Slateman Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 3 hours 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. Look, let's say it's true. It isnt, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is. So what? The owners are on year four of a 5 year CBA that has resulted in the biggest revenue in the history of baseball. Conservatively, Forbes has concluded that the owners have made 3.5 billion in profits over the last three years. And that's without the Disney streaming deal they're working. Revenues have shot up to record levels while player salaries have been stagnant. In that same time, the owners negotiated slotting systems and a soft cap for the draft, as well as restrictions on spending in the international pool. Billionaires like to claim they get to reap the excess value of an employee’s labor because the billionaire assumes all the risk. Well, here’s the risk. Now assume all of it. None of these 30 ownership groups are gonna be in dire financial straits because of a single season without fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 1 minute ago, GSUeagles14 said: 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 appear 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? . If you base it from a half season with full 50% player salary, theyre taking losses based on that alone, from what i can tell after its been dumbed down for me. 1. I'm not sure I understand what you mean with net revenue for the national deal. The number he uses is what MLB stated. Maybe I'm missing something on that one 2. Several websites are running with it. TV networks aren't, I expect because they have an incentive not to antagonize a potential business partner. And frankly talking heads have a poor grasp of economics and accounting so they are generally parroting what they hear from other sources. 3. I think the documentation question is about losing money and how much (I misspoke when I said normal in other posts, I meant given other fixed costs that aren't per game and player salary related). Like the article went into there is a question on whether the teams will lose money overall. Owners are saying there will and that is why the players should take less than pro rated. The players want documentation to proves that assertion. Remember that teams have expenses that aren't tied to games played and/or player salaries. So the players are asking for documentation that that money can't/won't be made up to at least break even. But those are fixed costs, not per game costs. That is why the teams may lose money overall even if they will clearly earn money per game. Owners are trying to force the players to take more of a pay cut than pro rated so that they can break even, but haven't provided documentation to prove that that is necessary. 4. Just some quick dirty math here. The owners say about $4.4 billion in losses IF there are no games. 50% of national revenues (like ESPN contracts) are about $1.79 billion (MLB's estimate). 50% of local media is $1.2 billion (MLB estimate) so that is already down to around $1.5 billion in losses. MLB also says they make $250K per game from other sources like sponsorships. That is about another $300 million or so or $1.2 billion in losses. If they add another playoff round due to the shortened season they can probably get that to about $1 billion loss. But that is those revenue streams are cut in half. That also doesn't account for the revenue that I think most (maybe a little less) will get from an ownership steak in their local area network. So it seems like at worst you are looking at about $1.2 billion in losses spread throughout the 30 teams (not necessarily evenly) or about $40M per team. But there is also a strong chance that number can decrease as they can likely get better than 50% from their TV contracts (local and national) and it also doesn't include other expenses the owners can reign in. That is why the players want an accounting because it isn't clear they will operate at a loss and if they do how much. 5. And then just to a final point on point 4, there is then the question of who should bear the risk of losses. I know we disagree on this so we don't have to rehash it, but that is part of the equation that has to be grappled with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 havent seen all the details, but just at first glance this seems like a great middle ground. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29282308/source-new-mlb-proposal-union-76-games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 Amazing how quickly "we aren't countering" turns into a real counter-offer. Not a good counter offer, but a counter offer nonetheless. And btw, the 75% salary is actually 50% salary with potential for 75%, per Nightengale. When a real baseball reporter confirms can someone link that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingo18287 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 15 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: havent seen all the details, but just at first glance this seems like a great middle ground. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29282308/source-new-mlb-proposal-union-76-games Jon Heyman reporting that players initial reaction is it’s not a good offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDez Posted June 8, 2020 Author Share Posted June 8, 2020 How many unemployed folks would take 75% of their salary? Asking for a friend... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 Just now, Dingo18287 said: Jon Heyman reporting that players initial reaction is it’s not a good offer. Effectively, it'd be the players volunteering to play an extra 28 games for a non-guaranteed $440MM, which would be a ~33% paycut off their prorated rate. It's a better offer than the previous one, and the owners at least started throwing in some other variables so that it isn't just a sliding scale of wage/total games. If the owners are willing to make concessions on other things like draft pick compensation that would apply beyond this season, then maybe there's a chance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 Fans in the stands is a real possibility. Players need to work in something about deferred money if the owners can't get fans. Even if stadiums were a quarter capacity, they would minimize the financial impact of a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 On 6/5/2020 at 10:07 PM, mse326 said: That is why the players want an accounting because it isn't clear they will operate at a loss and if they do how much. Because the owners are being intentionally opaque. On one hand, the MLB is saying they've never made more than $250MM/season since 2010. But the only team required to release transparent quarterly financial reports, the Braves (well, Liberty Media, but Liberty Media owns the Braves), reported ~$54MM in profit alone just in 2019. That was down from in 2018, where they reported $94MM in profit. So, either the Braves made at least 25% of the MLB's total profit in 2019 and 40% of the MLB's total profit in 2018, or the owners are hiding their money. You don't need two guesses to get this one right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Because the owners are being intentionally opaque. On one hand, the MLB is saying they've never made more than $250MM/season since 2010. But the only team required to release transparent quarterly financial reports, the Braves (well, Liberty Media, but Liberty Media owns the Braves), reported ~$54MM in profit alone just in 2019. That was down from in 2018, where they reported $94MM in profit. So, either the Braves made at least 25% of the MLB's total profit in 2019 and 40% of the MLB's total profit in 2018, or the owners are hiding their money. You don't need two guesses to get this one right. Oh I know that the $250MM claim is BS. I was saying it's not even clear that with no fans and a shortened season they will lose money, as in operate at a loss. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyPhil1781 Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 Why not give the players 100% but they only obtain 75% while the other 25% goes to the completely decimated minor league players and teams? You know, those people are also technically part of your organization as well and they absolutely need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE DUKE Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 9 minutes ago, JTagg7754 said: Why not give the players 100% but they only obtain 75% while the other 25% goes to the completely decimated minor league players and teams? You know, those people are also technically part of your organization as well and they absolutely need it. MLBPA would never go for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyPhil1781 Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 3 minutes ago, THE DUKE said: MLBPA would never go for that. I mean, I figured as much but was just trying to be creative in ways to help the minors. It sucks but I guess it's just the position we're in right now. Will be interesting to see how they get themselves back to normal, if they even can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 16 minutes ago, THE DUKE said: MLBPA would never go for that. We don't know that since it hasn't been offered. Normally, I'd be inclined to agree with you just based on their track record, but 75% of their salaries is still a better deal than the MLB has gotten to this point and there have been some notable examples of influential players in the union stepping up to help minor leaguers personally during all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 Warning, emotional rant coming: I'll be honest, leave it to MLB, the owners, and the players to potentially mess this up for an entire generation of fans, making the 1994 strike look good in comparison. In an unprecedented time in the world/our country, which is more starved for sports than ever (See: Friday night at 8:00 EST, ESPN showed "Air Bud"), and having the opportunity to cement baseball back in the limelight/make a run at the NFL and NBA, everyone completely bungles this entire situation, and actually does more harm for the sport/perception of the MLB than the dramatically better alternative. I blame the owners. I blame the players (not as much). I blame everyone in MLB for airing this publicly. I blame Bud Selig because he's Bud Selig. I blame Angel Hernandez and Country Joe West. I blame Tim McCarver and Joe Buck. When in a few years people wonder "what's wrong with MLB" or the talking heads do their perennial "How can we fix baseball?" segment, the answer is simple: Set the timer back to May of 2020, make sure you have plenty of plutonium in the flux capacitor, and go precisely 88 mph in the Dolorian and negotiate a reasonable season length, temporary concession to help future perception and profit margin contract/season, and do it behind closed doors. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts