Jump to content

Bernie will try to strip Anti-Trust


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Wait, didn't MLB have an anti-trust exemption when JR threatened to move to Tampa? Isn't there NOW a shitty, dated turd of a stadium in Tampa NOW, because of JR'S threat to move there? Isn't there NOW a crappy (for IL taxpayers) stadium under JR'S control that was built while MLB enjoyed the antitrust exemption? 

Sorry, but you're flat-out wrong on this issue, full stop.

1922
 
Since 1922, Major League Baseball (MLB) has been exempt from antitrust law. While other professional sport leagues have a few antitrust exemptions, none of them are exempt to the degree that professional baseball is.

 

 

It was actually challenged in 1953 and then again in the last 2-3 years, to little avail.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, caulfield12 said:
1922
 
Since 1922, Major League Baseball (MLB) has been exempt from antitrust law. While other professional sport leagues have a few antitrust exemptions, none of them are exempt to the degree that professional baseball is.

 

 

It was actually challenged in 1953 and then again in the last 2-3 years, to little avail.

Yeah, pretending that the antitrust exemption serves any purpose to protect fanbases is moronic.

All it does is to help make rich assholes richer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Wait, didn't MLB have an anti-trust exemption when JR threatened to move to Tampa? Isn't there NOW a shitty, dated turd of a stadium in Tampa NOW, because of JR'S threat to move there? Isn't there NOW a crappy (for IL taxpayers) stadium under JR'S control that was built while MLB enjoyed the antitrust exemption? 

Sorry, but you're flat-out wrong on this issue, full stop.

Key phrase there is threatened. Without MLB approval his threats were empty. Remove the antitrust exemption and you don't need to negotiate with the MLB. You just pick a city and move.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mac9001 said:

Key phrase there is threatened. Without MLB approval his threats were empty. Remove the antitrust exemption and you don't need to negotiate with the MLB. You just pick a city and move.

 

Yeah, that antitrust protection saved the Expos from moving, just like it saved the Milwaukee Braves and the Seattle pilots. 

 

Dude, you're wrong. No need to insist on defending something that's just silly at it's core. (snicker) "MLB approval" and "antitrust protection" being reasons for a team not to move....

STRETCH!!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Yeah, that antitrust protection saved the Expos from moving, just like it saved the Milwaukee Braves and the Seattle pilots. 

 

Dude, you're wrong. No need to insist on defending something that's just silly at it's core. (snicker) "MLB approval" and "antitrust protection" being reasons for a team not to move....

STRETCH!!!

Well, it was possible because the Marlins didn't exist, so there was no team to block them. However, maybe you can stop stomping your feet and insulting people like you always do and just Google something for once. 

MLB could have blocked the Expos move into the D.C. because it was the Orioles territory. But the Orioles got 80% ownership in the regional sports network the teams jointly own and it's been at the center of a of lawsuit between the two teams (basically, Orioles holding out on some revenue).

This is also why the A's didn't move to San Jose - because the Giants blocked them.

Quote

The exemption also benefits MLB in the area of franchise relocation. MLB can block the movement of franchises to cities that would compete with another MLB club. Other leagues have similar policies, but only MLB’s is immune from the prospect of antitrust scrutiny. MLB has seen the benefit. In 2013, San Jose sued MLB on grounds it had engaged in an illegal conspiracy to deny the city of a big league team (namely, the A’s). MLB prevailed in part because it was exempt from antitrust claims. In a world without the exemption, MLB would lose a powerful defense should team eye a new home.

I don't know if Vegas currently falls under a team's jurisdiction, but if it does that team could hypothetically block it.

This could 100% open up a hypothetical third team in NYC, which would be suicide, everyone is already a Yankees or Mets fan here - and if you see a third cap, it's the White Sox, for non-baseball reasons.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Quin said:

Well, it was possible because the Marlins didn't exist, so there was no team to block them. However, maybe you can stop stomping your feet and insulting people like you always do and just Google something for once. 

MLB could have blocked the Expos move into the D.C. because it was the Orioles territory. But the Orioles got 80% ownership in the regional sports network the teams jointly own and it's been at the center of a of lawsuit between the two teams (basically, Orioles holding out on some revenue).

This is also why the A's didn't move to San Jose - because the Giants blocked them.

I don't know if Vegas currently falls under a team's jurisdiction, but if it does that team could hypothetically block it.

This could 100% open up a hypothetical third team in NYC, which would be suicide, everyone is already a Yankees or Mets fan here - and if you see a third cap, it's the White Sox, for non-baseball reasons.

 

 


https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/07/mlb-put-another-team-new-york/

http://www.bronxbomberball.com/2015/07/a-third-baseball-team-in-ny.html

https://www.nysun.com/article/sports-is-a-third-ny-baseball-team-feasible

 


https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/athletics/as-study-shows-las-vegas-would-be-mlb-hit-2498293/
 

Manfred has been pretty positive about Vegas as a market, perhaps due the gambling tie-ins/revenue streams now possible.

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Quin said:

Well, it was possible because the Marlins didn't exist, so there was no team to block them. However, maybe you can stop stomping your feet and insulting people like you always do and just Google something for once. 

MLB could have blocked the Expos move into the D.C. because it was the Orioles territory. But the Orioles got 80% ownership in the regional sports network the teams jointly own and it's been at the center of a of lawsuit between the two teams (basically, Orioles holding out on some revenue).

This is also why the A's didn't move to San Jose - because the Giants blocked them.

And this is fair. But, I'm not seeing an insult in me snickering at his silly position that antitrust protection would substantially change MLB league rules, and thus, a team'srisk of moving. 

 

That said, exactly none of your post has anything to do with the antitrust exemption. Territorial rights are internal agreements within the MLB ownership group.

Professional teams move, whether their leagues have antitrust protection or not. MLB teams have moved, WITH MLB having antitrust protection. NFL, NBA, NHL teams have moved without it.

Thus, antitrust protection has nothing to do with a team moving. As it pertains to our White Sox, where would they even want to move? Every other open market is smaller, and thus, has lower profit potential than Chicago, full stop.

That JR hasn't fully exploited the nation's 3rd largest market is fully on him and his org's silly operations. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

And this is fair. But, I'm not seeing an insult in me snickering at his silly position that antitrust protection would substantially change MLB league rules, and thus, a team'srisk of moving. 

 

That said, exactly none of your post has anything to do with the antitrust exemption. Territorial rights are internal agreements within the MLB ownership group.

Professional teams move, whether their leagues have antitrust protection or not. MLB teams have moved, WITH MLB having antitrust protection. NFL, NBA, NHL teams have moved without it.

Thus, antitrust protection has nothing to do with a team moving. As it pertains to our White Sox, where would they even want to move? Every other open market is smaller, and thus, has lower profit potential than Chicago, full stop.

That JR hasn't fully exploited the nation's 3rd largest market is fully on him and his org's silly operations. 

The San Jose excerpt is literally from an article about the antitrust being explained and how MLB was able to defend itself in court against San Jose using the antitrust exemption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Quin said:

The San Jose excerpt is literally from an article about the antitrust being explained and how MLB was able to defend itself in court against San Jose using the antitrust exemption.

I did read that, and the author has one view on territorial rights and teams moving.

 

But, many other businesses without antitrust protection have territorial rights as an internal agreement. Your Allstate and State Farm agents agree to territorial rights when they sign on. (When one of their recruiters calls me from time to time, its the same shtick.) I believe Edward Jones does as well, or at least they did a few years ago. McDonald's and other fast food franchisees agree to territorial rights within their chains.

Even dialysis clinics have territorial rights negotiated with the state of Illinois department of public health, and with other states as well. When one of the publicly traded dialysis companies wants to open a new clinic, they have to go before the state, and prove that they're about to max out their capacity, and so, a new clinic is needed. (This is why Waukegan has more dialysis clinics than McDonald's.)

None of these businesses have antitrust exemptions, yet all (and many others) have internal territorial rights agreements, or even, territorial rights negotiated with the individual states.

 

In sum, killing the antitrust exemption would do little to impact franchise mobility within their leagues. But it WOULD enable MLB's books to be open, as part of a CBA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Two-Gun Pete said:

I did read that, and the author has one view on territorial rights and teams moving.

 

But, many other businesses without antitrust protection have territorial rights as an internal agreement. Your Allstate and State Farm agents agree to territorial rights when they sign on. (When one of their recruiters calls me from time to time, its the same shtick.) I believe Edward Jones does as well, or at least they did a few years ago. McDonald's and other fast food franchisees agree to territorial rights within their chains.

Even dialysis clinics have territorial rights negotiated with the state of Illinois department of public health, and with other states as well. When one of the publicly traded dialysis companies wants to open a new clinic, they have to go before the state, and prove that they're about to max out their capacity, and so, a new clinic is needed. (This is why Waukegan has more dialysis clinics than McDonald's.)

None of these businesses have antitrust exemptions, yet all (and many others) have internal territorial rights agreements, or even, territorial rights negotiated with the individual states.

 

In sum, killing the antitrust exemption would do little to impact franchise mobility within their leagues. But it WOULD enable MLB's books to be open, as part of a CBA.

Ok, here's the Reuters article from the time of the case.

Quote

The court’s decision not to take the case means a January appeals court ruling that said San Jose cannot seek a court order allowing the Athletics to move to the city in Silicon Valley remains intact.

The justices declined to hear the case without comment.

The high court decided in 1922 that Major League Baseball was not subject to federal antitrust laws, ruling against a challenge brought by a team from a defunct rival league.

The main obstacle to the proposed move of the Athletics is that another major league team, the San Francisco Giants, holds territorial rights to San Jose, according to the lawsuit.

San Jose sued Major League Baseball and then-league Commissioner Bud Selig in 2013, seeking permission for the move after the league failed to act on its request. A lower court judge rejected the city’s argument, ruling that baseball could withhold its approval for the Athletics to move under the league’s longstanding antitrust exemption.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Quin said:

Ok, here's the Reuters article from the time of the case.

"The main obstacle to the proposed move of the Athletics is that another major league team, the San Francisco Giants, holds territorial rights to San Jose,"

And from The Yahoo Link You Posted Earlier:

..."other leagues have similar agreements..."

 

The Reuters link you shared also emphasized the territorial rights agreement moreso than the antitrust protection. It was speculated upon by the author, but the key phrase to the piece was the one in your quoted link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would probably be good for minor leaguers. It would probably be good for guys who want to buy teams that would have a hard time getting enough of the other owners to approve, and it probably would mean 3 teams in NYC. Territorial rights would probably be shattered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

I'm not going to pretend I understand all the ramifications of the anti-trust but if taking it away ruins the owners day I'm down.  Go Bernie Go!

But what does Bernie think about the M's outfield situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record I don't personally support the MLB being granted an antitrust exemption. But you can look no further than what recently when down with the Rams and Chargers and how the NFL was essentially a spectator with no leverage to enforce their desire for both franchises to stay in their respective cities. The MLB has to literally approve a franchise relocation, the other sports league don't face the same level of legally binding restrictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mac9001 said:

For the record I don't personally support the MLB being granted an antitrust exemption. But you can look no further than what recently when down with the Rams and Chargers and how the NFL was essentially a spectator with no leverage to enforce their desire for both franchises to stay in their respective cities. The MLB has to literally approve a franchise relocation, the other sports league don't face the same level of legally binding restrictions.

So what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernie wants to inflict global socialism and the DH upon our innocent country when he could be acquiring Conforto by eminent domain for our White Sox. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, pcq said:

Bernie wants to inflict global socialism and the DH upon our innocent country when he could be acquiring Conforto by eminent domain for our White Sox. 

What has Bernie ever "fixed"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Why would any franchise move out of one of the largest media markets in the country?

The same reason they almost did like 5 other times.  Having an up and growing full market to themselves could be more profitable then being the Cubs perpetual little brother in about a 2:1 split of a shrinking Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The same reason they almost did like 5 other times.  Having an up and growing full market to themselves could be more profitable then being the Cubs perpetual little brother in about a 2:1 split of a shrinking Chicago.

These  “5 other times” were well before TV revenue became incredibly valuable and no one in their right mind would leave a top three media market for Nashville, Vegas, etc.  This whole “2:1 split” doesn’t matter when many fans are able to watch both local teams and TV contracts will reflect that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Why would any franchise move out of one of the largest media markets in the country?

The Cubs own most of the market value in Chicago. The Sox market value is average at best for a MLB franchise while their stadium and brand value is below average (and probably near the bottom) of MLB franchises. I don't think you can make an argument where the Sox from an overall value perspective would be better off on the south side than Las Vegas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mac9001 said:

The Cubs own most of the market value in Chicago. The Sox market value is average at best for a MLB franchise while their stadium and brand value is below average (and probably near the bottom) of MLB franchises. I don't think you can make an argument where the Sox from an overall value perspective would be better off on the south side than Las Vegas.

Forbes ranks the Sox 15th in total value.  How would a brand new team in Las Vegas be more valuable?  It’s a tiny metro market with all regional claims already accounted for.  Not sure what your argument even is here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...