SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 10, 2020 11:57:40 GMT -5
Yeah that's all spot on, actually. Meant to mention that as another lesson I take from it as a lawyer - if you absolutely put one over on the other side in a negotiation, and you're going to have to continue to negotiate with them, they're going to be pissed off the next time around, so it might not be worth it.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jun 10, 2020 12:21:21 GMT -5
I agree the PA is prioritizing not getting screwed over actually negotiating. I think they realize that their leadership has failed them in recent years and they are so afraid to concede anything to the owners. This dispute really does need to be settled, and they need to play games this year. Baseball labor disputes do irreparable harm you the game. Fan interest has been flagging for a long time. Losing this season will accelerate that. Plus in 2021, the NBA season will likely extend deep into the summer, which will take away fans.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jun 12, 2020 13:54:36 GMT -5
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by gerry on Jun 13, 2020 4:08:01 GMT -5
Sure sounds like agreements are being made. Pawtucket would be a great place for the taxi squad to wind up.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 15, 2020 10:20:02 GMT -5
Not buying the owner rhetoric for one second. Looks like an obvious case of billionaires trying to put one over on the little guy again. A case of the usual attempt to get the fans on the owners side now so they can try and screw the players on the next CBA. What owners like Arte Moreno and the Mark Walters have done is shameful IMO. Both sides are full of it. That you would address anyone in this situation as "little guys" shows that the mlbpa can spin a story too. Unhappy with both sides right now, I would just like to watch baseball and I'm not sure now is the time for this ridiculous millionaire vs billionaire schtick that seems to be the only thing baseball is about these days. I blame the owners more than the players, but I don't really feel sympathy with either side. I hadn't realized that the commissioner can impose a 50 game season or whatever it is, but it will surely be geared toward the owners' interests. All I know is that it's disgusting and eventually the war will spill into 2022 and destroy that season. It's amazing that people cannot split up a billion dollar plus pie. 50% for management and 50% for labor. What's so difficult about that? Why they can't be business partners rather than adversaries, I don't know. Just flat out greed.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jun 15, 2020 16:05:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 15, 2020 16:30:35 GMT -5
Absolutely disgusting. I love the game enough I'll be back in 2023 or 2024 if and when they ever settle their ridiculous dispute on how to split billions. They're all ridiculously wealthy (as the majority of us continue to struggle day to day) so there's no urgency on either of their parts. I'm sure I'll be one of the few suckers left. Really disheartening. Amazing how factions can destroy the greatest game (in my opinion) on earth.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Jun 15, 2020 16:50:21 GMT -5
I don't really understand the talk about owners refusing to have a season unless the players agree not file a grievance. Wouldn't the owners cancelling the season just justify the players' grievance and make it a slam dunk win for them? I don't see how the owners aren't better off offering at least the 50 games pro-rated and then arguing the sides were just too far apart to come to a better agreement. Or, if they're really worried about getting sued, the owners could just make a better offer. Maybe one of our board lawyers could offer some insight, because this is the first part of this saga that has completely lost me.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 15, 2020 16:55:38 GMT -5
I don't really understand the talk about owners refusing to have a season unless the players agree not file a grievance. Wouldn't the owners cancelling the season just justify the players' grievance and make it a slam dunk win for them? I don't see how the owners aren't better off offering at least the 50 games pro-rated and then arguing the sides were just too far apart to come to a better agreement. Or, if they're really worried about getting sued, the owners could just make a better offer. Maybe one of our board lawyers could offer some insight, because this is the first part of this saga that has completely lost me. at this point, it is more than just numbers. The owner's arrogance and their contempt is showing. This has morphed into more than the 2020 season. What I don't understand, and maybe I am not well versed in all the dynamics up to this point, is why the owners changed the March agreement. There was an agreement to play prorated portions based on games played. The owners then changed the construct. Why should the players care about anything else ?
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 15, 2020 16:57:22 GMT -5
Absolutely disgusting. I love the game enough I'll be back in 2023 or 2024 if and when they ever settle their ridiculous dispute on how to split billions. They're all ridiculously wealthy (as the majority of us continue to struggle day to day) so there's no urgency on either of their parts. I'm sure I'll be one of the few suckers left. Really disheartening. Amazing how factions can destroy the greatest game (in my opinion) on earth. blame the owners, they tried to renegotiate an agreed March deal. I am empathetic to your frustration, but they players didn't ask for more, the owners did.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Jun 15, 2020 17:07:24 GMT -5
I don't really understand the talk about owners refusing to have a season unless the players agree not file a grievance. Wouldn't the owners cancelling the season just justify the players' grievance and make it a slam dunk win for them? I don't see how the owners aren't better off offering at least the 50 games pro-rated and then arguing the sides were just too far apart to come to a better agreement. Or, if they're really worried about getting sued, the owners could just make a better offer. Maybe one of our board lawyers could offer some insight, because this is the first part of this saga that has completely lost me. at this point, it is more than just numbers. The owner's arrogance and their contempt is showing. This has morphed into more than the 2020 season. What I don't understand, and maybe I am not well versed in all the dynamics up to this point, is why the owners changed the March agreement. There was an agreement to play prorated portions based on games played. The owners then changed the construct. Why should the players care about anything else ? As I understand it, the wording of the March agreement is fairly ambiguous. The players feel the salary issue was settled there, but according to the owners, the agreement allows payment to be re-negotiated if games are going to be played without fans in the seats. Based on my reading of the language, there's not a problem with the owners trying to get the players to take less salary. The thorny legal questions will be about whether the sides ever really tried to negotiate in good faith, and I'm not nearly well-versed enough in the law to know who's going to come out on top there.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jun 15, 2020 17:21:02 GMT -5
The Occam's razor interpretation regarding Manfred, the owners, and this whole mess is just that they're too stupid and greedy to figure their shit out. But is it too optimistic to think maybe Manfred is just ringing an alarm here - letting all sides know that they really are at risk of catastrophe?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 15, 2020 17:24:31 GMT -5
Absolutely disgusting. I love the game enough I'll be back in 2023 or 2024 if and when they ever settle their ridiculous dispute on how to split billions. They're all ridiculously wealthy (as the majority of us continue to struggle day to day) so there's no urgency on either of their parts. I'm sure I'll be one of the few suckers left. Really disheartening. Amazing how factions can destroy the greatest game (in my opinion) on earth. blame the owners, they tried to renegotiate an agreed March deal. I am empathetic to your frustration, but they players didn't ask for more, the owners did. I do blame the owners. I can't say I feel "sympathetic" to the players - it's hard for me to feel overly sympathetic to millionaires, but I would put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the billionaire owners. I really don't think they really ever wanted this season to happen.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 15, 2020 17:27:18 GMT -5
The Occam's razor interpretation regarding Manfred, the owners, and this whole mess is just that they're too stupid and greedy to figure their shit out. But is it too optimistic to think maybe Manfred is just ringing an alarm here - letting all sides know that they really are at risk of catastrophe? Maybe with no baseball for a few years and no profits to be made these owners who clearly don't love their product, will sell and maybe this can begin again - with players (whoever is playing then) and new owners (with a new commissioner) acting like business partners rather than adversaries. One can dream, anyway. One last thing - the timing is just so damn tone deaf with everything that's going on right now - it's like these owners are oblivious or just frankly don't care.
|
|
|
Post by Canseco on Jun 15, 2020 17:30:42 GMT -5
99% of the time, I’ll side with labor. This situation doesn’t feel like an exception to that rule. If it’s like everything else, the owners are continuing to chase the dragon of infinite growth—despite a global catastrophe. Greed winds up ruining everything.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 15, 2020 18:06:56 GMT -5
well it sounds like the owners were hedging there in March, a mistake on their part. The players want to play games, in a safe environment, and get paid their prorated salary, which seems like a fair request.
Edit: All leagues are going to have less at the gate...it seems. Many people wont be ready to go, even if all the seats were avaiable.
|
|
|
Post by aboynamedkimandrew on Jun 15, 2020 18:55:40 GMT -5
well it sounds like the owners were hedging there in March, a mistake on their part. The players want to play games, in a safe environment, and get paid their prorated salary, which seems like a fair request. Edit: All leagues are going to have less at the gate...it seems. Many people wont be ready to go, even if all the seats were avaiable. I'm rarely on the side of owners, but I think people are being too easy with the "paying the players per game pro-rata share" is reasonable. If I'm an owner I don't know that things will be back to normal next season either. Will fans show up even if they are allowed in the park? Will there be 50% capacity limitations if they do? It's easy for fans to say, give the players 100% for each game even though revenues per game will be off 30-40%, but would I want to create that precedent with the future uncertain? Virtually every contract has a force majeure provision and I would think that you get limited times to negotiate its impact. If the owners agree now what happens when season tickets are off 50% next year due to residual fan concerns and the players say, "the precedent is set"? Perhaps one of the resident lawyers can explain the implications, both short and long-term.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 15, 2020 19:25:35 GMT -5
well it sounds like the owners were hedging there in March, a mistake on their part. The players want to play games, in a safe environment, and get paid their prorated salary, which seems like a fair request. Edit: All leagues are going to have less at the gate...it seems. Many people wont be ready to go, even if all the seats were avaiable. I'm rarely on the side of owners, but I think people are being too easy with the "paying the players per game pro-rata share" is reasonable. If I'm an owner I don't know that things will be back to normal next season either. Will fans show up even if they are allowed in the park? Will there be 50% capacity limitations if they do? It's easy for fans to say, give the players 100% for each game even though revenues per game will be off 30-40%, but would I want to create that precedent with the future uncertain? Virtually every contract has a force majeure provision and I would think that you get limited times to negotiate its impact. If the owners agree now what happens when season tickets are off 50% next year due to residual fan concerns and the players say, "the precedent is set"? Perhaps one of the resident lawyers can explain the implications, both short and long-term. Sorry, but there are no lawyers that participate on this board
|
|
|
Post by ghostofrussgibson on Jun 15, 2020 19:28:44 GMT -5
Go ahead and be done with the season. And the year after that... I no longer care unless the Red Sox are in the playoffs. Just give me a local minor league team and I'm totally happy. My adult sons don't care for baseball. MLB has largely lost a generation. High spenders and TV revenue will support the coffers, yet the major league game has - for many fans - become not only unaffordable but undesirable. And that's such a shame. I couldn't care less whether I attend another MLB game.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jun 15, 2020 19:37:00 GMT -5
The Occam's razor interpretation regarding Manfred, the owners, and this whole mess is just that they're too stupid and greedy to figure their shit out. But is it too optimistic to think maybe Manfred is just ringing an alarm here - letting all sides know that they really are at risk of catastrophe? Sorry folks, that was much too generous... Just saw the Manfred quote in context and it is very clear that he is just pure trash. No effort to light a fire under anyone - he's purely and simply carrying water for the owners. Recently heard Joe Posnanski say that what baseball desperately needs is to rethink the role of commissioner entirely - have it be someone who's not simply a representative of the owners but a steward of the game whose mandate is to look after its long-term health. God is he ever right about that.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jun 15, 2020 20:33:36 GMT -5
I'm done. I'm 72, have immensely enjoyed watching non-political baseball my whole life and indoctrinated my kids. For me the late 50s, the 60s and early 70s were a naive golden age never to be recovered. At this point I don't care whether a 'season' is played. I just don't care!... and would just as soon it didn't. B/t Covid and the sides involved, I've lost a life long interest. A plague on both their greedy houses!!
Hopefully I can watch football. Professional sport as I came to know it, is no more.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 15, 2020 20:36:08 GMT -5
well it sounds like the owners were hedging there in March, a mistake on their part. The players want to play games, in a safe environment, and get paid their prorated salary, which seems like a fair request. Edit: All leagues are going to have less at the gate...it seems. Many people wont be ready to go, even if all the seats were avaiable. I'm rarely on the side of owners, but I think people are being too easy with the "paying the players per game pro-rata share" is reasonable. If I'm an owner I don't know that things will be back to normal next season either. Will fans show up even if they are allowed in the park? Will there be 50% capacity limitations if they do? It's easy for fans to say, give the players 100% for each game even though revenues per game will be off 30-40%, but would I want to create that precedent with the future uncertain? Virtually every contract has a force majeure provision and I would think that you get limited times to negotiate its impact. If the owners agree now what happens when season tickets are off 50% next year due to residual fan concerns and the players say, "the precedent is set"? Perhaps one of the resident lawyers can explain the implications, both short and long-term. i don't think it unfair to be concerned for ownership, because they are directly tied to the overall health of the game. I just don't feel the players are responsible, at least in the short term, to take a pay cut so that owners can run their clubs. And what is meant by that ? is the pay cut request so the owners can make money ? is it for them to break even ? is it because the will all lose money ? Will some lose money and are they the ones behind the cut request ? When it comes to owning a business, there are no guarantees that you will make money every year, and it isn't always the labor that needs to sacrifice themselves on behalf of ownership just to keep their job. These owners face no competition from any other baseball league, have Anti-Trust exemption, have seen soaring revenues and club valuations. Now there is an unforseen (and terrible) pandemic and they want the players to bail them out ? The ones whom they have taken revenue from in recent years ? If I am a member of the union, it is a very slippery slope. If there was a way contractually to make up the lost wages in the future, then I would probably listen. Short of that, I am taking a stand to make the money that was agreed to in my contract. There are business casualties all over because of CoVid. Lastly, i remember many discussions on this board that the gate is not important to overall club profits. That TV and marketing has made that less important. Apparently, the owners don't agree.
|
|
|
Post by aboynamedkimandrew on Jun 15, 2020 20:59:23 GMT -5
I get it and the owners are among the most unsympathetic characters known to man. However, just as there is no guarantee that a business will make money every year, there's no requirement that they keep their cost structure the same when there is a fundamental shift in business dynamics. The gate may not be as important to profitability as it once was, but it's still a big chunk of money. Just pulling a number out of part of my anatomy, but it's probably a reasonable one, the gate represents $150M+ per year to the Red Sox. All but a few teams will be lower, but even at half that it's still a big number - particularly since many in-stadium sponsors will undoubtedly invoke their own force majeure provisions and want refunds or other offsets given the lack of in-stadium eye balls, concessions profits will be lost, etc.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Jun 15, 2020 21:52:33 GMT -5
I can't get too upset. Watching professional baseball on an electronic device is 2 parts annoying and one part enjoyable. Since I am 1 1/2 hours from a mlb park (20-40 minutes to 4 mild parks) attendance for me is problematic. Fortunately there is legion ball, Babe Ruth ball and numerous venues of amateur softball in a 30 mile radius. The Boys (and Girls) of Summer are already at play. Yes it is sad not to have MLB ongoing. But I won't pretend to comprehend the "issues" or be judgmental of motivations. It's their business and livelihood, not mine. I'm just a fan.... of the game. Bottom line take that pent up covid isolation angst and go find yourself a game to watch. Pack your fried chicken, potato salad and ice tea. Relax and enjoy. No two games are ever alike, and it you pay close attention you will observe something new/different in every game... sans the media cameraman and commentators. MLB will be back, at some point, fall in love again with the essence, not the hype.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 16, 2020 2:55:51 GMT -5
With the virus exploding in about half the states that opened when it was not under control, I don't think we are going to see any live public events for quite a while. I always side with the players. Without them there is no game. The billionaire owners offer no value.
|
|
|