mission27 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: The owners won't say any of that, because they're risking $4B in losses if the season doesn't go on. And good luck with that court fight. The owners aren't, the teams are. The owners are not on the hook for any of this. And the teams will all lose a ton of money this year no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, mission27 said: The owners aren't, the teams are. The owners are not on the hook for any of this. And the teams will all lose a ton of money this year no matter what. Doesn't really end up mattering beyond capping their losses at the valuation of the team. Hal might never have to write a check, but he's got a $4B beached whale bleeding money right now. If he really wants to throw that away to try and weasel out of paying money that he already agreed to pay, guaranteed, then good luck to him. Edited May 15, 2020 by ramssuperbowl99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 31 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Doesn't really end up mattering beyond capping their losses at the valuation of the team. Hal might never have to write a check, but he's got a $4B beached whale bleeding money right now. If he really wants to throw that away to try and weasel out of paying money that he already agreed to pay, guaranteed, then good luck to him. Owners' sources of income and balance sheets are highly diversified and losses are spread over a large number of investors in each ownership group. Hal doesn't own anywhere near 100% of the Yankees and likely has hundreds of millions of other assets (real estate, liquid investments, business interests, etc.) to fall back on. He'll be ok and his time horizon on the investment is long enough that he could afford some negative press over the next 5-10 years because he's not selling the team in the next 5-10 years. If you're an average MLB player your source of income is not highly diversified (Whit Merifield doesn't have a ton of endorsements) and the vast majority of your lifetime earnings are going to come in the next 5-10 years, so a major downturn in the sport as a result of a protracted labor fight and bad press probably hurts you more than it hurts Hal. Not to mention until they win their court fight in a year or two or 5 those paychecks aren't coming. But clearly it hurts everyone involved which is why we aren't going to have a labor fight over this, the MLBPA and owners will agree on something sensible that splits the difference and MLBPA will get the players in line by warning them the alternative is no paychecks this year. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 On 5/15/2020 at 1:12 PM, mission27 said: Owners' sources of income and balance sheets are highly diversified and losses are spread over a large number of investors in each ownership group. Hal doesn't own anywhere near 100% of the Yankees and likely has hundreds of millions of other assets (real estate, liquid investments, business interests, etc.) to fall back on. He'll be ok and his time horizon on the investment is long enough that he could afford some negative press over the next 5-10 years because he's not selling the team in the next 5-10 years. If you're an average MLB player your source of income is not highly diversified (Whit Merifield doesn't have a ton of endorsements) and the vast majority of your lifetime earnings are going to come in the next 5-10 years, so a major downturn in the sport as a result of a protracted labor fight and bad press probably hurts you more than it hurts Hal. Not to mention until they win their court fight in a year or two or 5 those paychecks aren't coming. But clearly it hurts everyone involved which is why we aren't going to have a labor fight over this, the MLBPA and owners will agree on something sensible that splits the difference and MLBPA will get the players in line by warning them the alternative is no paychecks this year. Didn't you know that such a reasonable, common sense post is highly frowned upon here? Teams/mlb have some outs in how they pay players, players dont have the deep pockets owners do. both have something each other wants so the most likely result is they come to a compromise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 @ramssuperbowl99 See below from the CBA as @TLO rightly pointed out to me: Quote Governmental Regulation–National Emergency 11. This contract is subject to federal or state legislation, regulations, executive or other official orders or other governmental action, now or hereafter in effect respecting military, naval, air or other governmental service, which may directly or indirectly affect the Player, Club or the League and subject also to the right of the Commissioner to suspend the operation of this contract during any national emergency during which Major League Baseball is not played. This is pretty cut and dry IMO. If the commissioner decides the season wont be played because of COVID, he has broad authority to suspend players contracts. I'm sure it would lead to a multi-year court battle but hard to see how the players win out on this one. This is exactly the sort of situation the clause is meant to cover. Nothing in that language implies that MLB would have to hold a season at a loss of over $1 billion for the year if the players are unwilling to agree to any concessions. They both need to come to the negotiating table and work out something that works for everyone involved or there wont be a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 10 hours ago, mission27 said: @ramssuperbowl99 See below from the CBA as @TLO rightly pointed out to me: This is pretty cut and dry IMO. If the commissioner decides the season wont be played because of COVID, he has broad authority to suspend players contracts. I'm sure it would lead to a multi-year court battle but hard to see how the players win out on this one. This is exactly the sort of situation the clause is meant to cover. Nothing in that language implies that MLB would have to hold a season at a loss of over $1 billion for the year if the players are unwilling to agree to any concessions. They both need to come to the negotiating table and work out something that works for everyone involved or there wont be a season. Except the players and owners already have an agreement if theres no season. The owners and the teams arent losing 1 billion, let alone 4, by playing the season. The owners knew that playing without fans was a probability when they agreed to the deal. They have more than enough money between TV deals and the new Nike deal to be fine for this season. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted May 18, 2020 Share Posted May 18, 2020 22 hours ago, mission27 said: This is pretty cut and dry IMO. If the commissioner decides the season wont be played because of COVID, he has broad authority to suspend players contracts. No one has questioned that he can suspend player contracts. The relevant issue here is what happens when the contracts are re-instated. 22 hours ago, mission27 said: Nothing in that language implies that MLB would have to hold a season at a loss of over $1 billion for the year if the players are unwilling to agree to any concessions. You're right. The MLB could unilaterally choose to not reinstate the season. And I wish them good luck with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted May 18, 2020 Share Posted May 18, 2020 12 hours ago, Slateman said: The owners and the teams arent losing 1 billion, let alone 4, by playing the season. The owners knew that playing without fans was a probability when they agreed to the deal. They have more than enough money between TV deals and the new Nike deal to be fine for this season. 100%. The owners saw a chance to use public pressure to try and cut costs, so they took it. This is just like the draft, or MiLB contraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naptownskinsfan Posted May 18, 2020 Share Posted May 18, 2020 Pretty interesting read. My biggest takeaway is that 40% of 2019 revenue came from the gate or after. https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/SB-Blogs/Breaking-News/2020/05/MLB.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted May 18, 2020 Share Posted May 18, 2020 1 hour ago, naptownskinsfan said: Pretty interesting read. My biggest takeaway is that 40% of 2019 revenue came from the gate or after. https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/SB-Blogs/Breaking-News/2020/05/MLB.aspx If this is real, then the owners should have no problem completely opening their books and letting the players see. (Spoiler alert: It's not real, and the EBITDA projection means nothing with how easy that is to manipulate. Especially for a business like MLB where amortization can influence so much of the on paper accounting.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwolf68 Posted May 18, 2020 Share Posted May 18, 2020 In other news, Governors of California, NY and Texas have said pro sports can start up early June, albeit with no fans. So it does look like we're moving toward having sports again, which is only a good thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT14 Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 On 5/18/2020 at 5:39 PM, kwolf68 said: In other news, Governors of California, NY and Texas have said pro sports can start up early June, albeit with no fans. So it does look like we're moving toward having sports again, which is only a good thing. Definitely. I think tracking for that July 1st start date seems still on. As long as the MLB and MLBPA get that agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonebillsfan Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 If the PA were good at their jobs they wouldn't blink. But well, they'll probably blink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDez Posted May 21, 2020 Author Share Posted May 21, 2020 Good on the owners not getting taken advantage of by the greedy players. Ernie Banks would’ve played for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonebillsfan Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 5 hours ago, DirtyDez said: Good on the owners not getting taken advantage of by the greedy players. Ernie Banks would’ve played for free. Smh that's like half a super yacht they could be out if not for these damn greedy players. Where will they take their hookers and blow now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts