ptatc

It should come down to what the revenues will be. The sport is losing roughly 1/3 of the revenues with no fans. The next will be how much revenue are they losing from the media contracts. Are they going to get only 1/2 the revenue from these contracts? It will be interesting as to how much revenue loss there is, that's why the owners pushing for the revenue sharing makes sense. However, they agreed to that compromise way too soon thinking it would be a good deal early.

Seniors are granted an extra year so they do have an option this year if they aren't drafted. They may be a year older but it wont make much difference since no one is getting developmental time this year. The only issue will be if the coach has the scholarship money for them.

Yes, there was already an agreement. If the owners want to change it, they need to negotiate it.

I'm not sure if that's necessarily true. Maybe for the casual fan. However, being a baseball and white Sox fan I go to watch the team. Not the owners not the specific players. But the team I've always gone regardless of the owner or the players.

Very true. Which is why I believe they will play this year. However the entire discussion was about the MLB business model not necessarily this year.

Most do. Its fairly rare that they don't. Of course these aren't typical circumstances.

His defense of his actions does make sense though.

yep. We have a totally different view of business. Which is fine. If everyone agreed on everything Life would be boring. Disagreement is fun. Of course they also start wars.........?

Somewhat. That is risk from one point of view. The important aspect of the player is they have absolutely no risk, where the owner (home owner) still has some risk. There are factors which can lower the value/profit of the home owner.

Right so the owners have risk, they can lose money or have little profit. The players have none, their money is guaranteed, unless they strike.

In the level of minutia, no businesses are exactly the same, so you are correct. However, the principle of who laid out the risk to start/buy the business thus the risk vs. the employees who have little to no risk it's similar. Especially in baseball where the players have guaranteed contracts they assume zero risk. Owning a franchise is less risk, but still more than a player where profit is absolutely guaranteed.

Could be, its just that they do front a great deal of capital to buy them. The Ricketts paid close to a billion in cash, loans etc. It's now catching up to them and they are pulling back some. That's still more risk than any players has, which is none.

Don't see how. The same principles apply to all businesses. The owners took all the risk in investing capital to own the company. The players in this case have absolutely no risk with guaranteed contracts.

It's a business.

Same principle applies.

I usually do. The owners take the risk of laying out the capital to start the business. The employees, typically, have little risk other than losing their jobs. It's not to say they don't have rights, they just don't have much risk. In this particular case though, they had an agreement to pro-rate the salaries and should stick to it.

It's how business has always run. They are in the business to make money. They take the risk and they reap the rewards.

I love guns, germs and steel. Excellent theories.

No kidding. Good deal for them. It may be a precursor to a floor/ceiling cap in the next CBA.

I think so. With the CBA coming up, they are starting the process and precedents here.

I read the first part and thought "double headers for all" it will be some fun days watching. Then I finished the sentence and thought "well I still like it." ?

I never said he was greedy, although if he took the most money just because it was the most money I think it would qualify. However, we will never know for sure. My only response close to the was when someone said he wasnt being greedy he was only setting the bar higher for others, my response was that those arent mutually exclusive. This all started when someone stated the attitude should be to go for the most money. I disagree with that attitude or philosophy.

They will have the financial resources but that doesn't make it not a pain in the rear to do, especially if its to be near family. It's not necessarily his family that comes into play. His wife would be the one stuck at home with kids and it's probably more important that she has a supports system nearby for emergencies and not need to fly any where for help. The fact that he could get generational wealth AND not need to do all of things can be a factor. However, back to my original point, the pursuit of every last cent in lieu of a happier more enjoyable lifestyle isn't my personal philosophy and I disagree with those who have that philosophy or attitude.

Having the home team being in their hometown or a more comfortable town for them. The players can spend much more time with their families at home. Many make it a point to take their children to school on those days. Maybe it's in the same town as one of their parents, so when the player is out of town she has a support system in place. There are many reasons.

My personal dilemma was to stay in pro sports and be gone a lot, open up a group of clinics where the hours would be really long starting the company or go into academia and make much less money but make my own hours and be home with the kids growing up. I chose the latter and couldn't be happier.