poor to subsidize a team.That is the problem that the baseball owners have. Teams that have moved into new stadiums in the last 10 years have MOSTLY been by public financing. The public dollars have dried up around the country. But owners aren't willing to concede that.

Minnesota is NEVER going to give Carl Pohlad a new stadium, and we might lose the team because of that. Portland or Washington DC isn't ever really going to give the Expos a nice stadium either. They are going to play in a refurbished JFK and beg for a new stadium every day for the next 5 years. Instead of trying to work with the changing public values, baseball owners insist to do as much as possible to try and blackmail their customers to squeeze out every last penny. Now if Carl Pohlad sells the team, the Twins have a shot at a new stadium. I love my team, but I abhor giving money to this ghoul.

My real hope is that Carl passes away quietly in the next 2 years and bequeathes $400MM towards a new stadium, MLB announces a plan to take revenue sharing dollars and apply them towards new stadiums across the country, and the public/private sector figures out a way of finally getting the Twins a REAL stadium.

I can dream. :gulp:

Lip Man 1
10-11-2004, 06:34 PM
Flight says: "And there's NO obligation that an owner has, be they rich or poor to subsidize a team."

Then why own it? If you aren't 'making a profit' that is? You think they own franchises to 'lose' money? If the were they'd get out in a heartbeat don't you think now that the tax laws have been changed to where you can not depreciate the contracts on players as time goes by.

Your statement doesn't make sense to me. (By the way for the past three years those same MLB owners have been 'subsidizing' Montreal in a blatent conflict of interest)

As far as moving teams, I never said I approved it but with congressional protection they can do it if they want to. That's the reality of it.

Lip

Milw
10-11-2004, 09:36 PM
Flight says: "And there's NO obligation that an owner has, be they rich or poor to subsidize a team."

Then why own it? If you aren't 'making a profit' that is? You think they own franchises to 'lose' money? If the were they'd get out in a heartbeat don't you think now that the tax laws have been changed to where you can not depreciate the contracts on players as time goes by.

Your statement doesn't make sense to me. (By the way for the past three years those same MLB owners have been 'subsidizing' Montreal in a blatent conflict of interest)

As far as moving teams, I never said I approved it but with congressional protection they can do it if they want to. That's the reality of it.

LipYou talk about free markets ... an owner trying to get a state to pay for a new stadium IS free market. That is, the owner is using his leverage to persuade a better financial deal for himself. It may be disdainful, but you can't defend the free market system and simultaneously decry stadium ransoms. They go hand in hand.

The State of Illinois was under no cohersion to build Reinsdorf a stadium -- but the government deemed it in the best interests of the state (rightly or wrongly) to do it.

Daver
10-11-2004, 09:56 PM
The State of Illinois was under no cohersion to build Reinsdorf a stadium -- but the government deemed it in the best interests of the state (rightly or wrongly) to do it.
No, Jim Thompson deemed it in the best interest of the state, against the wishes of the state house. Was it coercion? Only Jim can tell you.

The biggest opponenets to a salary cap in baseball are the owners that have things too good the way they are. David Glass, Carl Pohlad, Jeff Loria, et al, are much better off with the status quo as opposed to a salary cap, hell MLB as owners of the Expos benefit from it. The mess that baseball is in now will not even begin to get fixed until there is an autonomous commisioner, that has no ties to the players or the owners. I nominate Jesse Ventura.

MRKARNO
10-11-2004, 10:11 PM
No, Jim Thompson deemed it in the best interest of the state, against the wishes of the state house. Was it coercion? Only Jim can tell you.

The biggest opponenets to a salary cap in baseball are the owners that have things too good the way they are. David Glass, Carl Pohlad, Jeff Loria, et al, are much better off with the status quo as opposed to a salary cap, hell MLB as owners of the Expos benefit from it. The mess that baseball is in now will not even begin to get fixed until there is an autonomous commisioner, that has no ties to the players or the owners. I nominate Jesse Ventura.

I've heard Bob Costas might be a good pick.

PavanoBeltran'05
10-11-2004, 10:55 PM
Lip...I understand the philosophy you hold dear to, and the points about Minnesota's ownership is very interesting.

After your education on the topic, I still come up with a couple of points to ponder.

1.) NFL teams all put butts in seats. Even teams like the Bengals.
2.) Teams do lose players in the NFL, and teams do get dismantled, but don't we see the same thing in baseball (Florida Marlins, D-Backs, etc.)

I may not be as all knowing as a lot of people, but it seems like a lot of people buy into the NFL Kool-Aid while teams like KC and Detroit in MLB can't get anyone into seats. And, with that pressure to win, most NFL teams don't spend incredibly short of the cap, and if they do, it's to free up things to make a big run in the upcoming years.

fquaye149
10-11-2004, 11:06 PM
Lip...I understand the philosophy you hold dear to, and the points about Minnesota's ownership is very interesting.

After your education on the topic, I still come up with a couple of points to ponder.

1.) NFL teams all put butts in seats. Even teams like the Bengals.
2.) Teams do lose players in the NFL, and teams do get dismantled, but don't we see the same thing in baseball (Florida Marlins, D-Backs, etc.)

I may not be as all knowing as a lot of people, but it seems like a lot of people buy into the NFL Kool-Aid while teams like KC and Detroit in MLB can't get anyone into seats. And, with that pressure to win, most NFL teams don't spend incredibly short of the cap, and if they do, it's to free up things to make a big run in the upcoming years.
if montreal had only played 16 games in a year they would probalby have had a lot better attendance. and that's in montreal. All in all, i would bet the total home attendance numbers of any given baseball team far surpasses the total home attendance numbers of the best football team. And say what you want, but that means more people went to see that team play baseball than went to see that team play football.

Whatever. The NFL is just as broken as MLB imo. I'm sick of hearing how perfect tagliabue is.

Flight #24
10-11-2004, 11:08 PM
Flight says: "And there's NO obligation that an owner has, be they rich or poor to subsidize a team."

Then why own it? If you aren't 'making a profit' that is? You think they own franchises to 'lose' money? If the were they'd get out in a heartbeat don't you think now that the tax laws have been changed to where you can not depreciate the contracts on players as time goes by.

Your statement doesn't make sense to me. (By the way for the past three years those same MLB owners have been 'subsidizing' Montreal in a blatent conflict of interest)

As far as moving teams, I never said I approved it but with congressional protection they can do it if they want to. That's the reality of it.

LipThe point is exactly that - as a business owner, you have a right to make a profit or break even, but there's no requirement to subsidize.

Your comment was that as one of the richest men in the world, Pohlad should build his own stadium. In other threads, you've commented how owners are rich enough that they should be willing to dip into their own pockets to up payroll and/or compete. My comment was directed at those statements.

And for the record, I don't believe that most owners are minting money off of their teams. It's an asset value play more than a cash cow.

Flight #24
10-11-2004, 11:14 PM
if montreal had only played 16 games in a year they would probalby have had a lot better attendance. and that's in montreal. All in all, i would bet the total home attendance numbers of any given baseball team far surpasses the total home attendance numbers of the best football team. And say what you want, but that means more people went to see that team play baseball than went to see that team play football.

Whatever. The NFL is just as broken as MLB imo. I'm sick of hearing how perfect tagliabue is.
There is no perfect situation, but I prefer the one where the team location doesn't drive a significant portion of competitiveness, where players have to continually prove themselves or get replaced (and often cut), and where the quality of the organization is key to long term success. The NFL has all of these.

And for everyone who wants to say that the NFL owners have no reason to compete, that belies the fact that most of them ARE able to compete. Probably the one exception is Arizona, and even they have reasonable hope if they can manage their team better under Denny Green. The same can not be said of KC, Milwaukee, etc in MLB.

Daver
10-11-2004, 11:23 PM
And for the record, I don't believe that most owners are minting money off of their teams. It's an asset value play more than a cash cow.
OK. Then answer a couple questions.

MLB refused to allow Jeff Loria to seek bankruptcy protection for the Expos, and instead brokered a deal to buy him out and loan him the remainder needed to buy the Marlins. Why?

MLB refuses to open their books, even on Capitol Hill, even though it meant getting their chosen commisioner all but accused of perjury. Why?

Jerry Reinsdorf and Co. bought the Sox for twenty one million dollars, and after showing little or no profit for twenty years the franchise is valued at ten times that, are you going to say this is due to simple inflation?

Daver
10-11-2004, 11:26 PM
There is no perfect situation, but I prefer the one where the team location doesn't drive a significant portion of competitiveness, where players have to continually prove themselves or get replaced (and often cut), and where the quality of the organization is key to long term success. The NFL has all of these.

And for everyone who wants to say that the NFL owners have no reason to compete, that belies the fact that most of them ARE able to compete. Probably the one exception is Arizona, and even they have reasonable hope if they can manage their team better under Denny Green. The same can not be said of KC, Milwaukee, etc in MLB.
You have just given a perfect example of why a salary cap does nothing but guarantees the owners bottom line, while doing nothing to add to competitive balance.

Flight #24
10-11-2004, 11:28 PM
You have just given a perfect example of why a salary cap does nothing but guarantees the owners bottom line, while doing nothing to add to competitive balance.
Except that in the NFL, there is significant competitive balance.

Flight #24
10-11-2004, 11:32 PM
OK. Then answer a couple questions.

MLB refused to allow Jeff Loria to seek bankruptcy protection for the Expos, and instead brokered a deal to buy him out and loan him the remainder needed to buy the Marlins. Why?

MLB refuses to open their books, even on Capitol Hill, even though it meant getting their chosen commisioner all but accused of perjury. Why?

Jerry Reinsdorf and Co. bought the Sox for twenty one million dollars, and after showing little or no profit for twenty years the franchise is valued at ten times that, are you going to say this is due to simple inflation?

I don't pretend that there aren't financial shenanigans going on with some teams, I base that statement/opinion on having a close family friend who does a lot of business and is fairly close with one of the Sox owners. From what I've heard/learned from him, there isn't a lot of direct profit taking going on.

It could all be a lie, but he's a pretty shrewd guy so if he believes it, I'm inclined to believe him.

TornLabrum
10-11-2004, 11:34 PM
Except that in the NFL, there is significant competitive balance.
The "competitive balance" in the NFL is as phony as a $3 bill. Much of the so-called parity is brought on by good teams playing a "first place schedule" and lousy teams playing a "last place schedule" that is guaranteed to boost their records if they show even a slight modicum of improvement.

Lip Man 1
10-11-2004, 11:38 PM
Flight:

Long shot I know but what the hell I've got nothing to lose. Ask your friend if he'll put me in touch with his owner/friend. I'd love to see if he (she?) would go on the record for an interview.

mliptak1@ida.net

Lip

Flight #24
10-11-2004, 11:41 PM
The "competitive balance" in the NFL is as phony as a $3 bill. Much of the so-called parity is brought on by good teams playing a "first place schedule" and lousy teams playing a "last place schedule" that is guaranteed to boost their records if they show even a slight modicum of improvement.
It's a combination of factors, certainly not just a salary cap. But the system of football overall is such that a team can always be a smart year or 2 away from being a legit super bowl contender. Not the case in baseball. And roster turnover makes the year-year schedule discrepancy not as great as you'd think. 5 last place teams from last year are good, not just apparently good because of their schedule: Jets, Falcons, Giants, Lions, Texans.

TornLabrum
10-12-2004, 12:05 AM
It's a combination of factors, certainly not just a salary cap. But the system of football overall is such that a team can always be a smart year or 2 away from being a legit super bowl contender. Not the case in baseball. And roster turnover makes the year-year schedule discrepancy not as great as you'd think. 5 last place teams from last year are good, not just apparently good because of their schedule: Jets, Falcons, Giants, Lions, Texans.
I'd like to believe that, but I've seen too many NFL teams drop from contenders to pretenders once they get the tougher schedule that the playoff teams get.

bigfoot
10-12-2004, 07:43 AM
Dave Krieger, on the eve of the BoSox/NY series. His take on Moneyball vs $$$$$ball.

Ya gotta pay to play!

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/sports_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_83_3247822,00.html

Flight #24
10-12-2004, 10:23 AM
Flight:

Long shot I know but what the hell I've got nothing to lose. Ask your friend if he'll put me in touch with his owner/friend. I'd love to see if he (she?) would go on the record for an interview.

mliptak1@ida.net

Lip
I'll ask, but I'd guess it's pretty unlikely since I don't know the owner guy directly, and my friend, while a big Sox fan, isn't a WSI-er. Plus I'd guess that owners are pretty reluctant to chat one on one with media.

Still, I'll ask next time I talk to him.

Milw
10-12-2004, 04:49 PM
MLB refuses to open their books, even on Capitol Hill, even though it meant getting their chosen commisioner all but accused of perjury.
The Brewers opened their books last year to two independent auditors, who confirmed the team is hundreds of millions of dollars in the red.

I know the Brewers are an extreme example, but that's the fact of it.

Lip Man 1
10-12-2004, 06:24 PM
Just wondering...did those books factor in how the Brewers bilked the state into a new ballpark then cut team payroll? or how Buddy boy reniged on his promise to contribute x amount of dollars to the project AFTER the stadium was already being constructed?

Lip

gosox41
10-13-2004, 09:21 AM
Just wondering...did those books factor in how the Brewers bilked the state into a new ballpark then cut team payroll? or how Buddy boy reniged on his promise to contribute x amount of dollars to the project AFTER the stadium was already being constructed?

LipI don't know much about Selig backing out of a promise to help fund the stadium. But why doesn't the state just sue him? Surely there is paperwork around indicating Selig's obligation to the stadium. Surely the state wasn't dumb enough to take any him at his word and put it in writing. Contracts are part of business. Even some oral contracts are enforceable by law.


Also, call it what you want but the state voluntarily agreed to build the new ballpark. They didn't have to.



Bob

Flight #24
10-13-2004, 10:09 AM
Just wondering...did those books factor in how the Brewers bilked the state into a new ballpark then cut team payroll? or how Buddy boy reniged on his promise to contribute x amount of dollars to the project AFTER the stadium was already being constructed?

Lip
"Bilk"? Kudos on the vocab there Lip!

However inappropriate the term might be since the state willingly agreed to fund the park, and I'm fairly certain that nowhere in the agreement was there any clause that ownership would fund a team in the red to maintain payroll. Since the audit found they were losing money or breaking even (assuming you believe those #s), the team apparently isn't "screwing" the state.

And as to the alleged "promise", the team said they would contribute to the construction, and IIRC, they did - by taking out a loan. Nowhere did Bud say that he personally would fund a portion.

There's no "reneging" here.

Lip Man 1
10-13-2004, 02:16 PM
I specifically read a story that stated (and I'm paraphrasing here) that Selig committed 75 million of his own funds to help get the park built then after it was started shrugged his shoulders and said he couldn't come up with that much money.

Those are part of the reason Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson began the probe into the stadium.

Bob who said the probe is over? More may be forthcoming. Perhaps Daver who follows these things closer can provide some background.

Lip

gosox41
10-13-2004, 02:35 PM
I specifically read a story that stated (and I'm paraphrasing here) that Selig committed 75 million of his own funds to help get the park built then after it was started shrugged his shoulders and said he couldn't come up with that much money.

Those are part of the reason Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson began the probe into the stadium.

Bob who said the probe is over? More may be forthcoming. Perhaps Daver who follows these things closer can provide some background.

Lip
I don't know much about the story. But shame on the state of Wisconsin for not getting a promise like that in writing so they can go after him in court.




Bob