meh2

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Baseball Impact

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, HOOTIE said:

You serious?

Salaries are based on 162 game schedule with fans.

If I pay you 50 bucks to mow my yard, and you mow half of it, you get 25 bucks.

Hate to break it to you, but no one is paying you a billion dollars to look at your lawn.

If they were, and I were you, I would be super selective about the guys I chose to mow it.  And if I found the right guys, I would do everything in my power to make sure they're being taken care of, lest they start mowing my neighbors lawn.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, HOOTIE said:

You serious?

Salaries are based on 162 game schedule with fans.

If I pay you 50 bucks to mow my yard, and you mow half of it, you get 25 bucks.

 

Strange how so many don't understand this concept. This clearly outlines the definition of entitlement, despite anyone's claim otherwise.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

Strange how so many don't understand this concept. This clearly outlines the definition of entitlement, despite anyone's claim otherwise.

That's because it's comparing apples to spaceships.

Games generate revenue because they're played by world class athletes.  Lawns get mowed because you hire one out of 300 guys on greenpal.com.

Share this post


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

Let me try one more way.

Owners are saying they will lose a percentage of revenue from gate.  Been estimated at 30% of total revenue, that's not concrete obviously, but let's go with it.

Owners expectation pre-Covid was to make 100% of their revenue for this year.  Covid hits.

Owners say, "we're going to lose this revenue stream (30%) for an entire season."  They still have guaranteed money from TV and uniform deals, and other revenue streams.

Owners say, "we expected to have this money, now we don't.  Therefore, we can't pay you what your expectation was."

Players expectation pre-Covid was to make 100% of their salary for this year.  Covid hits.

Players say, "we understand that we're both losing money off this deal.  Obviously we're not going to be playing 162, we will agree to be paid for however many games are played."

Players offer a set number of games that would require owners to pay first 70% of what they originally expected, then 55%.

Both sides are giving up money from what they originally expected.  No concession, to me, would be for the players to say, "70% of your revenue stream is guaranteed.  Regardless of how many games we play, pay us our 162 game salary."

 

No. They're not.

The original payment structure assumed fans will be in the stands, thus generating more per game revenue to then be part of revenue passed along in payments to the players. That revenue stream is gone, so that per game payment should be looked at again.

I'm not understanding why this is so hard to understand.

Share this post


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

That's because it's comparing apples to spaceships.

Games generate revenue because they're played by world class athletes.  Lawns get mowed because you hire one out of 300 guys on greenpal.com.

 

The concept and principles are the same. If your response is "apples to oranges", then to stay consistent, I expect you to never use any form of analogy since that's how analogies work.

Edited by ThreadKiller
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

No. They're not.

The original payment structure assumed fans will be in the stands, thus generating more per game revenue to then be part of revenue passed along in payments to the players. That revenue stream is gone, so that per game payment should be looked at again.

I'm not understanding why this is so hard to understand.

It's hard to discuss because we don't know how much it is.  We have to make assumptions.  Assumptions aren't the basis of good faith discussions when talking about real life specific dollars and cents on behalf of one party.

Share this post


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

Let me try one more way.

Owners are saying they will lose a percentage of revenue from gate.  Been estimated at 30% of total revenue, that's not concrete obviously, but let's go with it.

Owners expectation pre-Covid was to make 100% of their revenue for this year.  Covid hits.

Owners say, "we're going to lose this revenue stream (30%) for an entire season."  They still have guaranteed money from TV and uniform deals, and other revenue streams.

Owners say, "we expected to have this money, now we don't.  Therefore, we can't pay you what your expectation was."

Players expectation pre-Covid was to make 100% of their salary for this year.  Covid hits.

Players say, "we understand that we're both losing money off this deal.  Obviously we're not going to be playing 162, we will agree to be paid for however many games are played."

Players offer a set number of games that would require owners to pay first 70% of what they originally expected, then 55%.

Both sides are giving up money from what they originally expected.  No concession, to me, would be for the players to say, "70% of your revenue stream is guaranteed.  Regardless of how many games we play, pay us our 162 game salary."


Do you have a link to back up this assertion that owners may only be losing 30% of total revenue?  A link to back up the assertion that they are making the same local and national TV money as a 162 game season?
 

Even if these things are true, I still don’t see the equivalency.  Revenue is not profit to the owners, there are still many other costs that come out of revenue besides player salaries.  But player salary is a personal profit to the player.

Share this post


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

 

The concept and principles are the same. If your response is "apples to oranges", then to stay consistent, I expect you to never use any form of analogy since that's how analogies work.

It's not, because the revenue generation is on behalf of the labor.  Baseball generates billions of dollars.  Mowing your lawn generates avoiding a nastygram from your HOA.  It's a baseless analogy when talking about how to mitigate loss of revenue.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JE7HorseGod said:

It's hard to discuss because we don't know how much it is.  We have to make assumptions.  Assumptions aren't the basis of good faith discussions when talking about real life specific dollars and cents on behalf of one party.

 

Yes. Assumptions.

It's a fair assumption to say that the owners will have less of a pool of money to use when paying per game salaries, no?

Player salaries/per game checks were agreed to BASED ON A CERTAIN SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. If those circumstances have changed due to something out of anyone's control (pandemic), then it's fair to reset the amounts on the game checks based on the new financials at hand and the new amount of revenue generated.

How anyone can disagree with that premise just blows my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the details of the agreement from March.  https://apnews.com/dd87bcc774d608e53624594fe56fab0c

Cut and pasted the big points below.

 

"STARTING SEASON

There must be no government restrictions on mass gatherings or travel restrictions throughout the U.S. and Canada, provided the commissioner will consider “appropriate substitute neutral sites where economically feasible.” The commissioner must determine, after consulting with the union and medical experts, “that it does not pose an unreasonable health and safety risk to players, staff or spectators to stage games in front of fans in each of the 30 clubs’ home ballparks.” MLB and the union will discuss the economic feasibility of playing games at neutral sites or without fans. The commissioner has the right to suspend or cancel games after the start of the season if government restrictions or travel conditions change.

 

SEASON

The sides will discuss “the possibility of playing a reasonable number of regular season games beyond the initially scheduled end of the regular season” and “reasonable changes to the roster rules to protect the health and safety of players at the beginning of the season.” Initial discussions are to end by April 10. MLB will propose a schedule “using best efforts to play as many games as possible, while taking into account player safety and health, rescheduling needs, competitive considerations, stadium availability, and the economic feasibility of various alternatives.”

PLAYER SALARY

Each player signed to a major league contract at the start of the season shall have his salary determined by multiplying his full-season salary by the number of games scheduled (not adjusting for weather-related postponements or cancellations) divided by 162, minus any advanced salary. In the event of an additional interruption or delay, the salary shall be determined by multiplying his full-season salary by the games played by the player’s club divided by 162. Thresholds and amounts for bonuses, escalators and vesting options would be reduced by using the same formula. A player previously at spring training who is unable to report because of travel restrictions or visa issues would be placed on the restricted list and receive up to 30 days of salary."

 
In the previous agreement, the two sides agreed to the above, we can all agree on that.
The losses for any games NOT played are already being covered by the fact that players are not being paid for those games at all.  $0 in $0 out.  Their original contracts do NOT pay out based on games played, someone who has TJ still makes his full salary.  That is a concession.
 
Now the owners are asking for an overall % pay reduction of their staff, claiming losses due to Gate ect.  A second, new change to the agreement.
BUT
They are not willing to open their books to PROVE said losses, they expect to be accepted at their word.
 
The players have been flexible on games played but not overall Salary per game, with the repeatedly stated contingency that if they were shown the books, they'd be more willing to compromise.  The owners are unwilling to compromise on this item (disclosure of financial truths).
 
The Owners appear stuck on "The Season should cost $X" and the players are trying to maximize their incomes by playing as many games as possible without a rate cut. 
The public "negotiation" of # of games has been primarily PR.
 
The owners are within their rights to set the game length to 50ish games to get the $  outlay they want.  But  placing the blame of lost games primarily on the greed of the players is pretty generous to the motives of the ownership.  Their decisions are 100% financially driven as well.  They CAN cancel the season, but none of us have to like them for making that choice.
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's not, because the revenue generation is on behalf of the labor.  Baseball generates billions of dollars.  Mowing your lawn generates avoiding a nastygram from your HOA.  It's a baseless analogy when talking about how to mitigate loss of revenue.

 

You're way of approaching debate or conversation doesn't really lend itself to any sort of positive results or open mindedness. Manipulating and make assumptions that support your stance, but criticizing others when making assumptions that support their claim is certainly one way to do things.

Share this post


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


Do you have a link to back up this assertion that owners may only be losing 30% of total revenue?  A link to back up the assertion that they are making the same local and national TV money as a 162 game season?
 

Even if these things are true, I still don’t see the equivalency.  Revenue is not profit to the owners, there are still many other costs that come out of revenue besides player salaries.  But player salary is a personal profit to the player.

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/how-the-novel-coronavirus-changes-mlbs-economic-landscape/

This is, of course, an estimate, because...well we all know because why.

Share this post


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

Player salaries/per game checks were agreed to BASED ON A CERTAIN SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. If those circumstances have changed due to something out of anyone's control (pandemic), then it's fair to reset the amounts on the game checks based on the new financials at hand and the new amount of revenue generated.

How anyone can disagree with that premise just blows my mind.

If the owners showed 100% of the math behind this, with the actual Financial Documents, the players have stated they'd be more willing to compromise.

The owners refuse to do this.

How can one side be expected to hold to "Good Faith" rules but not the other?

 

If the agreement was based on before, and a new agreement is based on now, WHY is it that the portions that favor the owners (which revenues are included for example) are NON negotiable?

 

Re-Negotiate?  Put ALL your cards on the table please.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Now the owners are asking for an overall % pay reduction of their staff, claiming losses due to Gate ect.  A second, new change to the agreement.

BUT
They are not willing to open their books to PROVE said losses, they expect to be accepted at their word.

 

Wait, wait, wait. So you're actually arguing that no ticket sales, gate etc won't have any effect on their bottom line and you require proof that that will actually lessen the amount of revenue generated rather than make the assumption that "duh, no fans in stands, of course less money will be made?"

 

lol.

Edited by ThreadKiller
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

 

Yes. Assumptions.

It's a fair assumption to say that the owners will have less of a pool of money to use when paying per game salaries, no?

Player salaries/per game checks were agreed to BASED ON A CERTAIN SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. If those circumstances have changed due to something out of anyone's control (pandemic), then it's fair to reset the amounts on the game checks based on the new financials at hand and the new amount of revenue generated.

How anyone can disagree with that premise just blows my mind.

I dunno how you keep misintrepreting my position to be "there are no losses from the gate."

I never said that.  We all acknowledge that. 

What I'm saying (what I feel like I've said multiple times) is until we know how much, how are we supposed to know what is equitable for the players to give up?

Share this post


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

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/how-the-novel-coronavirus-changes-mlbs-economic-landscape/

This is, of course, an estimate, because...well we all know because why.


As an FYI the same link makes it seem like there will be a loss of broadcast revenue too, which you were previously treating as fully guaranteed....

Share this post


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

I dunno how you keep misintrepreting my position to be "there are no losses from the gate."

I never said that.  We all acknowledge that. 

What I'm saying (what I feel like I've said multiple times) is until we know how much, how are we supposed to know what is equitable for the players to give up?

 

Fine. Yes, we don't know but know it's SOMETHING. But you seem to be completely against the players needing to budge at all and pin it on the owners.

It's easy to interpret your stance as "no losses at the gate" when you seem to be completely against the players needing to budge at all. All you've done is argue that the owners have no right to want to renegotiate the amount of money on per game checks and the players have made plenty of concessions already.

 

Do you agree that if there is less revenue generated due to being less fans in the stands, that the per game checks should be re-evaluated based on how much revenue WOULD be brought in?

Share this post


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

 

Wait, wait, wait. So you're actually arguing that no ticket sales, gate etc won't have any effect on their bottom line and you require proof that that will actually lessen the amount of revenue generated rather than make the assumption that "duh, no fans in stands, of course less money will be made?"

 

lol.

No, I'm arguing that I will not accept a party to the negotiation telling me the value an effect will have.  I don't argue that money will be lost, but HOW MUCH is the argument.

 

To use your Lawn example.  Lets say, you'd previously paid me $50 to mow your lawn.  Now you've moved, to a lot 1/2 the size, but refuse to give me a map besides a hand drawn one.  And you are demanding I accept $25 to do the job.

 

You're within your rights to do so, but I'm rightfully skeptical of your claim without UNBIASED evidence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Fine. Yes, we don't know but know it's SOMETHING. But you seem to be completely against the players needing to budge at all and pin it on the owners.

It's not.  My position is that it is estimated that 30% of baseball owners revenue comes from the gate, and the players have agreed to forfeit 45% of their salary, and that's not "no concession" to me.

Share this post


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


As an FYI the same link makes it seem like there will be a loss of broadcast revenue too, which you were previously treating as fully guaranteed....

Yes, well, I know of a way we could clear this all up and eliminate any sort of assumptions on anyone's part.

Share this post


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

No, I'm arguing that I will not accept a party to the negotiation telling me the value an effect will have.  I don't argue that money will be lost, but HOW MUCH is the argument.

 

To use your Lawn example.  Lets say, you'd previously paid me $50 to mow your lawn.  Now you've moved, to a lot 1/2 the size, but refuse to give me a map besides a hand drawn one.  And you are demanding I accept $25 to do the job.

 

You're within your rights to do so, but I'm rightfully skeptical of your claim without UNBIASED evidence.

 

It wasn't my lawn example, but ok...?

At least we can agree that money will be lost. No one knows how much, but common sense tells us it will be something.

In my opinion, the logical thing to do is this:

Hey, we know that the previous salaries were based on x, y & z. Now that z is no longer part of the equation, we need to revise what these salaries are.

That's all I'm saying needs to happen, but it seems like some of you are (speaking in generalities here) of the mindset of "I don't care if the owners have any loss, they should pay the players no matter what bc they are wealthy and they should have planned for this.

I think that stance wreaks of entitlement.

Edited by ThreadKiller

Share this post


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

 

It wasn't lawn example, but ok.

At least we can agree that money will be lost. No one knows how much, but common sense tells us it will be something.

In my opinion, the logical thing to do is this:

Hey, we know that the previous salaries were based on x, y & z. Now that z is no longer part of the equation, we need to revise what these salaries are.

That's all I'm saying needs to happen, but it seems like some of you are (speaking in generalities here) of the mindset of "I don't care if the owners have any loss, they should pay the players no matter what bc they are wealthy and they should have planned for this.

I think that stance wreaks of entitlement.

I'm not saying that.  The players aren't saying that.

I feel like they're saying "solve for z and then let's have a discussion."

I feel like the owners are saying "z = random number, work not found."

Share this post


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

It's not.  My position is that it is estimated that 30% of baseball owners revenue comes from the gate, and the players have agreed to forfeit 45% of their salary, and that's not "no concession" to me.

 

NO. THEY. HAVEN'T.

 

It's not a concession if the pandemic is what is behind the 162 game season being a much lesser number. That is something that is mandated so therefor it's not a concession made by the players.

Owners: "Here's a salary based on a 162 game season."

Now there is a pandemic causing the 162 game season to now be 50.

Players: "Ok, ok, ok. You can pay us for the 50 games and not 162."

How anyone can look at that and think it's a generous concession made by the players rather than an inevitability based on reality. is mind boggling lol.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

NO. THEY. HAVEN'T.

 

It's not a concession if the pandemic is what is behind the 162 game season being a much lesser number. That is something that is mandated so therefor it's not a concession made by the players.

Owners: "Here's a salary based on a 162 game season."

Now there is a pandemic causing the 162 game season to now be 50.

Players: "Ok, ok, ok. You can pay us for the 50 games and not 162."

How anyone can look at that and think it's a generous concession made by the players rather than an inevitability based on reality. is mind boggling lol.

BECAUSE TOTAL REVENUE GENERATED IS NOT DEPENDENT ON NUMBER OF GAMES PLAYED.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

BECAUSE TOTAL REVENUE GENERATED IS NOT DEPENDENT ON NUMBER OF GAMES PLAYED.

 

No need for the all caps since no one ever said it was, chief. Everyone with any sense can understand that it's a factor.

My stance is simply this: There will be less revenue so therefore it makes sense to revisit the previously agreed to amounts of money that is paid on a per game basis (players should be paid per game played). Reason being that the numbers were previously agreed to based on a set of circumstances that are no longer the circumstances.

 

I just simply don't understand how anyone can disagree with this.

Edited by ThreadKiller

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.