Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MLB Attempting to Start Season in May

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tmac13 View Post
    I am officially on the players side as of now. Yes, the players have been hard headed on the 100% prorated salary, but as it turns out, the owners have not negotiated in good faith. Today it leaked, LEAKED, NOT ANNOUNCED, that MLB is signing a new 1 billion dollar a year deal with Turner Sports. The deal starts with the 2022 season. The current Turner deal is for 350m a year. So, teams will go from making around 11.5m per year each, to making over 33m a year each. And this is just one of the MLB TV deals. While that may not pay this years bills, it would be very simple for every MLB team to get a 2 year loan against those future earnings. Every damn team is worth over a Billion dollars and they have megabucks coming in future deals. 29 of the 30 MLB turned a profit last year. All 30 were projected to turn a profit this year. There is zero reason any team that needs a short term loan couldn't get one and just pay the prorated salaries for 80 or 82 games..Just do it for the good of the game, and if that's not enough, do it for the billions you will make in the future by not crippling the league now.
    So team revenue will continue to expand as will the player salaries. Why is this a bad thing or somehow a negative portrayal on ownership?

    Baseball teams don't all make a lot of money. They grow in valuation, and that's the upside of ownership. A team like the Mets scuffles because they can't pay big signing bonuses, yet if A-rod buys them, it'll be a staggering price tag. Jeter traded away all of his talent because he couldn't pony up for both the cost of the team AND the contracts for the talent. Teams don't want to borrow against their futures because those futures are still not guaranteed. Just look at 2020. Shit happens, but debt still has to be repaid.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rtrafford View Post

      MLBPA's position is that they have to play a 50 game season if proffered. 80 games at 80% money is like playing 80 to be paid for 65. That's a fine perspective except is ignores the significant lost revenue to fund all of this, so the MLBPA is clearly stating that they won't take a cut in pay despite the cut in game revenue. Again MLBPA is demanding to be paid as if a partner, yet not willing to accept any of the investment risk wherein a partner would be participating. I do expect a 65 game season to be negotiated as well as an expanded post season.
      Oh I’m well aware of what players are doing and frankly I believe it’s their fault we’re were we are today. If we’re all being honest with ourselves they just never really came to the table to make a deal.. The owners have made plenty of mistakes too and are no doubt worried about their own bottom line above all else but the players have shown next to no willingness to negotiate. I also think they’ve blatantly lied to everyone to misrepresent March’s deal to the public. The main reason I support 50 games is it essentially takes their only argument off the table. Players made this about getting that 100% so accept that fact and let’s get to playing baseball.

      I don’t particularly like a shotgun season either but I’d rather see some baseball than nothing at all. If any players that aren’t at risk choose not to play that’s fine just don’t expect to get paid

      Comment


      • Originally posted by RefugeeZ View Post

        Oh I’m well aware of what players are doing and frankly I believe it’s their fault we’re were we are today. If we’re all being honest with ourselves they just never really came to the table to make a deal.. The owners have made plenty of mistakes too and are no doubt worried about their own bottom line above all else but the players have shown next to no willingness to negotiate. I also think they’ve blatantly lied to everyone to misrepresent March’s deal to the public. The main reason I support 50 games is it essentially takes their only argument off the table. Players made this about getting that 100% so accept that fact and let’s get to playing baseball.

        I don’t particularly like a shotgun season either but I’d rather see some baseball than nothing at all. If any players that aren’t at risk choose not to play that’s fine just don’t expect to get paid
        I agree. This is about players wanting 100% of their game checks amidst a scenario wherein owners are far from 100% of their revenues, and many of them simply cannot pay the freight with enough liquidity to participate. The revenue sharing model helps, but future revenue isn't something upon which to rely as a bridge to endure this impact.

        I certainly do not believe ownership to be angels, but the MLBPA is a clown show. "We're partners and want to share in the bounty, but YOU go get the bounty, and we'll take our share of what we think it should be valued."

        An owner of a club valued at a billion or more still has to have liquidity to fund the expenses, and many of them rely upon season and advance ticket sales to bolster that requirement. MLBPA should have been accepting some of that risk with revenue sharing that would allow them to bolster their brand as well as accelerate the salary increases coming in the near future. They could have worked to implement a model now that would carry forward. Instead they helped to turn this into a shit show that frustrates and turns off many fans.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rtrafford View Post

          I agree. This is about players wanting 100% of their game checks amidst a scenario wherein owners are far from 100% of their revenues, and many of them simply cannot pay the freight with enough liquidity to participate. The revenue sharing model helps, but future revenue isn't something upon which to rely as a bridge to endure this impact.

          I certainly do not believe ownership to be angels, but the MLBPA is a clown show. "We're partners and want to share in the bounty, but YOU go get the bounty, and we'll take our share of what we think it should be valued."

          An owner of a club valued at a billion or more still has to have liquidity to fund the expenses, and many of them rely upon season and advance ticket sales to bolster that requirement. MLBPA should have been accepting some of that risk with revenue sharing that would allow them to bolster their brand as well as accelerate the salary increases coming in the near future. They could have worked to implement a model now that would carry forward. Instead they helped to turn this into a shit show that frustrates and turns off many fans.
          True, they players haven't backed off the 100% prorated pay, but the owners haven't moved either. Every one of their proposals ends with the players around 70% of pay, just in a repackaged form..

          Play 2 games we will pay you for 2
          Play 3 games we will pay you for 2
          Play 5 games we will play you for 3
          Play 7 games we will play you for 4

          If TV revenues alone allow the owners to pay 100% of 50 games, they need to explain why TV revenues can't pay for 100% of 80 games..The money per game from TV doesn't decrease after the 50 game mark..

          Also left out of the "players are just greedy" argument, is the fact the owners won't even share revenue among themselves. The rich teams with huge TV deals will turn a profit at 80 games. The teams with tiny payrolls will be fine for 80 games. It's the 15 teams in the middle, with decent sized payrolls and average to below TV deals that stand to lose around 20m.

          The owners have put out a 600 million number as potential loses for paying 100% prorated salaries. 1st, that number is over blown, 2nd, they didn't disclose they were about to sign a new deal with Turner that would increase revenue by 650m a year starting in 2022..Any loses this year would be quickly erased..

          Yes, it would be great if players making over 15m a year would be noble and offer to take 50% prorated so the lower earners could make 100%, but it would also be noble if the owners would put real numbers out and share among themselves....



          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tmac13 View Post

            True, they players haven't backed off the 100% prorated pay, but the owners haven't moved either. Every one of their proposals ends with the players around 70% of pay, just in a repackaged form..

            Play 2 games we will pay you for 2
            Play 3 games we will pay you for 2
            Play 5 games we will play you for 3
            Play 7 games we will play you for 4

            If TV revenues alone allow the owners to pay 100% of 50 games, they need to explain why TV revenues can't pay for 100% of 80 games..The money per game from TV doesn't decrease after the 50 game mark..

            Also left out of the "players are just greedy" argument, is the fact the owners won't even share revenue among themselves. The rich teams with huge TV deals will turn a profit at 80 games. The teams with tiny payrolls will be fine for 80 games. It's the 15 teams in the middle, with decent sized payrolls and average to below TV deals that stand to lose around 20m.

            The owners have put out a 600 million number as potential loses for paying 100% prorated salaries. 1st, that number is over blown, 2nd, they didn't disclose they were about to sign a new deal with Turner that would increase revenue by 650m a year starting in 2022..Any loses this year would be quickly erased..

            Yes, it would be great if players making over 15m a year would be noble and offer to take 50% prorated so the lower earners could make 100%, but it would also be noble if the owners would put real numbers out and share among themselves....


            Well yea.. lol. If the owners know this is how much they're set to make for the season they'll know know how much they can expect to spend so it's not irrational for all the offers to be in the same value range.... If you'll notice the offers that went higher did so with playoff revenue on the backend. That's little more than a talking point used to overlook these are the financial realities for this season. 162, 120, 80, 50 owners still have the same revenue coming in there's no more to offer. I don't really get why people miss that part of it. We can sit here and cut the pie up however we like but no matter which way you choose it's still the same pie.

            New TV deal is also just another talking point that ignores the facts on the situation.. It doesn't go into effect until 2022 to begin with and ignores players have always had the option for revenue sharing but they refuse. In fact i think every offer the owners have put on the table has given players an increased portion of that pie but the players want no part in that either unless it's in addition to their guaranteed salaries.

            No owners aren't victims here.. but all of these excuses people are throwing around by and large are irreverent and simply means to distract from the simple fact players have never negotiated much of anything and i even tried to give them credit last week for their 'duhhhhh" proclamation of finally admitting they shouldn't get paid if they choose not to play. Lets also not forget how long they spent blatantly lying about the renegotiation clause.. You can always argue the owners could have done more but the flat out honest truth is the players have done NOTHING to help get baseball back.
            Last edited by RefugeeZ; 06-15-2020, 11:19 AM.

            Comment


            • Owners went to somewhere between 80% and 83% based upon a longer schedule and subject to the post season being played. They hedged their commitment in the event that the situation forces the games to be shut down again.

              Do the rough estimations of the numbers on payroll alone. An average team is paying out basic payroll alone of perhaps $700,000 per game, plus stadium costs, security, travel, utilities, and all of the enormous operating costs. You get really big numbers in a hurry, and you've got to recognize that the majority of the revenue is going to come between, say, late August and November. You have no idea as to whether or not the number of $600mm is accurate, reasonable, long shot, or crazy fiction.

              You don't spend against future revenue when that revenue relies upon you actually playing the games, and smaller market teams in doing this will be even at a greater disadvantage competitively going forward as they'll have even less to spend in comparison to the bigger markets.

              No one has asked the players paid more to take a larger reduction than the younger/cheaper guys. Owners offered to treat everyone the same at the same percentage.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by RefugeeZ View Post

                Well yea.. lol. If the owners know this is how much they're set to make for the season they'll know know how much they can expect to spend so it's not irrational for all the offers to be in the same value range.... If you'll notice the offers that went higher did so with playoff revenue on the backend. That's little more than a talking point used to overlook these are the financial realities for this season. 162, 120, 80, 50 owners still have the same revenue coming in there's no more to offer. I don't really get why people miss that part of it. We can sit here and cut the pie up however we like but no matter which way you choose it's still the same pie.

                New TV deal is also just another talking point that ignores the facts on the situation.. It doesn't go into effect until 2022 to begin with and ignores players have always had the option for revenue sharing but they refuse. In fact i think every offer the owners have put on the table has given players an increased portion of that pie but the players want no part in that either unless it's in addition to their guaranteed salaries.

                No owners aren't victims here.. but all of these excuses people are throwing around by and large are irreverent and simply means to distract from the simple fact players have never negotiated much of anything and i even tried to give them credit last week for their 'duhhhhh" proclamation of finally admitting they shouldn't get paid if they choose not to play. Lets also not forget how long they spent blatantly lying about the renegotiation clause.. You can always argue the owners could have done more but the flat out honest truth is the players have done NOTHING to help get baseball back.
                Answer the simple question. If 50 games, with the revenue made from 50 games can pay 100% prorated, why doesn't revenue from 80 games pay for 100% prorated? That part makes absolutely no sense, and had never been explained.

                And too your last line, what have the owners done to bring baseball back? I would argue the same absolutely nothing.

                To RTs point, businesses borrowing money against a signed future contract is standard operating procedure for thousands of businesses.

                And still no blame for the owners not equally sharing revenue among themselves? Which would also go a long way toward solving the issues..

                I truly don't believe the owners want to play at all this year..Would create a cry poor opportunity to do a lockout before next year to squeeze players that haven't been paid in 18 months for an owner friendly longterm deal.

                Comment


                • A 50-54 game season could be announced as early as today.

                  So, after this year, 3 of the last 4 world series winners can effectively have an asterisk placed next to their championships..2 for blatant cheating and 1 for winning in a sham season.

                  MLB franchises have averaged an 173 million dollar per season increase in value over the last 10 years..And these fools are arguing over a 20m dollar loss per team for 1 year..MLB is losing credibility to lifers like me..

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tmac13 View Post

                    Answer the simple question. If 50 games, with the revenue made from 50 games can pay 100% prorated, why doesn't revenue from 80 games pay for 100% prorated? That part makes absolutely no sense, and had never been explained.

                    And too your last line, what have the owners done to bring baseball back? I would argue the same absolutely nothing.

                    To RTs point, businesses borrowing money against a signed future contract is standard operating procedure for thousands of businesses.

                    And still no blame for the owners not equally sharing revenue among themselves? Which would also go a long way toward solving the issues..

                    I truly don't believe the owners want to play at all this year..Would create a cry poor opportunity to do a lockout before next year to squeeze players that haven't been paid in 18 months for an owner friendly longterm deal.
                    Because the revenue from 50 games doesn't pay it.. Not really sure where that idea came from. If teams aren't broadcasting games Networks aren't paying them for it. If your old TV deal even paid you 100 million for the season (just for an easy round number) then 81 games is only going to pay you 50 million. 50 games.. 30 million. That's why all of the offers from the owners included an increased share in playoff revenue. Which is also why you saw the number on the backend climb as they expanded playoffs. Even if the Braves made 1 million a game during the regular season the real cash is made in the playoffs where you get 350 million just for the LCS (going to 450 million in 2022 with the new deal).

                    They've at least negotiated.. As i said before the owners aren't victims here by any means but when it's all said an done one side has made repeated attempts and shown at least some willingness to move on their positions while the other has shown zero interest in negotiating much of anything. Even if you don't like the owners offers it's more effort than the players ever showed and no i'm not going to blame 28 teams because 2 don't want to share. I doubt very seriously that's something the league could impose even if they wanted too but again even if they could the players side always comes back to what more can someone besides me sacrifice to make this work. There's just no way around it.. Everything comes back to them refusing to budge an inch and people making excuses why they shouldn't have to. If that's your stance and you agree players shouldn't budge any then so be it but it's disingenuous to pretend where we are today based on anything else.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tmac13 View Post
                      A 50-54 game season could be announced as early as today.

                      So, after this year, 3 of the last 4 world series winners can effectively have an asterisk placed next to their championships..2 for blatant cheating and 1 for winning in a sham season.

                      MLB franchises have averaged an 173 million dollar per season increase in value over the last 10 years..And these fools are arguing over a 20m dollar loss per team for 1 year..MLB is losing credibility to lifers like me..
                      Asset valuation versus net operating income are two different animals. You can't readily write paychecks with equity. I would add here that an "average valuation increase" simply means someone's value increased significantly. It doesn't mean everyone's did. It's a misleading manner of statistical debate.
                      Last edited by rtrafford; 06-15-2020, 12:15 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tmac13 View Post

                        Answer the simple question. If 50 games, with the revenue made from 50 games can pay 100% prorated, why doesn't revenue from 80 games pay for 100% prorated? That part makes absolutely no sense, and had never been explained.

                        And too your last line, what have the owners done to bring baseball back? I would argue the same absolutely nothing.

                        To RTs point, businesses borrowing money against a signed future contract is standard operating procedure for thousands of businesses.

                        And still no blame for the owners not equally sharing revenue among themselves? Which would also go a long way toward solving the issues..

                        I truly don't believe the owners want to play at all this year..Would create a cry poor opportunity to do a lockout before next year to squeeze players that haven't been paid in 18 months for an owner friendly longterm deal.
                        • Simple Question 1: There's no evidence that 50 games are a point of cost-neutrality for a team. Once set operating costs are met through revenue, there is no accounting for the projection of the variable costs associated with more games being played. Many of these costs ARE tied to per-game performance, but some of them grow exponentially. Also, much or the revue being relied upon by the owners is collected late in the season and especially in the post season. The first half of this shortened season is a financial loser for the clubs short term.
                        • Simple Question 2: Every morning the owners take the risk of running and investing in the business. What have they done? Wow.
                        • Simple Question 3: Many small business owners turned down the opportunity to receive PPP Funds from the government. Why? Because the future outlook was too risky to incur debt that might have to be repaid. If the season is shut down by government caveat, next season, etc, this newly obtained debt still has to be repaid despite no revenues.
                        • Simple Question 4: I have no idea what the owners are agreeing or disagreeing to with regards to additional revenue sharing, but they already share revenue. Do I balme them for not sharing more? Not without a true understanding from both sides of such a discussion.

                        Comment


                        • If you consider that the average league player payroll is $136mm, that's $840,000 per game just in basic game payroll. Of course staffs and field/logistics personnel have to be paid, as well. Expanded rosters. Other operating costs including travel and insurance...really damned expensive to operate.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rtrafford View Post
                            • Simple Question 1: There's no evidence that 50 games are a point of cost-neutrality for a team. Once set operating costs are met through revenue, there is no accounting for the projection of the variable costs associated with more games being played. Many of these costs ARE tied to per-game performance, but some of them grow exponentially. Also, much or the revue being relied upon by the owners is collected late in the season and especially in the post season. The first half of this shortened season is a financial loser for the clubs short term.
                            • Simple Question 2: Every morning the owners take the risk of running and investing in the business. What have they done? Wow.
                            • Simple Question 3: Many small business owners turned down the opportunity to receive PPP Funds from the government. Why? Because the future outlook was too risky to incur debt that might have to be repaid. If the season is shut down by government caveat, next season, etc, this newly obtained debt still has to be repaid despite no revenues.
                            • Simple Question 4: I have no idea what the owners are agreeing or disagreeing to with regards to additional revenue sharing, but they already share revenue. Do I balme them for not sharing more? Not without a true understanding from both sides of such a discussion.
                            Yeah, there is a ton of risk owning and running a team..MLB teams go under all the time..Oh, wait...

                            DeWitts paid 147m for the Cards in 1996..If, he started losing money hand over fist he could sell the Cards for 2.5 billion today..That's an average increase in value of 83 million dollars a year for 24 years..If Dewitts loses 20m this year, I'm pretty sure he won't have to apply for food stamps..People and businesses use equity to pay for things all the time. Why is that such a reach for mlb owners?

                            Comment


                            • If you consider that the average league player payroll is $136mm, that's $840,000 per game just in basic game payroll. Of course staffs and field/logistics personnel have to be paid, as well. Expanded rosters. Other operating costs including travel and insurance...really damned expensive to operate.

                              Comment


                              • Last year the Braves paid Josh Donaldson 23m for a year..If he had got hurt and missed the season, that would have sucked, but the team wouldn't have gone under. This year, the were gonna pay Hamels and Ozuna a combined 36m. If both were injured in spring and the Braves wasted that 36m the franchise goes on. It's hard to believe that the estimated 20m per team lose to play a meaningful season is worth fucking up the game over considering risks that teams take on a yearly basis..

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X