Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 76 to 90 of 90
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    37,298
    Quote Originally Posted by lakerfan85 View Post
    If theyíre scared of getting sick or donít want to be away from their family then donít play but donít sit here and whine about the money you wonít be getting.. Iím tired of hearing about them taking all the risk too.. Thereís not going to be any fans so thereís minimal risk.
    So no fans makes it minimal risk? What about 30 players sharing a clubhouse or a hotel? Or the 20 man taxi squad of players there in case of a call up? You do realize if these guys leave where they are sequestered they potentially put 100s of people at risk. Whether that's their family, teammates, team personnel, MLB personnel, etc. That's not minimal risk and it takes only 1 or 2 of those guys to test positive (in close quarters) before it can be a much bigger problem.

    Who cares if you are tired of hearing it? Are you a MLB player? This isn't you objecting to working at your neighborhood department store. This is a business that generates tons of money and the players have significantly more leverage than the average person does at their job.

    I'm aware they aren't making 10 billion this year. It was a general point that clearly went over your head.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    37,298

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    37,298
    Last edited by metswon69; 05-26-2020 at 08:24 PM.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    48,356
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    **** the cheap *** A's.

    PSD: Where the moderators consistently cave to crybaby tattletales and it's a lot safer to be openly racist, hateful, and ignorant than to be a little rude to the racist, hateful, and ignorant

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,003
    There's a difference between being worth $2B and having $2B. I imagine most of tat net worth comes from a combination of his ownership stake in the A's, ownership stake in the GAP company that his parent started, physical properties that he owns, and then money of his tied up in other equities. None of that can be used to pay employees.

    Furloughs are mostly cash flow issues. Without cash coming in through operations companies just don't have the liquidity to pay people. How much the owner is "worth" really isn't a practical measure of that.

    What I'd like to see is these team owners that have to furlough people offer to make it back up to employees, at least in part, once things open back up. Furloughing them now in many cases will be a necessity but down the line once things are back running I think most would be more than able to take pay cuts from what they themselves take out of the business to give to those who need it more.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    37,298
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    There's a difference between being worth $2B and having $2B. I imagine most of tat net worth comes from a combination of his ownership stake in the A's, ownership stake in the GAP company that his parent started, physical properties that he owns, and then money of his tied up in other equities. None of that can be used to pay employees.

    Furloughs are mostly cash flow issues. Without cash coming in through operations companies just don't have the liquidity to pay people. How much the owner is "worth" really isn't a practical measure of that.

    What I'd like to see is these team owners that have to furlough people offer to make it back up to employees, at least in part, once things open back up. Furloughing them now in many cases will be a necessity but down the line once things are back running I think most would be more than able to take pay cuts from what they themselves take out of the business to give to those who need it more.
    Sure but these owners are shortsighted. I don't care what you are worth in tangible cash. A million dollars to pay your minor leaguers the rest of the season for a sport that made over 10 billion dollars last year isn't going to kill someone. We're in the midst of a nationwide pandemic and minor leaguers are already underpaid. In a time where they are talking about eliminating basically half the minor league teams to begin with. Every team is experiencing cash flow issues but the A's are the only team who are not paying those players past May 31st.

    There are some things that go past dollars and cents. I appreciate the practical unemotional stance but there are plenty of business entities that are paying their employees while revenue is an issue. MLB teams should be no exception to that especially when the league made over 20 billion dollars in revenue the last 2 seasons.
    Last edited by metswon69; 05-26-2020 at 11:50 PM.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,003
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Sure but these owners are shortsighted. I don't care what you are worth in tangible cash. A million dollars to pay your minor leaguers the rest of the season for a sport that made over 10 billion dollars last year isn't going to kill someone. We're in the midst of a nationwide pandemic and minor leaguers are already underpaid to begin with. In a time where they are talking about eliminating basically half the minor league teams to begin with. Every team is experiencing cash flow issues but the A's are the only team who are not paying those players past May 31st.

    There are some things that go past dollars and cents. I appreciate the practical unemotional stance but there are plenty of business entities that are paying their employees while revenue is an issue. MLB teams should be no exception to that especially when the league made over 20 billion dollars in revenue the last 2 seasons.
    My point though is that $10B made last year doesn't necessarily mean that they have even close to that in cash on hand.

    Of the $10B in revenue, I believe 50% went to major league players per the CBA. The same million it cost to pay the minor leaguers this year you're talking about had to be paid out last year. All the teams still had to pay last year's salaries for GM, scouts, coaches, office staff, gameday crews, etc. They had to pay rent or property tax on the stadiums. I'm sure that a number of teams spent some amount of money on capital improvements on the stadiums. And then despite none or little revenue coming in this year, all teams have still paid at least some portion of current year salaries to those non-player positions.

    The $10B of revenue they made last year isn't enough to support last year's cash payouts plus this year's. I work for a Company that has a sponsorship with an MLB team and we've agreed with them to withhold a $4M payment for right now. Just one example - I'm sure many, many more millions of MLB revenue are in the same situation.

    Over the long term, once we're past this situation that one million dollars is nothing to the owners. You're right. But right now, in the immediately current situation, it's well within reason that some teams right now do not have the cash to pay everyone. That's why I suggested making it up to people after the fact. But right now with no cash coming in I find it extremely improbable that teams won't have to make some cuts somewhere.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,951
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    My point though is that $10B made last year doesn't necessarily mean that they have even close to that in cash on hand.

    Of the $10B in revenue, I believe 50% went to major league players per the CBA. The same million it cost to pay the minor leaguers this year you're talking about had to be paid out last year. All the teams still had to pay last year's salaries for GM, scouts, coaches, office staff, gameday crews, etc. They had to pay rent or property tax on the stadiums. I'm sure that a number of teams spent some amount of money on capital improvements on the stadiums. And then despite none or little revenue coming in this year, all teams have still paid at least some portion of current year salaries to those non-player positions.

    The $10B of revenue they made last year isn't enough to support last year's cash payouts plus this year's. I work for a Company that has a sponsorship with an MLB team and we've agreed with them to withhold a $4M payment for right now. Just one example - I'm sure many, many more millions of MLB revenue are in the same situation.

    Over the long term, once we're past this situation that one million dollars is nothing to the owners. You're right. But right now, in the immediately current situation, it's well within reason that some teams right now do not have the cash to pay everyone. That's why I suggested making it up to people after the fact. But right now with no cash coming in I find it extremely improbable that teams won't have to make some cuts somewhere.
    I agree teams wil need to make cuts somewhere but the optics of making those cuts to the group that's already being exploited and paid less than minimum wage in most cases is a bad look.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,951
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Not taking the owners side, but the breakdown of this is a but different than just the numbers presented.

    The original plan was a shortened season and the players get a prorated version of their salary. This operates under the assumption that per game revenues would have returned to pre covid levels.

    It's become apparent that will not be the case. No fans means less revenue. So jiw instead of just prorated contracts, owners are giving a percent of prorated based on total contract. The league minimum types get the largest portion, so something like 92% of their prorated salary. The high end guts get a smaller percentage. So that's why the numbers look so low for the $35 mill guys.

    Problem is its impossible for us to actually know what's a fair deal or not. Owners don't release true financials, so we dont know if they profit in this situation or if this proposal is closer to break even or just to pay a minimum operation.

    So you can't really take sides because we don't know who's actually making money here. It's reasonable to assume the owners, most of whom are or were shrewd business people, aren't taking a bath here, but who knows. Like others have said, I tend to support the players more than owners but I also understand you can't expect teams to hemmorage money either.

    To me, the best solution is one both sides will hate and that's figure out a pure revenue split. Owners get X% and players get X%. Given the health risk, the players should get a higher percentage than they did in the past. And then drin there, each side can decide amongst themselves how to distribute the money.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Metroplex
    Posts
    2,676
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Yes it is amazing that common folk will always side with the billionaire owners. What people aren't talking about is the owners make most of their money on the back end when they sale all or portions of their team. These are greatly appreciating assets and the players dont get any of the enterprise value. If I were the players I would drive a hard bargain. The owners can afford it.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Metroplex
    Posts
    2,676
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    I've always argued that the owners deserve their piece of the pie because there the ones that make the capital investment and therefore maintain all of the financial risk.

    Now that the risk is actually being realized, I don't think it's right that they're trying to share the downside with the players. It defeats the purpose of what I think their slice of the pie was for before.
    You nailed this patsfan. Labor issues regardless of the reason is part of the risk calculus for owners. Seems like people assume because the owners take a capital risk they should somehow be guaranteed a specific profit.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    37,298
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    Not taking the owners side, but the breakdown of this is a but different than just the numbers presented.

    The original plan was a shortened season and the players get a prorated version of their salary. This operates under the assumption that per game revenues would have returned to pre covid levels.

    It's become apparent that will not be the case. No fans means less revenue. So jiw instead of just prorated contracts, owners are giving a percent of prorated based on total contract. The league minimum types get the largest portion, so something like 92% of their prorated salary. The high end guts get a smaller percentage. So that's why the numbers look so low for the $35 mill guys.

    Problem is its impossible for us to actually know what's a fair deal or not. Owners don't release true financials, so we dont know if they profit in this situation or if this proposal is closer to break even or just to pay a minimum operation.

    So you can't really take sides because we don't know who's actually making money here. It's reasonable to assume the owners, most of whom are or were shrewd business people, aren't taking a bath here, but who knows. Like others have said, I tend to support the players more than owners but I also understand you can't expect teams to hemmorage money either.

    To me, the best solution is one both sides will hate and that's figure out a pure revenue split. Owners get X% and players get X%. Given the health risk, the players should get a higher percentage than they did in the past. And then drin there, each side can decide amongst themselves how to distribute the money.
    I'm aware of the math. I also understand the owners are trying to pin the players against each other with the tiered % pay cut based on salary. Surely the revenue ceiling has changed with no fans but a 70% pay cut to the highest paid players isn't going to fly. There would have to be massive concessions in other areas to even consider it. No reason to insult the players with an offer like that.

    Its part of the negotiating process, we get it but come to the players with a reasonable offer, especially considering they are taking on all the risk. You're right the financials for owners are not of public record but i'm sure that offer as currently constituted is not even close to a fair shake.

    Hopefully they are able to get a deal done but the optics and negotiating tactics of the owners make for a bad start.
    Last edited by metswon69; 05-28-2020 at 03:50 AM.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,951
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    I'm aware of the math. I also understand the owners are trying to pin the players against each other with the tiered % pay cut based on salary. Surely the revenue ceiling has changed with no fans but a 70% pay cut to the highest paid players isn't going to fly. There would have to be massive concessions in other areas to even consider it. No reason to insult the players with an offer like that.

    Its part of the negotiating process, we get it but come to the players with a reasonable offer, especially considering they are taking on all the risk. You're right the financials for owners are not of public record but i'm sure that offer as currently constituted is not even close to a fair shake.

    Hopefully they are able to get a deal done but the optics and negotiating tactics of the owners make for a bad start.
    Not to get political, but it is a little funny that billionaire owners, most of whom probably support or at least used to support politicians who were largely in favor of cutting corporate taxes and cutting taxes to the super wealthy, are now proposing what amounts to a progressive tax system as the most fair solution.

    That being said, I can't bash either side too much though. Appealing to the masses like the owners did with this offer is sort of a dirty move, but everyone does it. Find the people who are most desperate and get them on your side. But I can't say for certain either way who's going to make out better in the deal. So it's hard to determine what's fair. I agree there's a strong possibility that that owners get the better deal, but who knows. At the end of the day, the owners will almost always win these negotiations because they have the funds to sit back and not collect a check for much longer than players, but none of us can confidently say at this point how these deals work out.

    My proposal for player pay is come up with a base game check. Maybe that number is like 90% of the prorated minimum. For example, a $3, 000 per game per player check would be just over 90% of the vet minimum. So every player gets a $3,000 check for each game they are active. I'm not sure the exact cutoffs you'd use, but any player who goes to the DL and has 3+ years of big league experience gets 80% of that $3,000 game check for each game they miss. Maybe the guys with less than 3 years in the bigs get 60-70% of the game check when on the DL. And the guys on the taxi squad get the full chexk each game they are active and somewhere between 25-50% for the full game check for games they aren't active.

    If you're a minimum contract guy, that would be your payment for the year. If you're above the minimum, take your full season salary and subtract the minimum contract. That determines how much "extra" money you make. Figure out every players percent of total from that extra money bucket.

    The take the players share of the revenue. Using the above math, subtract the total payments made to the players for their game checks. Take the leftover revenue for players and divvy it out based upon the percentage of extra money figure. So if Mike Trout's contract accounts for 0.01% of all the the contracts in baseball, he would get 0.01% of the leftover revenue.

    Something like that still helps the minimum or near minimum guys. It pays them a decent sum of money. And it doesn't really railroad the guys making big bucks as much either. This proposal hurts the mid tier guys more than the one the owners proposed, but to me it seems fair.

    But all in all, the biggest issue is figuring out what percentage of revenue to players deserve. This is partially where baseball is hurt by their CBA. The other leagues specifically call out what percentage players and owners get, so it's a bit easier to negotiate when everyone has the same starting point. And negotiating in the public eye is easier since we know what percentages each side gets. That's not true in baseball. We don't know, so it's easier for either side to say they are getting ripped off.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Metroplex
    Posts
    2,676
    Here is a proposal - For every incremental dollar a player loses on prorated basis per game, give that player that dollar value in ownership shares of their team. If you cut Mike Trout's salary by 70% game and you play half the games you will be giving him 24 million dollars worth of share in the asset. Set the value to Forbes enterprise value for each team as of 2019. Seems fair to me.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    37,298
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    My point though is that $10B made last year doesn't necessarily mean that they have even close to that in cash on hand.

    Of the $10B in revenue, I believe 50% went to major league players per the CBA. The same million it cost to pay the minor leaguers this year you're talking about had to be paid out last year. All the teams still had to pay last year's salaries for GM, scouts, coaches, office staff, gameday crews, etc. They had to pay rent or property tax on the stadiums. I'm sure that a number of teams spent some amount of money on capital improvements on the stadiums. And then despite none or little revenue coming in this year, all teams have still paid at least some portion of current year salaries to those non-player positions.

    The $10B of revenue they made last year isn't enough to support last year's cash payouts plus this year's. I work for a Company that has a sponsorship with an MLB team and we've agreed with them to withhold a $4M payment for right now. Just one example - I'm sure many, many more millions of MLB revenue are in the same situation.

    Over the long term, once we're past this situation that one million dollars is nothing to the owners. You're right. But right now, in the immediately current situation, it's well within reason that some teams right now do not have the cash to pay everyone. That's why I suggested making it up to people after the fact. But right now with no cash coming in I find it extremely improbable that teams won't have to make some cuts somewhere.

  16. 06-03-2020, 05:57 PM
    Reason
    Trolling

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •