meh2

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Baseball Impact

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

 

 

Not sure I'm following you here...You said the MLB told the players that salary cuts won't be a part of any negotiation but then say MLB is asking them to take cuts....

Huh?

 

According to the article, the MLBPA was informed, in March, that their salaries were considered a settled matter, and would not be part of any renegotiation if fans were not permitted at games.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, duke of queens said:

What do the players owe the owners? They are the ones taking the risk and actually providing the service. Deferring the money is helping the owners out. Players defer their salary all the time to help teams afford other players.

 

I don't think the players owe the owner's anything.

Wait, you said the players are the ones taking the risk and not the actual business owners? Um...that's...incredible...

Let's agree to disagree and move on...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 89Topps said:

 

According to the article, the MLBPA was informed, in March, that their salaries were considered a settled matter, and would not be part of any renegotiation if fans were not permitted at games.  

 

Gotcha. I didn't know that, and if that's actually the case and there were no contingencies to it (like there being fans, etc), then that is a whole different ball game...

 

Thanks for sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

I don't think the players owe the owner's anything.

Wait, you said the players are the ones taking the risk and not the actual business owners? Um...that's...incredible...

Let's agree to disagree and move on...

Yeah so many bankrupt baseball teams out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ThreadKiller said:

 

I'm not sure I follow you either. You completely misrepresented a "concession" made by the players.

Still waiting on accurate concessions that the players made here...

I thought we just agreed on what that was?

The owners have been saying it's only equitable to pay players for a certain number of games because their loss of attendance revenue this season.  Players have accordingly reduced their salary from 100% (162 games) to 70% (114 games) to 55% (89 games).

League says no, only 30% (50 games at 100% pro rata) or 35% (89 games at 75% pro rata) is equitable.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, duke of queens said:

They didn't ask for their full salary is a big concession.

 

What?

They get paid on a per game basis. Saying you're willing to get paid for 75 games if you play 75 games isn't really a concession IMO. It's just logical. Now if they were willing to take a PERCENTAGE of their game checks, THAT to me would be a concession.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, duke of queens said:

Yeah so many bankrupt baseball teams out there.

 

What's with all the misquoting going on today? Is that the new tool to try to defend an opinion if you run out of other ways?

 

So you think that employees are the ones who inherit the monetary risk and that business owners don't because they're wealthy? Man oh man, now I've seen it all lol.

Edited by ThreadKiller
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

What's with all the misquoting going on today? Is that the new tool to try to defend an opinion if you run out of other ways?

 

So you think that employees are the ones who inherit the monetary risk and that business owners don't because they're wealthy? Man oh man, now I've seen it all lol.

There is still a pandemic going on correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, duke of queens said:

There is still a pandemic going on correct?

 

Please stop with the condescending tone and misquoting in efforts to spark conflict.

Edited by ThreadKiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

Holy moly, there is? Tell me more!

Please stop with the condescending tone and misquoting in efforts to spark conflict.

Your'e siding with disingenuous owners that want to share the losses in tough times, but in good times the profits are only going in their pockets. Teams need to have a business recovery plan for times like these like most corporations have. In this case, owners should have extra money set aside to pay those employees helping them to make millions when a nationwide catastrophe happens. If they did not do this then that is on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, duke of queens said:

Your'e siding with disingenuous owners that want to share the losses in tough times, but in good times the profits are only going in their pockets. Teams need to have a business recovery plan for times like these like most corporations have. In this case, owners should have extra money set aside to pay those employees helping them to make millions when a nationwide catastrophe happens. If they did not do this then that is on them.

 

That's a subjective thing to say.

 

So you think the players should be paid their full salary no matter how many games are played?

Going off your stance here, then no employee should have lost their job at all throughout this pandemic or made any concessions pay percentages due to business loss. The owners should have dipped into their savings to make sure that didn't happen because "welp, they're wealthy and can afford it based on my subjective assertion."

Edited by ThreadKiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, duke of queens said:

Your'e siding with disingenuous owners that want to share the losses in tough times, but in good times the profits are only going in their pockets. Teams need to have a business recovery plan for times like these like most corporations have. In this case, owners should have extra money set aside to pay those employees helping them to make millions when a nationwide catastrophe happens. If they did not do this then that is on them.

And I think they do, for themselves.

They have a 1 billion dollar uniform contract that is unaffected by attendance (doesn't matter how many jerseys or hats they sell, money is guaranteed from Nike).

They just signed a new billion dollar national postseason TV deal with Turner yesterday - https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-agrees-to-billion-dollar-tv-rights-deal-with-turner-sports-per-report/

That's not including national TV deals with FOX and ESPN and the regional broadcasting.

There's a lot of guaranteed cash here regardless of what happens at the gate.

Edited by JE7HorseGod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

The owners have been saying it's only equitable to pay players for a certain number of games because their loss of attendance revenue this season.  Players have accordingly reduced their salary from 100% (162 games) to 70% (114 games) to 55% (89 games).


I can’t credit these as concessions given that the season was suspended on account of a global pandemic and state lockdown orders prevented play.

Look at the calendar, even the 89 game reduction isn’t possible.  

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

And I think they do, for themselves.

They have a 1 billion dollar uniform contract that is unaffected by attendance (doesn't matter how many jerseys or hats they sell, money is guaranteed from Nike).

They just signed a new billion dollar national postseason TV deal with Turner yesterday - https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-agrees-to-billion-dollar-tv-rights-deal-with-turner-sports-per-report/

That's not including national TV deals with FOX and ESPN and the regional broadcasting.

There's a lot of guaranteed cash here regardless of what happens at the gate.

 

I just think the stance of the players is one of entitlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

That's a subjective thing to say.

 

So you think the players should be paid their full salary no matter how many games are played?

Going off your stance here, then no employee should have lost their job at all throughout this pandemic or made any concessions pay percentages due to business loss. The owners should have dipped into their savings to make sure that didn't happen because "welp, they're wealthy and can afford it based on my subjective assertion."

I think they should be paid their full salary, however it is negotiated. If it's per game than they should be paid 100% for the games played. I don't know what pandemic clause is in there for them to fight for the full thing, but they negotiated otherwise already so that is moot.

These players have contracts and are not regular employees. Owners already laid off or cut salaries of their operational employees. They most likely had an essential workers plan designed on who gets let go or who's pay gets cut.  A similar plan should be in place to honor contracts that are binding in any sort of economic distress. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Weekday Warrior said:


I can’t credit these as concessions given that the season was suspended on account of a global pandemic and state lockdown orders prevented play.

Look at the calendar, even the 89 game reduction isn’t possible.  

 

 

Of course, that'd be the argument the owners would want to frame, since some of their revenue is guaranteed for the year and we've all accepted that the player's salary will be based on a pro rata for games played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

I just think the stance of the players is one of entitlement.

Interesting.

So what entitles owners to take a portion of labor's salary because of their own revenue losses?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, duke of queens said:

I think they should be paid their full salary, however it is negotiated. If it's per game than they should be paid 100% for the games played. I don't know what pandemic clause is in there for them to fight for the full thing, but they negotiated otherwise already so that is moot.

These players have contracts and are not regular employees. Owners already laid off or cut salaries of their operational employees. They most likely had an essential workers plan designed on who gets let go or who's pay gets cut.  A similar plan should be in place to honor contracts that are binding in any sort of economic distress. 

 

 

I believe they negotiated with the expectation that there would be fans in the stands. So the need to renegotiate makes sense to me.

 

Based on your model, whenever there is economic distress or a unforseen pandemic, all business owners should dip into their pockets for employees and they are wrong if they can't or aren't willing to do so.

We're in unprecedented territory. It would have served the game well if both sides were willing to meet in the middle on this thing in order to get the game going. The players stood their ground with little to no interest in budging to make concessions alongside the owners. Many of you are ok with that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

Interesting.

So what entitles owners to take a portion of labor's salary because of their own revenue losses?

 

The "contract" that you speak of is based on certain things (revenue, fans, etc). If those things are taken away, the "contract" becomes a bit flimsy, no?

 

Many companies had to pay their employees only a percentage of their salary during this pandemic. It's a pandemic remember? Unprecedented and not everyone was prepared for something like this. The percentage rather than full pay was done due to loss of some revenue, of course. Many of you seem to know the financial details of these owners so much (not sure how) and think that "Well, since they're wealthy, they should just pony up." That's not how things work.

 

I've been on the fence and kind of back and forth throughout this process with who think is to blame the most for this. However, it seems like some of you made up your minds from the start who you think is to blame and refuse to listen to anything that counters your stance.

Edited by ThreadKiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All players are asking is that owners to abide by the terms of a mutually agreed-upon contract, with any hypothetical losses be absorbed by the entrepreneurs who absorb the very tangible profits year after year.  That's not entitlement by any sensible definition of the word.  Entitlement is buying a business, believing it should never take a loss under any circumstances, and refusing to provide any evidence to support your contention that you're taking a loss when demanding concessions from your workers.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThreadKiller said:

The "contract" that you speak of is based on certain things (revenue, fans, etc). If those things are taken away, the "contract" becomes a bit flimsy, no?

It's my opinion that the players' have offered 45% of what their expected salary would be already in a reduction of games from 162 to 89.

You can say, "well of course, they aren't going to play 162 games."  And that'd be right.  But the owners have revenue streams that are guaranteed regardless of the gate attendance.  So to say they haven't made concessions while the owners have doesn't seem right to me.  I'd say that neither side has budged much from their initial positions (if we exclude the initial, terrible revenue share trial balloon).  And that makes sense to me, because this doesn't really appear to me to be an effort to meet together to discuss how they can make teams whole based on lost attendance revenue but leveraging the situation into a protracted labor disupute in an effort to increase revenue by mitigating expenses.

I am not trying to misinterpret your position, so if this is not correct, please tell me, but IF the only thing that would appear to be a "concession" to you is for players to take a lower percentage of their contract for games played, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happen to think my definition of the word "entitlement" is quite sensible and that is my opinion which I am entitled to have and will continue to have. A disagreement of my definition would be a welcome opinion.

My opinion is that a player who says "hey, I know you aren't making the money that my contract was contingent upon, but I demand you still gimme gimme so that I get mine!" That to me, is an entitled way of looking at things.

I think both sides should have been willing to meet in the middle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

I believe they negotiated with the expectation that there would be fans in the stands. So the need to renegotiate makes sense to me.

 

Based on your model, whenever there is economic distress or a unforseen pandemic, all business owners should dip into their pockets for employees and they are wrong if they can't or aren't willing to do so.

We're in unprecedented territory. It would have served the game well if both sides were willing to meet in the middle on this thing in order to get the game going. The players stood their ground with little to no interest in budging to make concessions alongside the owners. Many of you are ok with that...

They didn't do a good job of writing up the terms because if they made the fans in the stands crystal clear then we would probably already be in spring training right now. Did the owners make that vague on purpose so they can renegotiate at their own digression, we will never know.

If owners can't pay their employees than they lay them off. Which they have done. To say they cannot honor contracts is making an assumption. If they cannot then they should open up the books to prove it.

 

I totally agree that some sort of compromise should have happened as this has put a bad taste in everyone's mouth and its only going to get worse next year.  That's why a proposed the deferred money approach. I mean the Mets are still paying Bobby Bonilla because he deferred his salary so they could afford to pay other players. There are boatloads of other players that have done this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

It's my opinion that the players' have offered 45% of what their expected salary would be already in a reduction of games from 162 to 89.

You can say, "well of course, they aren't going to play 162 games."  And that'd be right.  But the owners have revenue streams that are guaranteed regardless of the gate attendance.  So to say they haven't made concessions while the owners have doesn't seem right to me.  I'd say that neither side has budged much from their initial positions (if we exclude the initial, terrible revenue share trial balloon).  And that makes sense to me, because this doesn't really appear to me to be an effort to meet together to discuss how they can make teams whole based on lost attendance revenue but leveraging the situation into a protracted labor disupute in an effort to increase revenue by mitigating expenses.

I am not trying to misinterpret your position, so if this is not correct, please tell me, but IF the only thing that would appear to be a "concession" to you is for players to take a lower percentage of their contract for games played, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

They didn't offer  reducing their pay though. The reason for not playing 162 isn't the players choice. It's the pandemics.

Dude, in the same thought you say the players made concessions going from 162 to 89 but then concede that it's because of the pandemic. I'm sorry, I just can't label that as this generous concession on the players side.

 

To the bolded part. I completely agree. It's just my opinion that initially the owners had more concessions than the players. In reality, each proposal made by the owners has been the same but worded differently.

Edited by ThreadKiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

Of course, that'd be the argument the owners would want to frame, since some of their revenue is guaranteed for the year and we've all accepted that the player's salary will be based on a pro rata for games played.


I don’t understand, 162 games was never going to happen in any universe, and 114 games was a fantasy too.
 

 It is June 15th and spring training still needs to happen so 89 games is possible only if you either: 1) proclaim that the owners are lying when they say TV schedules prevent them from making the same playoff revenue from a delayed postseason, or 2) proclaim that the owners have a duty to forfeit playoff revenue for the sake of having more regular season games.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.