PDA

View Full Version : Great article on Revenue Sharing / Upcoming CBA Battle - Reinsdorf comments


SouthSide_HitMen
05-05-2006, 04:46 PM
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-upcoming-cba-and-the-battles-within-it-part-2-revenue-sharing/

This article presents the reasons why the upcoming CBA battle will be more fiercely fought between ownership groups as opposed to the typical owners vs. players Battle Royale we are blessed with every few years when the billionaires fight the millionaires for the tens of billions on the table from TV networks, baseball fans and government paid for stadiums.

The Wall Street Journal Article (subscription required) quoted in the article was also well worth my time.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114619267334238458.html

I would think many White Sox fans would be just as surprised as I was when I learned the White Sox paid $18 million into the coffers of Baltimore (***), San Deigo, Philadelphia and other clubs in large market cities with new ballparks (and in the Orioles case the rights to Orioles AND National TV broadcasts). The Toons received $6 million, Detroit $25 million, Minnesota $22 million and the Royals $698,406 million (just kidding - they received $30 million).

Jerry Reinsdorf was quoted as saying

"The lower-revenue teams, even with revenue sharing, do not have enough money to compete," says Jerry Reinsdorf, principal owner of the World Series champion Chicago White Sox, who contributed $18 million last year. "I say that as somebody who loves the sport."

Reinsdorf is taking the side of Bud Selig, Jeff Loria and other proponents of increasing this welfare scheme from 34% to 50% of local revenue which actually hurts the White Sox by devoting more resources to the 17 teams on welfare including the Marlins who took in $16 million more than what they spent on their payroll (and this does not include the leaguewide TV, Merchandise, Internet, International, etc. revenue shared by the 30 clubs equally - even though teams like the Marlins contribute a tiny fraction to actually earning it).

Daver
05-05-2006, 07:53 PM
Reinsdorf is taking the side of Bud Selig, Jeff Loria and other proponents of increasing this welfare scheme from 34% to 50% of local revenue which actually hurts the White Sox by devoting more resources to the 17 teams on welfare including the Marlins who took in $16 million more than what they spent on their payroll (and this does not include the leaguewide TV, Merchandise, Internet, International, etc. revenue shared by the 30 clubs equally - even though teams like the Marlins contribute a tiny fraction to actually earning it).

There was some heretic that started the issue of sharing gate reciepts and local revenue equally throughout the league back in the sixties, and saying that the future of teams to be competetive demanded it.

The nutcases name was Bill Veeck.

SouthSide_HitMen
05-05-2006, 08:17 PM
There was some heretic that started the issue of sharing gate reciepts and local revenue equally throughout the league back in the sixties, and saying that the future of teams to be competetive demanded it.

The nutcases name was Bill Veeck.

Bill Veeck's statement was before MLB generated and distributed billions of dollars in national TV revenue, created a website worth billions and obtained tens of billions in taxpayer subsidies - all but the stadiums shared equally among the thirty teams whether they were responsible for it (Yankees) or not (Devil Rays).

The difference between MLB circa 1978 and 2006 is the difference between a 5 year old owning a lemonade stand and a billionaire owning Snapple. Increasing the current welfare sharing scheme from 33% to 50% (above and beyond the billions split for joint MLB ventures) punishes owners like Bill Veeck who create value for their teams through innovations in marketing / creating the best fan entertainment while also fielding the best ballclub he could afford with every dollar he could get his hands on.

Now owners are not rewarded for marketing the game and acquiring the best talent but rather who can claim the biggest share of welfare (from teams that actually produce and contribute to the game of baseball) while spending the least amount on the field (as well as who can claim the most from state and local taxpayers).

Daver
05-05-2006, 08:28 PM
Bill Veeck's statement was before MLB generated and distributed billions of dollars in national TV revenue, created a website worth billions and obtained tens of billions in taxpayer subsidies - all but the stadiums shared equally among the thirty teams whether they were responsible for it (Yankees) or not (Devil Rays).

The difference between MLB circa 1978 and 2006 is the difference between a 5 year old owning a lemonade stand and a billionaire owning Snapple. Increasing the current welfare sharing scheme from 33% to 50% (above and beyond the billions split for joint MLB ventures) punishes owners like Bill Veeck who create value for their teams through innovations in marketing / creating the best fan entertainment while also fielding the best ballclub he could afford with every dollar he could get his hands on.

Now owners are not rewarded for marketing the game and acquiring the best talent but rather who can claim the biggest share of welfare (from teams that actually produce and contribute to the game of baseball) while spending the least amount on the field (as well as who can claim the most from state and local taxpayers).

You miss my point.

Bill Veeck called for NFL style revenue sharing in baseball way before revenue sharing existed in ANY league, had it happened when he called for it, this issue would not exist now.

The current revenue sharing that is used by MLB is a joke, and will forever be a joke as long as Bud Selig is the commisioner. All funds generated to the collective funds of MLB are doled out at the whim of the commisioner, with no set plan, it is the decision of the commisioners office, as are the funds from the "so called" luxury tax.

MLB does have an emergency fund with a balance over ten mil to pay the salaries of MLB officers et al in the case of a work stoppage though, so they have that going for them.

NardiWasHere
05-05-2006, 09:46 PM
Question: If lower market teams are getting ANY money at all, why is Florida allowed to have a $14mil payroll? Is this just going into owner and investors pockets? That's garbage. Every team should have a payroll of 50-85mil... No Yankees... No Marlins. If there is a team salary minimum, wouldn't the union help more players than the few 20mil a year guys? I haven't crunched #'s, but just thinking about it, I would think the majority of players would get a little bump in their salary, there would just not be room for Arod types.... I'm a poli-sci major, not econ so tell me where my line of reasoning goes wrong

CLR01
05-05-2006, 11:01 PM
Question: If lower market teams are getting ANY money at all, why is Florida allowed to have a $14mil payroll? Is this just going into owner and investors pockets? That's garbage. Every team should have a payroll of 50-85mil... No Yankees... No Marlins. If there is a team salary minimum, wouldn't the union help more players than the few 20mil a year guys? I haven't crunched #'s, but just thinking about it, I would think the majority of players would get a little bump in their salary, there would just not be room for Arod types.... I'm a poli-sci major, not econ so tell me where my line of reasoning goes wrong


Yes a minimum team payroll would probably help bump up the average players salary. I am sure the players and union would love to see one in place but the owners don't want a floor and they certainly would not put one in place without a ceiling and the players definitely would not go for that.

Flight #24
05-05-2006, 11:16 PM
Yes a minimum team payroll would probably help bump up the average players salary. I am sure the players and union would love to see one in place but the owners don't want a floor and they certainly would not put one in place without a ceiling and the players definitely would not go for that.

Actually, the owners proposed a floor without a cap in the last negotiations, and the MLBPA rejected it outright as they felt agreeing to it lost them the "moral high ground" on free markets - i.e. a cap in the future.

(And before we go there, I know the owners may have only meant it as a negotiating tactic, etc. We've had that discussion before, I'm only pointing out that the MLBPA likely won't agree to a floor even if it comes without a cap.)

Also, at the risk of being publicly flogged, I'm going to point out that if in 1-2 years the Marlins young talent is developing nicely and enabling them to compete, then the wailing over their low payroll will have been for naught. The point being that while they dumped salaries, they also did it while acquiring a lot of young talent, and if their FO picked the right guys, I'll certainly find it hard to slam them for being abrupt in rebuilding, but doing it quickly & smartly.

Ol' No. 2
05-06-2006, 09:57 AM
Bill Veeck's statement was before MLB generated and distributed billions of dollars in national TV revenue, created a website worth billions and obtained tens of billions in taxpayer subsidies - all but the stadiums shared equally among the thirty teams whether they were responsible for it (Yankees) or not (Devil Rays).

The difference between MLB circa 1978 and 2006 is the difference between a 5 year old owning a lemonade stand and a billionaire owning Snapple. Increasing the current welfare sharing scheme from 33% to 50% (above and beyond the billions split for joint MLB ventures) punishes owners like Bill Veeck who create value for their teams through innovations in marketing / creating the best fan entertainment while also fielding the best ballclub he could afford with every dollar he could get his hands on.

Now owners are not rewarded for marketing the game and acquiring the best talent but rather who can claim the biggest share of welfare (from teams that actually produce and contribute to the game of baseball) while spending the least amount on the field (as well as who can claim the most from state and local taxpayers).The amount of money from shared sources (national TV, etc.) is paltry compared to local revenues. It amounts to only about $30M/yr per team. Steinbrenners cable TV deal alone is worth $150M/yr. No one would buy a cable TV package to see the Yankees standing around by themselves - there has to be another team, and there's no reason in the world they shouldn't share in the revenues.

When virtually all revenues were gate receipts, the revenue disparity among tams wasn't so large. That's why Veeck's idea was dismissed. But he saw what was coming. You can't seriously be proposing that Steinbrenner's TV deal is much larger than, say, Kansas City's because he's better at marketing his team. It's an accident of geography, and baseball is using its anti-trust exemption to prevent teams from doing what the market demands: moving where they'd be more profitable. If you are going to prevent a team from moving to a more profitable location, it only makes sense to provide reasonable compensation. That's the principle of revenue sharing.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-06-2006, 10:12 AM
T...You can't seriously be proposing that Steinbrenner's TV deal is much larger than, say, Kansas City's because he's better at marketing his team. It's an accident of geography....That's the principle of revenue sharing.

Umm... not exactly.

Steinbrenner spends GOBS of money promoting his Yankees. In fact I'm quite sure the Yankees spend far, far more promoting the Yankees than any centralized authority ever would-- be it MLB or any other entity.

You want everything split up even steven? Fine. Be prepared for freeloaders like the Bill Bidwells of this world to be set up for life, while fans of Bidwells teams in Chicago/St. Louis/Phoenix find plenty of better things to do than waste their time supporting the latest edition of Bidwell's don't-give-a-damn losers.

Ol' No. 2
05-06-2006, 11:49 AM
Umm... not exactly.

Steinbrenner spends GOBS of money promoting his Yankees. In fact I'm quite sure the Yankees spend far, far more promoting the Yankees than any centralized authority ever would-- be it MLB or any other entity.

You want everything split up even steven? Fine. Be prepared for freeloaders like the Bill Bidwells of this world to be set up for life, while fans of Bidwells teams in Chicago/St. Louis/Phoenix find plenty of better things to do than waste their time supporting the latest edition of Bidwell's don't-give-a-damn losers.He's able to spend more because he makes more, but I doubt he spends significantly more as a percentage of revenues than small-market teams. In fact, I'd bet it's less.

MLB is not made up of 30 independent businesses. If it were, there would be at least 5 teams in the NYC area. But the league prohibits that. Independent businesses would also be free to schedule games against teams that shared the most money with them, but they can't do that, either. Revenue sharing is nothing more than compensation for forgoing those privileges. It's not exactly quid pro quo, but it might as well be.

It takes two teams to play a game. Why should the home team get all the revenues?

PaleHoseGeorge
05-06-2006, 02:51 PM
He's able to spend more because he makes more, but I doubt he spends significantly more as a percentage of revenues than small-market teams. In fact, I'd bet it's less.

I bet you're flat wrong. It costs NOTHING to do what the Royals do: print tickets and collect money from their piddly TV/radio deals. Hell, the TV and radio stations GIVE the Royals the promotional time for their lame advertisements. Who are you kidding?

The Yankees produce their own TV network. If they can afford it, I guarantee it's only because they aren't sitting around waiting for MLB to do it for them -- because collectivized efforts never match what individuals will do for themselves, a point I'm sure that is lost on you.

MLB is not made up of 30 independent businesses. If it were, there would be at least 5 teams in the NYC area. But the league prohibits that. Independent businesses would also be free to schedule games against teams that shared the most money with them, but they can't do that, either. Revenue sharing is nothing more than compensation for forgoing those privileges. It's not exactly quid pro quo, but it might as well be.

There have been numerous suggestions to add teams to the NYC market. If relocating ballclubs to these markets would finally stop all the whining and bitching from crybabies in KC who spend NOTHING to promote the sport in their own market, I'm all for it.

Of course we both know the whining and bitching won't stop even if the Royals (and other have-nots) were moved. The whining would simply move from KC to New York's #3 or #4 team. But then you've never been one to suggest anything but feel-good solutions that solve nothing, so I'm hardly surprised you would advocate this one, too.

SouthSide_HitMen
05-06-2006, 03:23 PM
Umm... not exactly.

Steinbrenner spends GOBS of money promoting his Yankees. In fact I'm quite sure the Yankees spend far, far more promoting the Yankees than any centralized authority ever would-- be it MLB or any other entity.

You want everything split up even steven? Fine. Be prepared for freeloaders like the Bill Bidwells of this world to be set up for life, while fans of Bidwells teams in Chicago/St. Louis/Phoenix find plenty of better things to do than waste their time supporting the latest edition of Bidwell's don't-give-a-damn losers.

Not to mention the reason a John Henry would plunk down $700 million for the Red Sox and why a corporation (or Bill Gates) will plunk down over a billion for the Yankees when George passes away. An owner who puts down a fraction of that amount to purchase the Royals or Devil Rays and spends zero of their local revenues on the team (having their entire payroll and administrative costs covered without selling a ticket or broadcasting a game) should not be "entitled" to the same or even a similar revenue stream as the teams that actually do all the heavy lifting - teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and others who use revenue to improve their teams and the game at large.

PHG is correct with his point George built his team up singlehandedly. When he purchased the club 30 years ago, CBS wanted to dump it. The team was not competitive for over a decade, the Mets were the only other team in New York (same competitive situation as now) and the Mets, not the Yankees, who reached the World Series twice in a five year span whereas the Yankees with all the advantages of their historic history and the allegiance of the majority of the New York population behind them were a flop at the box office and in the standings.

Turn to 2006 and you notice the teams with the biggest jumps in their market value are the ones with the largest welfare claims in baseball (six of the top ten increases in market value are in the top nine in local revenue sharing). This is due to the guaranteed large revenue stream of payments from ballclubs that actually produce a quality product that fans want to support. Now you have several clubs who do not lift a finger or even attempt to be competitive and the people evaluating these business expect the welfare to either remain at these high levels or actually increase in the upcoming seasons based on the bangs of the war drums from Selig and Reinsdorf clamoring for more revenue sharing for competitive balance even after the Marlins and other teams have exposed this plan as nothing but a farce.


http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/Change_1.html

Grzegorz
05-06-2006, 10:22 PM
There was some heretic that started the issue of sharing gate reciepts and local revenue equally throughout the league back in the sixties, and saying that the future of teams to be competetive demanded it.

The nutcases name was Bill Veeck.

I am not sure of the context of that statement but Mr. Veeck was a businessman so I am sure that subsidizing poor management would be an activity he would not approve of.

There's a fine line to walk; I am not sure the league can "walk the walk".

Ol' No. 2
05-06-2006, 10:59 PM
Not to mention the reason a John Henry would plunk down $700 million for the Red Sox and why a corporation (or Bill Gates) will plunk down over a billion for the Yankees when George passes away. An owner who puts down a fraction of that amount to purchase the Royals or Devil Rays and spends zero of their local revenues on the team (having their entire payroll and administrative costs covered without selling a ticket or broadcasting a game) should not be "entitled" to the same or even a similar revenue stream as the teams that actually do all the heavy lifting - teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and others who use revenue to improve their teams and the game at large.

PHG is correct with his point George built his team up singlehandedly. When he purchased the club 30 years ago, CBS wanted to dump it. The team was not competitive for over a decade, the Mets were the only other team in New York (same competitive situation as now) and the Mets, not the Yankees, who reached the World Series twice in a five year span whereas the Yankees with all the advantages of their historic history and the allegiance of the majority of the New York population behind them were a flop at the box office and in the standings.

Turn to 2006 and you notice the teams with the biggest jumps in their market value are the ones with the largest welfare claims in baseball (six of the top ten increases in market value are in the top nine in local revenue sharing). This is due to the guaranteed large revenue stream of payments from ballclubs that actually produce a quality product that fans want to support. Now you have several clubs who do not lift a finger or even attempt to be competitive and the people evaluating these business expect the welfare to either remain at these high levels or actually increase in the upcoming seasons based on the bangs of the war drums from Selig and Reinsdorf clamoring for more revenue sharing for competitive balance even after the Marlins and other teams have exposed this plan as nothing but a farce.


http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/Change_1.htmlI'm sure if Steinbrenner had bought the Royals instead of the Yankees he'd be making just as much money. A marketing genius, he is.

bigfoot
05-07-2006, 06:29 AM
All other arguements aside, what will happen to these "welfare teams" when the luxury tax that the Yankees have been paying is cut drastically, if not eliminated, via the clause that exempts them from paying while paying out $$$$ to build the new Yankee Stadium?

PaleHoseGeorge
05-07-2006, 08:17 AM
I'm sure if Steinbrenner had bought the Royals instead of the Yankees he'd be making just as much money. A marketing genius, he is.

I'm guessing Steinbrenner would make far more money than anybody who has owned the Kansas City Royals the last 25 years because he would be the first owner in that time span Kansas City ever had who was TRYING TO WIN, not whining.

Of course many fans prefer whiners, but that's their problem. Whining never wins you a championship, or haven't you been a Sox Fan these last 88 years?

PaleHoseGeorge
05-07-2006, 08:19 AM
All other arguements aside, what will happen to these "welfare teams" when the luxury tax that the Yankees have been paying is cut drastically, if not eliminated, via the clause that exempts them from paying while paying out $$$$ to build the new Yankee Stadium?

Tragically, the Kansas City Royals will finish fifth. Oh, wait...

voodoochile
05-07-2006, 10:46 AM
I'm guessing Steinbrenner would make far more money than anybody who has owned the Kansas City Royals the last 25 years because he would be the first owner in that time span Kansas City ever had who was TRYING TO WIN, not whining.

Of course many fans prefer whiners, but that's their problem. Whining never wins you a championship, or haven't you been a Sox Fan these last 88 years?
You know I would think Sox fans (and particularly those who post at WSI) would get this point by now. How many of them refused to go to games or as many games when the Sox were putting a mediocre product on the field all those years of the Scheuler regime? How many of them laughed, cried, shook their head and went and spent their money elsewhere when the Sox had no chance at winning anything? How many of them raised holy heck when JR gave up on the 1997 season (a bunch of them from the looks of the attendance figures in 1998 and 1999)? How many of them would now run over their grandmother while throwing $100 bills by the handful at JR personally for a chance at club level seats against the Toons this coming September or a playoff seat in October?

Try and win and the fans come out. Pocket the money and don't give a damn and presto the fans don't come see your crappy product (unless you are owned by a major newspaper which does your marketing for you and has managed to market losing as lovable).

It isn't rocket science people...

Oh and I wonder if the reason so many teams have pocketed the revenue sharing checks this year is because they won't get as big a one next year when there is no salary cap and no luxury tax. That means they all get the same cut of the national money - Selig won't have a discretionary fund to play with. They also may be hoarding up a bit to pay their office staff and management team if the CBA contract negotiations go badly. Things that make you go hmmmmm.... Looks like the owners are preparing for a long stoppage...

Because you know... it's always better to blame the other guy and piss on your customer than fix the freaking problem... :rolleyes:

Ol' No. 2
05-07-2006, 11:09 AM
I'm guessing Steinbrenner would make far more money than anybody who has owned the Kansas City Royals the last 25 years because he would be the first owner in that time span Kansas City ever had who was TRYING TO WIN, not whining.

Of course many fans prefer whiners, but that's their problem. Whining never wins you a championship, or haven't you been a Sox Fan these last 88 years?This is the crux of where we disagree.

IMO, no one, no matter how hard they try, can be successful today running a franchise in Kansas City or Pittsburgh or any of a number of cities that simply can't provide the resources to field a winning team. This is the ultimate purpose of revenue sharing - to allow ownerships who want to win to actully have the resources necessary to be successful. It doesn't guarantee they'll be successful. But not having it pretty much guarantees they won't.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-07-2006, 11:40 AM
IMO, no one, no matter how hard they try, can be successful today running a franchise in Kansas City or Pittsburgh or any of a number of cities that simply can't provide the resources to field a winning team. This is the ultimate purpose of revenue sharing - to allow ownerships who want to win to actully have the resources necessary to be successful. It doesn't guarantee they'll be successful. But not having it pretty much guarantees they won't.

Omigod...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is simply amazing. Simply amazing, Ol' No. 2. I'm shocked you, A SOX FAN, wrote this!

What planet have you been living on?

To hear you tell it, it's okay for the expansion Kansas City Royals to enter the league in 1969 and one year later pass the "big market" Chicago White Sox in the old A.L. West. Right?

To hear you tell it, it's okay for the Kansas City Royals to routinely beat the "big market" Chicago White Sox all through the 1970's winning five of six division championships, the "big market" Sox not winning even one for the first 25 years of divisional play?

To hear you tell it, it's okay for the expansion Kansas City Royals to win two pennants and a world championship while "big market" Chicago White Sox fans go hungry for 88 years.

It's all about money, not competence, right Ol' No. 2?

You think the Sox losing is the NORMAL state of things, right?

You think Kansas City should keep beating the Sox forever, to the point where YOU THINK everyone should be digging into their own pocket to ENSURE the Royals aren't a ****ty ballclub, like the Sox were for 88 Years???"

You are sick.

Ol' No. 2
05-07-2006, 11:45 AM
Omigod...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is simply amazing. Simply amazing, Ol' No. 2. I'm shocked you, A SOX FAN, wrote this!

What planet have you been living on?

To hear you tell it, it's okay for the expansion Kansas City Royals to enter the league in 1969 and one year later pass the "big market" Chicago White Sox in the old A.L. West. Right?

To hear you tell it, it's okay for the Kansas City Royals to routinely beat the "big market" Chicago White Sox all through the 1970's winning five of six division championships, the "big market" Sox not winning even one for the first 25 years of divisional play?

To hear you tell it, it's okay for the expansion Kansas City Royals to win two pennants and a world championship while "big market" Chicago White Sox fans go hungry for 88 years.

It's all about money, not competence, right Ol' No. 2?

You think the Sox losing is the NORMAL state of things, right?

You think Kansas City should keep beating the Sox forever, to the point where YOU THINK everyone should be digging into their own pocket to ENSURE the Royals aren't a ****ty ballclub, like the Sox were for 88 Years???"

You are sick.
Earth to PHG. Earth calling PHG. It's not the 1970's anymore. Where once small market teams could compete, those days are gone. $150M/yr cable TV deals weren't even dreamed of back then. Revenue disparities have always existed, but nothing like what we're seeing today.

Edit: Yankees' revenues were almost 2.5 times that of the Royals last year. And that's not marketing. It's market size. No amount of trying can overcome that.

ondafarm
05-07-2006, 12:03 PM
I think there is a reasonable solution to this that would please all three groups: big-market teams, small-market teams and the players union.

All television revenue is equally shared among all teams but must be spent on player salaries. All of the salary information from all teams must be auditable on a regular basis by the players union. There will be no salary cap.

All the gate, all the radio money all your stadium revenues are your own.


This way. The big market teams would have an advantage, big markets yield a lot more radio money, support better ticket sales and support far richer advertising budgets.

The players union would know that all the TV money would be going to pay salaries. If a good TV product continues to be generated, then the salaries will continue to go up.

The small-market teams would know that should they run a cheap skate operation, then they and not their players would suffer. Also, should they develop decent players, they will be able to compete with the big boys for their free-agent contracts. Run a decent operation and you can keep the good players and compete on the field. Small market teams have to prioritze better and develop players better to consistently compete with big-market teams, but it can be done.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-07-2006, 12:09 PM
Earth to PHG. Earth calling PHG. It's not the 1970's anymore. Where once small market teams could compete, those days are gone. $150M/yr cable TV deals weren't even dreamed of back then. Revenue disparities have always existed, but nothing like what we're seeing today.

Edit: Yankees' revenues were almost 2.5 times that of the Royals last year. And that's not marketing. It's market size. No amount of trying can overcome that.
LMAO! There is NO CONSISTENCY in any of your points any longer. You're just making it up as you go along...

Small market clubs wipe out big market clubs to the exact extent YOU decide which ones are "big" and which ones are "small."

I suggest we put YOU in charge of baseball, Ol No. 2. I can see it now...

Big market clubs become small market clubs become championship clubs -- all depending on what Ol No. 2 decides is "Fair" and sporting. How did Ol No. 2 arrive at any this? Don't bother asking!

The Sox are a champion "big market" club everywhere except WSI where countless threads still complain about our second-tier status even after bringing home the trophy. NEVER FEAR! Ol No. 2 will solve for that problem, too... perhaps "taxing" the Sox and moving the entire roster to Kansas City where it should have been all along... that will even up the revenue!

:kukoo:

I stand corrected about suggesting you're sick. You're actually just delusional.

SouthSide_HitMen
05-07-2006, 12:39 PM
All other arguements aside, what will happen to these "welfare teams" when the luxury tax that the Yankees have been paying is cut drastically, if not eliminated, via the clause that exempts them from paying while paying out $$$$ to build the new Yankee Stadium?

They will actually have to go out and earn a living. There was massive outcry after another national reform in 1996 but the predictions were as accurate as picking the Cubs to win the World Series.

Don't forget these clubs will still be "entitled" to their 1/30th share of:

A. All National TV Revenue (even if they are never broadcast).

B. All MLB Merchandise Revenue (Even though the Yankees sell 27% of all merchandise and the Devil Rays sell what $30).

C. All revenue from MLB International broadcasts and online media (the MB.com website is worth between $2 and $3 billion - one of the best things Bud Selig and the sport did during his tenure that was both profitable and ethical.

Not to mention the welfare aspect which was bumped from 20% to 33%. The Yankee's share of net payments will not be reduced to $0 and in fact their increase in revenue will benefit the Yankees and the other 29 teams who see the MLB revenue pie expand and an increase in points A. B. and C. above. That is if Reinsdorf and Selig do sabatoge the CBA and prevent owners from paying for their stadium (after all - it is the responsibility of the TAXPAYER, not the baseball owner, to build a stadium).

SouthSide_HitMen
05-07-2006, 12:53 PM
Oh and I wonder if the reason so many teams have pocketed the revenue sharing checks this year is because they won't get as big a one next year when there is no salary cap and no luxury tax. That means they all get the same cut of the national money - Selig won't have a discretionary fund to play with. They also may be hoarding up a bit to pay their office staff and management team if the CBA contract negotiations go badly. Things that make you go hmmmmm.... Looks like the owners are preparing for a long stoppage...

Because you know... it's always better to blame the other guy and piss on your customer than fix the freaking problem... :rolleyes:

Actually it is the opposite. The "have nots" outnumber "the haves". They bumped up welfare from 20% to 33% during the last round of CBA negotiations and the Selig / Reinsdorf Wonder Twins are seeking an increase based on their public statements.

This is why teams collecting the most welfare saw their market value increase at a higher rate than the teams responsible for increasing MLB revenue. Teams producing the majority of revenues for the league continue to increase their share for their team and the league as a whole and the welfare checks continue to grow - whether or not Bud and Jerry are successful bumping up the 33% share to 40% or 50% or beyond.

Unfortunately a tax increase, which is really what this "revenue sharing" of local revenues is, will decrease incentive for the Yankees, Red Sox and other teams including the White Sox who sent in $18 million (to Detroit, Cleveland, Minnesota and Kansas City among other teams) to spend money improving their team be it player salaries, bumping up their scouting department, etc..

SouthSide_HitMen
05-07-2006, 01:04 PM
I think there is a reasonable solution to this that would please all three groups: big-market teams, small-market teams and the players union.

All television revenue is equally shared among all teams but must be spent on player salaries. All of the salary information from all teams must be auditable on a regular basis by the players union. There will be no salary cap.

Actually they have that provision in the current CBA but like most MLB rules (collusion, debt / equity ratio, borrowing from other clubs) Selig and the 30 clubs do not place a priority on following the rules.

As quoted in the linked article from the CBA

(a) A principal objective of the revenue sharing plan is to promote the growth of the Game and the industry on an individual Club and on an aggregate basis. Accordingly, each Club shall use its revenue sharing receipts (from the Base Plan, the Central Fund Component and the Commissionerís Discretionary Fund) in an effort to improve its performance on the field. The Commissioner shall enforce this obligation

(I wonder if that last statement is written in teal on the actual CBA agreement signed between the union and the owners).

Florida Marlins - Revenue Sharing Payments (not including the near $30 million received for merchandise, national broadcast rights, internet income, etc. This is strictly the welfare side of the equation which the CBA provision quoted above pertains to) totaled $31 million. Florida's total payroll is under $15 million meaning they are not abiding by the agreement but with Bud Selig they do not actually have to worry about following agreements or anything.

SouthSide_HitMen
05-07-2006, 01:17 PM
I'm sure if Steinbrenner had bought the Royals instead of the Yankees he'd be making just as much money. A marketing genius, he is.

One can buy a $40 stock or a $100 stock and receive a 4% dividend. In both cases, the purchaser makes the same 4% income on their investment. However, one owner gets $1.60 and the other $4.00. Both "made" money (at the same rate) but one earned $2.40 more. Both owners still made money at the same rate of their investment.

In Jerry & Bud's World both owners should get $2.80 resulting in the $40 stockholder bumping their income to a 7% dividend while decreasing the $100 stockholder's dividend share to 2.8%.

To add insult to injury, the business whose stock sells at $40 spends nothing on capital improvements, R & D, marketing or payroll and depends solely on mooching revenue either from taxpayers who make an investment in the community by paying for their capital expense (i.e. their stadium) and their remaining costs are paid for by the owner of the $100 per share company. Might work on paper in Das Kapital but in the real world not so much.