sigh.....

3 hours ago, KrankinSox said:

Yeah, transparency from the owners regarding revenue streams certainly would help. I'm not sure how common that is in MLB or other sports during CBA negotiations to even know if this is something owners would consider doing.

Passan cited 40 % in his article, which is why I used that figure. Although he did say some reports indicate it may be in the 30's. Either way, I think there is enough public data regarding revenue for the PA to make an educated calculation of local revenue loss for the teams. Nobody said 'half' so I'm not sure why you decided to throw that inaccurate number out there?

The "half" didn't come from you. It was a number thrown out a week or two ago in one of the initial reports about these negotiations (don't remember which reporter), but they have since been saying it's 40% like you mentioned

12 hours ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Baseball salaries are guaranteed but only if they play games. If they don't play a game in 2020, they don't see another dime. 

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.

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

I disagree. People go to games to watch the players not the owners. Players are on the field and who the fans are watching. But here to you for going to games because you like the owners. 

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.

3 hours ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

The players have leverage because they are in the right.  They already agreed to a pay structure.  If the owners want to come back and renegotaite that agreement they will have to give up something in return and I hope it's somethng big.  

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

51 minutes ago, ptatc said:

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.

I agree with that and I'm that way also. So it wouldn't matter to us if it was the players or the owners to blame. 

 

 

They need to get on the field cause of all the unknowns about sports. Even the Illinois governor, who is so slow to open things up, wants baseball to be played as a TV sport with no fans.

Owners need to do what it takes to play now because the future of spectator sports is certainly in jeopardy. The every day fan is not going to have the money to buy season tickets the next few seasons and will be reluctant to sit in crowds. If they wipe out the entire season it'll be easier for fans to never come back considering how expensive it is and considering how many will have no disposable income after getting laid off.

Because of the risk involved, they should give the players pretty much whatever they want to get on the field in July.

Edited May 13, 20205 yr by greg775

I believe the owners have an obligation to their sport to safeguard the long term success of their league. Most owners are associated with the teams for a much longer time frame than players and their vision should match that tenure. In context the sacrifices that were made during the war years didn't destroy the sport and any sacrifices made during the Quarantimes won't either. 

I believe it could be argued that playing would provide a psychological boost to the nation. I believe it could also send a message that other restrictions are unnecessary and increase pressure to return to "normal". 

 

8 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I believe the owners have an obligation to their sport to safeguard the long term success of their league. Most owners are associated with the teams for a much longer time frame than players and their vision should match that tenure. In context the sacrifices that were made during the war years didn't destroy the sport and any sacrifices made during the Quarantimes won't either. 

I believe it could be argued that playing would provide a psychological boost to the nation. I believe it could also send a message that other restrictions are unnecessary and increase pressure to return to "normal". 

 

This is a very well balanced view of the entire thing, and one I also subscribe to

20 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I believe the owners have an obligation to their sport to safeguard the long term success of their league. Most owners are associated with the teams for a much longer time frame than players and their vision should match that tenure. In context the sacrifices that were made during the war years didn't destroy the sport and any sacrifices made during the Quarantimes won't either. 

I believe it could be argued that playing would provide a psychological boost to the nation. I believe it could also send a message that other restrictions are unnecessary and increase pressure to return to "normal". 

 

Well if we were all going to be tested as much as baseball players, other restrictions would be unneccessary.

1 minute ago, bmags said:

Well if we were all going to be tested as much as baseball players, other restrictions would be unneccessary.

Agreed. Especially when we have an accurate test. 

Snellzilla spittin fire.  

29 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

Snellzilla spittin fire.  

To quote Jerry Reinsdorf in the Last Dance: As soon as you sign this, I don’t want to hear from you again. 

The owners are the ones who want to renegotiate.  The players just want what they already agreed to.  Jerry Reinsdorf should listen to Jerry Reinsdorf.  

The whole grocery store workers are sacrificing so the players should sacrifice too thing only makes sense if their pay cuts were going to those workers and not under Jerry’s diving board. 

Edited May 14, 20205 yr by mqr

And if they renegotiated based on expecting one thing like playing all the games in one place and that isn't possible, don't renegotiate, just cancel the season. 

1 minute ago, Texsox said:

And if they renegotiated based on expecting one thing like playing all the games in one place and that isn't possible, don't renegotiate, just cancel the season. 

I really think cancelling the season is best way to go. If the rumors are true that a lot of players are going to sit out anyways, just shut it down.

Jeff

1:20

Who blinks on this revenue split - owners or players?

 

Keith Law

1:21

Owners. I don't think the negotiated agreement from March even allows owners to revisit this.

It's going to look really bad, for both the owners and players, if the season is cancelled over money and not because of the virus.  They're both going to have to give in order for this to happen.

Regardless of who are the bigger dicks (it's the owners, by the way), both sides will share the blame, and they will lose fans.

13 minutes ago, fathom said:

I really think cancelling the season is best way to go. If the rumors are true that a lot of players are going to sit out anyways, just shut it down.

I think canceling the season is the worst case scenario. It'll have huge ramifications on the 2021 season and into the future. 

27 minutes ago, fathom said:

I really think cancelling the season is best way to go. If the rumors are true that a lot of players are going to sit out anyways, just shut it down.

Some of yall just give up waaayy too easily.

Let's get some live baseball back and maybe get some new fans to our national past time... actually I just want it back myself but thought I'd throw out another reason for "the good of the sport" ?

53 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

Jeff

1:20

Who blinks on this revenue split - owners or players?

 

Keith Law

1:21

Owners. I don't think the negotiated agreement from March even allows owners to revisit this.

Well probably not, but the players also don't have the ability to cancel the season if they don't get their way in the same way the owners do.

I am in general very pro player. I think the players positioning is getting better, the first "no salary cap!" positioning was idiotic.

Players have a harder time since any one of hundreds can break off and say something dumb, while owners know from years not to speak ever.

But, I think it's harder this time to just take the "owners signed the agreement in march, can't negotiate!". Clearly things are way worse than I think many anticipated when everything canceled. The loss of revenue you are talking about is not something that happens without everyone feeling it, though it could very well be short term. It is an outlier, and I think the way to bridge that while allowing positive or negative changes is a year of revenue sharing (though matched to typical % of players salaries +1/2%)

Yeah, the owners are billionaires, but here's a good illustration of the reality in action.

 

 

Bu-whah!? You are [redacted: millionaire] OWNER! You can't just keep paying your employees! You are ignoring rent!? Just pay with your millions!

edit: well apologies to Patty Light here, I figured he had more than a cup of coffee. Soooo...not a millionaire

What do you think will happen in FA next offseason if players "win" this?

A lot of the problem is manfred sucks. You can see silver in the NBA meeting with players constantly, making sure they have a voice. Manfred just tries to plop his shit on everyone and make them feel like a zero sum game rather than something the league needs to get through with everyone as close to whole as possible.

That's an interesting point about rent. I wonder how many teams have a gate split arrangement and won't be paying rent on a stadium.