GSUeagles14 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 9 hours ago, mse326 said: Which proposal do you think the PA should accept? The 50 games pro rated salary or the more games but less than pro rated salary (down to as little as 20ish% of salary for about half the season of games) was the 50 games an actual proposal? furthermore, i dont think they have to accept either, maybe negotiate something closer to what both sides want. like an increased salary % on the sliding scale mlb proposed for a half season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 2 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said: was the 50 games an actual proposal? furthermore, i dont think they have to accept either, maybe negotiate something closer to what both sides want. like an increased salary % on the sliding scale mlb proposed for a half season. I took what MLB has said as basically a single proposal right now. Longer season more paycut or short season full pro rated. And why are complaining about the players when the owners didn't counteroffer what you are suggesting. Even if I thought players should give up more, which I don't, the owners haven't suggested that option and explicitly refused to even propose it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT14 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 2 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said: was the 50 games an actual proposal? furthermore, i dont think they have to accept either, maybe negotiate something closer to what both sides want. like an increased salary % on the sliding scale mlb proposed for a half season. It was. And I believe it's officially 48. https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2020/06/05/report-mlb-owners-want-a-48-game-season/ League is somehow claiming they would lose over $600,000 per game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 48 games, each team plays a series Fri/Sat night and an afternoon game Sunday over 16 weeks? I might actually prefer that to the 162 game dredge where no game feels important until September. Both sides are just shooting themselves in the foot at this point, they need to get back on the diamond before the NHL passes them for #3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 1 hour ago, mse326 said: I took what MLB has said as basically a single proposal right now. Longer season more paycut or short season full pro rated. And why are complaining about the players when the owners didn't counteroffer what you are suggesting. Even if I thought players should give up more, which I don't, the owners haven't suggested that option and explicitly refused to even propose it. i think the problem is on both sides, both at fault. but no ones saying that here, right? the idea that mlb says, hey were losing money when we play games so lets do this, and then the pa says nope, lets play more games is not good faith negotiating to me. doesnt make the owners right or innocent but the idea that the pa is is foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 1 hour ago, MikeT14 said: It was. And I believe it's officially 48. https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2020/06/05/report-mlb-owners-want-a-48-game-season/ League is somehow claiming they would lose over $600,000 per game. I still dont see where that was officialy put forth, my understanding is its just the general belief that the owners want to do this and can enforce the shorter year. If it was proposed, did the players deny it? Anyway, below is the espn article that the article you linked sourced from. Its actually a really good read. and lays out the problem extremely well. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29269242/inside-mlb-financials-fight-numbers-solve-it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 1 hour ago, GSUeagles14 said: i think the problem is on both sides, both at fault. but no ones saying that here, right? the idea that mlb says, hey were losing money when we play games so lets do this, and then the pa says nope, lets play more games is not good faith negotiating to me. doesnt make the owners right or innocent but the idea that the pa is is foolish. The problem is you actually believe this. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 https://blogs.fangraphs.com/parsing-mlbs-claim-of-a-4-billion-loss/ FG did this already 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 3 hours ago, mse326 said: The problem is you actually believe this. i dont know if its true or not, logically based upon what they have purposed it makes sense but i still dont know. believing you know either way is the real problem, ahem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 9 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: i dont know if its true or not, logically based upon what they have purposed it makes sense but i still dont know. believing you know either way is the real problem, ahem. Did you read the post above you? The owners provided numbers make it incredibly unlikely they lose money. In tends to show they would earn money. When they talk about losing money it is by ignoring several different revenue streams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 12 minutes ago, mse326 said: Did you read the post above you? The owners provided numbers make it incredibly unlikely they lose money. In tends to show they would earn money. When they talk about losing money it is by ignoring several different revenue streams. did you? they say in the article itself thats its speculative but within the realm of possibility. did you read the espn article? again, no one in the public really knows. its possible and realistic that the mlb is being truthful, its possible and realistic that they arent. ill just repeat this so it hopefully sinks in... believing you know either way is the real problem. The public doesnt have the relevant information available to them and either side of it is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: did you? they say in the article itself thats its speculative but within the realm of possibility. did you read the espn article? again, no one in the public really knows. its possible and realistic that the mlb is being truthful, its possible and realistic that they arent. ill just repeat this so it hopefully sinks in... believing you know either way is the real problem. The public doesnt have the relevant information available to them and either side of it is possible. MLB itself says $640K per game. They do this without including national tv money. Radio money. MLBNetwork money. MLBTV money. Advertising money. Even before you get to their ownership in their local sports networks they are going to be close to breaking even if not in the black. And they also assumed in their estimate that everything will be cut in half. That is also incredibly unlikely to occur. The speculative part was in the $4 billion losses if no season was played. Look at the section about whether they actually will lose $640K a game. It is barely possible for them to lose money in the regular season. And that is without including postseason revenue. So the only way they lose money is if they play the regular season, the revenue they bring in is much lower than can be really be expected, AND they play ZERO playoff games. That is not really a realistic scenario. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 (edited) 38 minutes ago, mse326 said: MLB itself says $640K per game. They do this without including national tv money. Radio money. MLBNetwork money. MLBTV money. Advertising money. Even before you get to their ownership in their local sports networks they are going to be close to breaking even if not in the black. And they also assumed in their estimate that everything will be cut in half. That is also incredibly unlikely to occur. The speculative part was in the $4 billion losses if no season was played. Look at the section about whether they actually will lose $640K a game. It is barely possible for them to lose money in the regular season. And that is without including postseason revenue. So the only way they lose money is if they play the regular season, the revenue they bring in is much lower than can be really be expected, AND they play ZERO playoff games. That is not really a realistic scenario. not true, read closer. heck, the article itself says losses are possible. SO why are you saying "its barely possible" for there to be them? Right now it seems like youre biased, can you clear that up? Edited June 6, 2020 by GSUeagles14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 19 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: not true, read closer. heck, the article itself says losses are possible. SO why are you saying "its barely possible" for there to be them? Right now it seems like youre biased, can you clear that up? Quote No. For one, that figure is spread across two teams, but more importantly, it leaves out a huge amount of regular season national television and central office MLB revenue that gets distributed to teams. And that’s before we even get to the postseason. Giving the MLB owners’ presentation the benefit of the doubt, they say the cost of every regular season game in pro-rated salaries plus the actual costs of putting on the game are $1.87 million, with $1.67 million coming from player salaries. In MLB’s presentation on revenue, they include only the $1.2 billion for local television as well as about $250,000 per game in other local revenue, totaling $1.23 million per game, leaving that $640,000 deficit. MLB again leaves out national money distributed to teams. According to MLB, those national revenues in a shortened no-fans season will amount to $1.788 billion, which includes TV money as well as money from national sponsorships and products like MLB.TV and their MLB app. Including that revenue turns the amount MLB makes per regular season game to $2.68 million, which makes MLB $810,000 per game. If we were to add an extra round of the playoffs at $250 million, MLB makes a $1 million per regular season game played When the article says it is possible the owners may lose money that is in respect to a normal year. That is not about losing money on a per game basis. It just isn't possible to lose money by putting on a game unless you don't count several revenue streams. It is possible to lose money overall but that is if the all the TV partners go hard core on the amount they pay, sponsorship money does the same and there are no extra playoffs. Quote Ultimately, owners might lose money this season, but just how much is up for debate. If the teams play games, it certainly won’t be the $4 billion figure that is being floated. And even without a postseason, playing the games and paying players prorated salaries results in more incremental revenue per game for owners than skipping the season Again notice their acknowledgement on the possibility of losing money is about the season, not per game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, mse326 said: When the article says it is possible the owners may lose money that is in respect to a normal year. That is not about losing money on a per game basis. It just isn't possible to lose money by putting on a game unless you don't count several revenue streams. It is possible to lose money overall but that is if the all the TV partners go hard core on the amount they pay, sponsorship money does the same and there are no extra playoffs. Again notice their acknowledgement on the possibility of losing money is about the season, not per game. I can cetainly admit when im wrong and i may be on the per game average from fangraphs however if you can clear something up for me.... it appears he made the mistake of not using net revenue for the national deal, thats around 300-400 million difference. Was there any other expenses missed, why is everyone not running with this? and if the #s are out there, why would the pa ask for documentation that money is being lost still? theres something missing here, right? But youre off on the idea theyre only losing money total when you considered a full year of revenue. Even If you base it from a half season with full 50% player salary, theyre taking losses based on that alone. Edited June 6, 2020 by GSUeagles14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts