I'm Siding With The MLB Players This Time

[WillPower]

The owners and players worked out a deal almost two months ago on salaries in a shortened season. They decided to prorate contracts by how many games were played, period. But now the owners are trying to say they have to settle for a 50/50 of total revenues instead of that. Good luck getting a fair accounting of that from the billionaires in the luxury boxes. You don't get to be a billionaire without two sets of books. The average MLB player salary in The Show is $4.4M. The owners can cover that easily with their TV contracts. Can they cover their expenses with the original deal? Hell yes they can....they lose 40% of their gross with no ticket/parking/concessions money....poor babies. Everybody is sacrificing and America needs it's baseball...even if it's only on TV.. I prefer that since my MLB.com costs are about 80 cents a game with Detroit announcers, replay, and various camera angles. Nobody in Detroit is going to Tiger games anyway because THEY SUCK these days but help is on the way from the minors. So let's PLAY BALL and tell the billionaires to lighten up.....a lost season will hurt them more financially than doing what they agreed to in the first place.

 

[Rambunctious]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

 

[22lcidw]

We have a chance to break the outrageous salaries and costs to experience sports. With cable TV reforms this will go a long way to making things more affordable to people as they once were.

 

[rightwinger]

Interesting how the owners are only interested in revenue sharing when they are losing money.

If the owners were making additional profits instead of losses, they would say......sorry, a deal is a deal, my revenue is none of your business

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Interesting how the owners are only interested in revenue sharing when they are losing money.

If the owners were making additional profits instead of losses, they would say......sorry, a deal is a deal, my revenue is none of your business

Hence they are the owners.

 

[rightwinger]

Interesting how the owners are only interested in revenue sharing when they are losing money.

If the owners were making additional profits instead of losses, they would say......sorry, a deal is a deal, my revenue is none of your business

Hence they are the owners.

Then they should suck up the losses and pay in accordance with the contract

If I was a player I would only agree to revenue sharing if it becomes permanent

 

[Leweman]

The owners and players worked out a deal almost two months ago on salaries in a shortened season. They decided to prorate contracts by how many games were played, period. But now the owners are trying to say they have to settle for a 50/50 of total revenues instead of that. Good luck getting a fair accounting of that from the billionaires in the luxury boxes. You don't get to be a billionaire without two sets of books. The average MLB player salary in The Show is $4.4M. The owners can cover that easily with their TV contracts. Can they cover their expenses with the original deal? Hell yes they can....they lose 40% of their gross with no ticket/parking/concessions money....poor babies. Everybody is sacrificing and America needs it's baseball...even if it's only on TV.. I prefer that since my MLB.com costs are about 80 cents a game with Detroit announcers, replay, and various camera angles. Nobody in Detroit is going to Tiger games anyway because THEY SUCK these days but help is on the way from the minors. So let's PLAY BALL and tell the billionaires to lighten up.....a lost season will hurt them more financially than doing what they agreed to in the first place.

I believe that original deal had an agreement that there would be no limit on mass gatherings, no restriction on travel and no issues with player safety. So fans would be in the stadium under this original agreement. Right now that looks like it wouldn't be the case for the start, so the original agreement doesn't really apply.

 

[White 6]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

Not necessarily the best way to look at it. Players only get to play to make their money for so long. Teams can always be kept or sold clean into an owner's dying days and there is always a market. The agreement is the agreement. Who knew the owners were stupid enough to make a bad deal that paid the players for games played, when they could have forced them to take a less equitable arrangement, to where the owners could get a better more one sided, forced deal by welshing on agreements, using inherent monopoly power and basically forcing a lockout. Sounds like a good way to end up with a union to protect the players interests against monopoly power of the owners in what might be considered an unfair bargaining position, even when both sides actually need the other to make any money at all. Oh, I guess that is what has happened. Guess they will work it out, hopefully without too much further whining by the owners. Sounds like the players were willing to play for the agreement, agreed to.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Interesting how the owners are only interested in revenue sharing when they are losing money.

If the owners were making additional profits instead of losses, they would say......sorry, a deal is a deal, my revenue is none of your business

Hence they are the owners.

Then they should suck up the losses and pay in accordance with the contract

If I was a player I would only agree to revenue sharing if it becomes permanent

Owners have more power it seems. Time will tell.

 

[Rambunctious]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

Not necessarily the best way to look at it. Players only get to play to make their money for so long. Teams can always be kept or sold clean into an owner's dying days and there is always a market. The agreement is the agreement. Who knew the owners were stupid enough to make a bad deal that paid the players for games played, when they could have forced them to take a less equitable arrangement, to where the owners could get a better more one sided, forced deal by welshing on agreements, using inherent monopoly power and basically forcing a lockout. Sounds like a good way to end up with a union to protect the players interests against monopoly power of the owners in what might be considered an unfair bargaining position, even when both sides actually need the other to make any money at all. Oh, I guess that is what has happened. Guess they will work it out, hopefully without too much further whining by the owners. Sounds like the players were willing to play for the agreement, agreed to.

Then the players should try and purchase teams.....or set themselves up in a business for when they retire...not everything has to be equal....if the players want to keep getting the ridiculous pay they are getting they should be careful not to break the owners bank....its just common sense......we all are taking financial hits right now why should the players be exempt?....

 

[martybegan]

Interesting how the owners are only interested in revenue sharing when they are losing money.

If the owners were making additional profits instead of losses, they would say......sorry, a deal is a deal, my revenue is none of your business

Actually the owners have been trying to get revenue sharing with the players for decades. That is usually the basis of any salary cap in any other sport. The cap is based on a split of revenues. Hell the NHL even goes to the point of putting a portion of the player's salary in escrow until the years revenue is determined, if revenues fall short the players don't get the escrow money in direct proportion to how much revenue projections fell short.

 

[martybegan]

The owners and players worked out a deal almost two months ago on salaries in a shortened season. They decided to prorate contracts by how many games were played, period. But now the owners are trying to say they have to settle for a 50/50 of total revenues instead of that. Good luck getting a fair accounting of that from the billionaires in the luxury boxes. You don't get to be a billionaire without two sets of books. The average MLB player salary in The Show is $4.4M. The owners can cover that easily with their TV contracts. Can they cover their expenses with the original deal? Hell yes they can....they lose 40% of their gross with no ticket/parking/concessions money....poor babies. Everybody is sacrificing and America needs it's baseball...even if it's only on TV.. I prefer that since my MLB.com costs are about 80 cents a game with Detroit announcers, replay, and various camera angles. Nobody in Detroit is going to Tiger games anyway because THEY SUCK these days but help is on the way from the minors. So let's PLAY BALL and tell the billionaires to lighten up.....a lost season will hurt them more financially than doing what they agreed to in the first place.

I believe that original deal had an agreement that there would be no limit on mass gatherings, no restriction on travel and no issues with player safety. So fans would be in the stadium under this original agreement. Right now that looks like it wouldn't be the case for the start, so the original agreement doesn't really apply.

Agreed, however the owners could just ask for this year's salaries to be prorated by an additional offset, flat out.

By asking to try a revenue split they are attempting to get some form of the basis for a cap into an actual agreement, even if it isn't a real cap yet.

I don't blame the owners for trying, and I don't blame the players for balking at it.

 

[Rambunctious]

Personally I don't miss it...the pro leagues can go away forever as far as I'm concerned.....

 

[rightwinger]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

Not necessarily the best way to look at it. Players only get to play to make their money for so long. Teams can always be kept or sold clean into an owner's dying days and there is always a market. The agreement is the agreement. Who knew the owners were stupid enough to make a bad deal that paid the players for games played, when they could have forced them to take a less equitable arrangement, to where the owners could get a better more one sided, forced deal by welshing on agreements, using inherent monopoly power and basically forcing a lockout. Sounds like a good way to end up with a union to protect the players interests against monopoly power of the owners in what might be considered an unfair bargaining position, even when both sides actually need the other to make any money at all. Oh, I guess that is what has happened. Guess they will work it out, hopefully without too much further whining by the owners. Sounds like the players were willing to play for the agreement, agreed to.

Then the players should try and purchase teams.....or set themselves up in a business for when they retire...not everything has to be equal....if the players want to keep getting the ridiculous pay they are getting they should be careful not to break the owners bank....its just common sense......we all are taking financial hits right now why should the players be exempt?....

Players are taking a financial hit. They agreed to a prorated salary which the owners signed up to.
Now, the owners want a better deal where players take more of the financial loss.

If they want the players to have a stake in the team, they should offer it.

 

[WillPower]

Personally I don't miss it...the pro leagues can go away forever as far as I'm concerned.....

Not me....jonesing for some baseball BIG TIME....Detroit has some young pitching we were hoping to see late summer and the minor league teams can't afford to play without a crowd so they all get stopped cold in their development. Muscle-memory lost with the hitters, and the pitchers will try to throw hard too soon and blow out their elbows/shoulders. I swear I will never buy another item that says "made in china"...dirty yellow fuckers.

 

[martybegan]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

Not necessarily the best way to look at it. Players only get to play to make their money for so long. Teams can always be kept or sold clean into an owner's dying days and there is always a market. The agreement is the agreement. Who knew the owners were stupid enough to make a bad deal that paid the players for games played, when they could have forced them to take a less equitable arrangement, to where the owners could get a better more one sided, forced deal by welshing on agreements, using inherent monopoly power and basically forcing a lockout. Sounds like a good way to end up with a union to protect the players interests against monopoly power of the owners in what might be considered an unfair bargaining position, even when both sides actually need the other to make any money at all. Oh, I guess that is what has happened. Guess they will work it out, hopefully without too much further whining by the owners. Sounds like the players were willing to play for the agreement, agreed to.

Then the players should try and purchase teams.....or set themselves up in a business for when they retire...not everything has to be equal....if the players want to keep getting the ridiculous pay they are getting they should be careful not to break the owners bank....its just common sense......we all are taking financial hits right now why should the players be exempt?....

Players are taking a financial hit. They agreed to a prorated salary which the owners signed up to.
Now, the owners want a better deal where players take more of the financial loss.

If they want the players to have a stake in the team, they should offer it.

The owners should just offer them money based on the prorated schedule WITH a deductor for the loss of gate revenue. More importantly it should just be for this year.

 

[rightwinger]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

Not necessarily the best way to look at it. Players only get to play to make their money for so long. Teams can always be kept or sold clean into an owner's dying days and there is always a market. The agreement is the agreement. Who knew the owners were stupid enough to make a bad deal that paid the players for games played, when they could have forced them to take a less equitable arrangement, to where the owners could get a better more one sided, forced deal by welshing on agreements, using inherent monopoly power and basically forcing a lockout. Sounds like a good way to end up with a union to protect the players interests against monopoly power of the owners in what might be considered an unfair bargaining position, even when both sides actually need the other to make any money at all. Oh, I guess that is what has happened. Guess they will work it out, hopefully without too much further whining by the owners. Sounds like the players were willing to play for the agreement, agreed to.

Then the players should try and purchase teams.....or set themselves up in a business for when they retire...not everything has to be equal....if the players want to keep getting the ridiculous pay they are getting they should be careful not to break the owners bank....its just common sense......we all are taking financial hits right now why should the players be exempt?....

Players are taking a financial hit. They agreed to a prorated salary which the owners signed up to.
Now, the owners want a better deal where players take more of the financial loss.

If they want the players to have a stake in the team, they should offer it.

The owners should just offer them money based on the prorated schedule WITH a deductor for the loss of gate revenue. More importantly it should just be for this year.

If they are willing to deduct for loss of gate revenue, they should offer bonuses for when gate revenue exceeds expectations

 

[martybegan]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

Not necessarily the best way to look at it. Players only get to play to make their money for so long. Teams can always be kept or sold clean into an owner's dying days and there is always a market. The agreement is the agreement. Who knew the owners were stupid enough to make a bad deal that paid the players for games played, when they could have forced them to take a less equitable arrangement, to where the owners could get a better more one sided, forced deal by welshing on agreements, using inherent monopoly power and basically forcing a lockout. Sounds like a good way to end up with a union to protect the players interests against monopoly power of the owners in what might be considered an unfair bargaining position, even when both sides actually need the other to make any money at all. Oh, I guess that is what has happened. Guess they will work it out, hopefully without too much further whining by the owners. Sounds like the players were willing to play for the agreement, agreed to.

Then the players should try and purchase teams.....or set themselves up in a business for when they retire...not everything has to be equal....if the players want to keep getting the ridiculous pay they are getting they should be careful not to break the owners bank....its just common sense......we all are taking financial hits right now why should the players be exempt?....

Players are taking a financial hit. They agreed to a prorated salary which the owners signed up to.
Now, the owners want a better deal where players take more of the financial loss.

If they want the players to have a stake in the team, they should offer it.

The owners should just offer them money based on the prorated schedule WITH a deductor for the loss of gate revenue. More importantly it should just be for this year.

If they are willing to deduct for loss of gate revenue, they should offer bonuses for when gate revenue exceeds expectations

Why? This is a unique situation not caused by how bad the team is playing, or how good the team is playing.

Players don't get paid more or less normally based on gate revenue.

The owners have a valid assertion that they based the original deal on a full re-opening, not a re-opening with no fans and no gate money, or concession money, or the big profit maker, parking money.

 

[theHawk]

Yea I’m not feeling sorry for the owners or players. When times get “real” they find out they aren’t that important.

 

[WillPower]

Agreed, however the owners could just ask for this year's salaries to be prorated by an additional offset, flat out.

By asking to try a revenue split they are attempting to get some form of the basis for a cap into an actual agreement, even if it isn't a real cap yet.

I don't blame the owners for trying, and I don't blame the players for balking at it.

There's been collusion among the owners for the last two seasons to "rebuild" instead of paying the escalating salaries but the union can't prove it. I don't blame the owners for that....guaranteed money in the tens of million$...where is the incentive to perform? Small market teams can't compete against the Yanks and Red Sox...their TV contracts pay every cent of their costs.....tickets, caps, parking, are gravy. How is Pittsburgh or Kansas City or even Detroit supposed to compete for free agents with them? A salary-cap and DH in the NL is inevitable. But not NOW....we need sports...it's summer, baseball season.....if either side is found guilty of calling off the rest of the season, we won't forget.