28 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

It's going to be shot down.  The players say they have already negotiated the pay structure.  

It won't be accepted outright, but there will be negotiations.  Both sides want there to be baseball.  I think they'll ultimately agree on something.  The next few days will be interesting.

23 minutes ago, ScooterMcGee said:

I don't see what there is to negotiate. You play half the season, you get paid for half the season. Plus, no tickets being sold nor concessions. Major revenue loss for the teams. How is that deal not fair to the players? Unless I am missing something, seems to be more than fair to me.

This is instead of prorated salaries.

1 hour ago, ScooterMcGee said:

I don't see what there is to negotiate. You play half the season, you get paid for half the season. Plus, no tickets being sold nor concessions. Major revenue loss for the teams. How is that deal not fair to the players? Unless I am missing something, seems to be more than fair to me.

Because, if it was the other way around the owners don’t pay the players more money. If the Sox were expected to win 65 games and they won 95 and increased attendance, and concessions sales, and ad revenue on TV and the radio, JR doesn’t say, let’s split this extra cash up. He needs to take the no fan loss. I am sure there will be some negotiation to play, but there is no way the players are going to take a huge hunk of it.

Keep all the revenue and share the losses.  Hell of a business model.  

5 hours ago, Texsox said:

This is instead of prorated salaries.

Gotcha, didn't catch the "revenue sharing" aspect...guess I take the players' side with this one then,  especially since they already negotiated a deal back in March for the prorated salaries. Doesn't make sense why the owners would try to renegotiate, unless they thought it wouldn't be as bad as it has turned out to be?

19 hours ago, SonofaRoache said:

I think the new plan benefits the Sox big time. Kopech and Rodon would be ready in time to make a difference. We are also a team that could sneak into the playoffs with a shortened season. 

I totally agree and am surprised this board isn't more focused on this side of things.  This seems like a best-case-scenario for a team that is inexperienced but (we hope) at the beginning of a marked upward trend, and has a number of potentially key pieces that were set to arrive "late" in a traditional season. 

You can tell these guys got to be billionaires for a reason.

First rule:

Never play with your own money. 

33 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

You can tell these guys got to be billionaires for a reason.

They're a ruthless bunch but they own the laundry which means the players will once again be the bad guys.  

15 hours ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

Keep all the revenue and share the losses.  Hell of a business model.  

That's how every business is run these days. Privatize profits, socialize losses and rake in the dough. Fuck everyone but me. 

Edited May 12, 20205 yr by Jack Parkman

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

You can tell these guys got to be billionaires for a reason.

People should never side with the owners in these labor disputes. 

1 hour ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

I totally agree and am surprised this board isn't more focused on this side of things.  This seems like a best-case-scenario for a team that is inexperienced but (we hope) at the beginning of a marked upward trend, and has a number of potentially key pieces that were set to arrive "late" in a traditional season. 

I think once this deal gets hammered out and the details of a schedule and playoff format are finalized, the discussion will head in that direction. Right now, we're still just hoping an agreement becomes a reality before the roster implications become a bigger talking point.

Having said that, I agree.  The Sox stand to benefit more than most teams from an 82 game season starting in July.  Cooper has hinted at an unorthodox method of handling the starting staff and I'm really curious to see how this plays out with potentially 7 starters hopefully being healthy for the majority of the season (Giolito, Keuchel, Cease, Lopez, Gonzalez, Kopech, Rodon).  With two of these guys coming of TJS, and an unprecedented 82 game season, with expanded playoff, the sox should try to get creative as possible with their rotation. 

Plus, no Edwin Encarnacion April/May slump! ?

1 minute ago, whitesoxfan99 said:

People should never side with the owners in these labor disputes. 

Why? Never is a pretty strong word lol. Unions can be unreasonable with their demands in negotiations too.

I understand an agreement was already in place for pro-rated salaries, but at the time teams were probably hoping to have fans in some capacity.  With no gate revenue, players and owners will have to get creative to come together on a plan that makes sense for both sides.  Pro-rated salaries with 40% of all revenue gone may not be realistic.  Companies and industries of all kinds are experiencing layoffs/furloughs. The players may not like the structure but a compromise has to be made if baseball is going to happen this season and they want paychecks.  Hoping both sides can be reasonable and come to an agreement. Still plenty of time to make this work.

1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

That's how every business is run these days. Privatize profits, socialize losses and rake in the dough. Fuck everyone but me. 

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

29 minutes ago, whitesoxfan99 said:

People should never side with the owners in these labor disputes. 

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.

Edited May 12, 20205 yr by ptatc

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

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.

Now do baseball.

11 minutes ago, bmags said:

Now do baseball.

Same principle applies.

8 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Same principle applies.

ha

7 minutes ago, bmags said:

ha

It's a business.

Just now, ptatc said:

It's a business.

That's a meaningless statement.

5 minutes ago, bmags said:

That's a meaningless statement.

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.

Edited May 12, 20205 yr by ptatc

20 minutes ago, ptatc said:

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.

I think his point is that owning a sports franchise is essentially one of the most risk free businesses possible.

The league backs you, the city and government subsidizes new stadiums, etc.

5 minutes ago, Quin said:

I think his point is that owning a sports franchise is essentially one of the most risk free businesses possible.

The league backs you, the city and government subsidizes new stadiums, etc.

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.

Edited May 12, 20205 yr by ptatc

4 minutes ago, ptatc said:

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.

Significant risk suddenly appears for the league if all of the best baseball players in the world strike.

To be relatively risk free, they need the good players. The players want their slice of the pie.

9 minutes ago, ptatc said:

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.

They own a franchise in a league association with incredible barriers to any competition (a legal monopoly!). 

There are markets in everything, there is business in baseball. But applying somebody starting an IT consulting business to buying a baseball franchise where you have legal right to prevent any other baseball team competition from operating for local dollars is silly.