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 jerrygarciaparra on Jun 16, 2020 9:20:14 GMT -5
saw this link about current situation. there is a sublink that discusses the original agreeement. i dont see where the players would get less than prorated portion in the event of no fans. From the article (the sublink: pay players full prorated salary) In the event of a shortened season, 2020 salaries would be prorated depending on how much of the season is played.maybe there was other articles that pointed out that wasn't the agreed upon deal www.si.com/extra-mustard/2020/06/16/mlb-owners-cheap-agent-joel-wolfe
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Jun 16, 2020 9:43:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 16, 2020 11:23:39 GMT -5
This issue is going to come up in Sports Law and Contracts textbooks going forward.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 16, 2020 11:52:22 GMT -5
excellent source. thanks. my experience with contracts....if it isn't in writing...it isn't a part of the agreement. The players offering counterproposals is all the "good faith" that i think is needed.
|
|
|
Post by aboynamedkimandrew on Jun 16, 2020 15:38:59 GMT -5
excellent source. thanks. my experience with contracts....if it isn't in writing...it isn't a part of the agreement. The players offering counterproposals is all the "good faith" that i think is needed. I disagree. That provision was an explicit acknowledgement that the original agreement was made in contemplation that fans would be in the stands. If not, then additional "good faith" negotiation was intended. How are counter proposals that basically say, "We should get all of the benefits of the original agreement" considered "good faith" when we are now being faced with that precise change in circumstances? Don't get me wrong, I question the "good faith" on the part of the owners too (I've yet to see a real justification for their calculations), but for the players to make that claim is absurd.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 16, 2020 15:51:20 GMT -5
I feel the need to bash a side because this seems crazy. If you don't want to play okay I get that 100%. Yet if both sides want to play it seems crazy an agreement can't be made. Yet both sides have good points. Normally I would side with workers and say the employer should eat the loss. Yet Baseball players aren't just regular employees, they make close to 50% of revenue. It's closer to a partnership than normal employer/worker relationship. I get the owner's not wanting to bare the brunt of losses and I get players not wanting to play for very little given the current risks. Yet it's only going to get worse if there is no season. Can you imagine next year free agent period after teams make zero money for a year? Nevermind they are running out of time. With so many TV shows unable to film, they could have big ratings.
|
|
|
Post by aboynamedkimandrew on Jun 16, 2020 17:07:31 GMT -5
I feel the need to bash a side because this seems crazy. If you don't want to play okay I get that 100%. Yet if both sides want to play it seems crazy an agreement can't be made. Yet both sides have good points. Normally I would side with workers and say the employer should eat the loss. Yet Baseball players aren't just regular employees, they make close to 50% of revenue. It's closer to a partnership than normal employer/worker relationship. I get the owner's not wanting to bare the brunt of losses and I get players not wanting to play for very little given the current risks. Yet it's only going to get worse if there is no season. Can you imagine next year free agent period after teams make zero money for a year? Nevermind they are running out of time. With so many TV shows unable to film, they could have big ratings. That's the truly sad part. Both sides are posturing and playing for PR response rather than trying to come to a resolution to the benefit of all. If there is no season when there could have been something with at least a little credibility (40-50% of a season plus a full playoffs), the loss of many fans will be permanent. For a sport that has lost its stranglehold on the national consciousness, that's unforgiveable. Manfred, Clark, et al can both rot in sports hell if they let this happen.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 16, 2020 18:24:48 GMT -5
excellent source. thanks. my experience with contracts....if it isn't in writing...it isn't a part of the agreement. The players offering counterproposals is all the "good faith" that i think is needed. I disagree. That provision was an explicit acknowledgement that the original agreement was made in contemplation that fans would be in the stands. If not, then additional "good faith" negotiation was intended. How are counter proposals that basically say, "We should get all of the benefits of the original agreement" considered "good faith" when we are now being faced with that precise change in circumstances? Don't get me wrong, I question the "good faith" on the part of the owners too (I've yet to see a real justification for their calculations), but for the players to make that claim is absurd. The stipulation for the players pay occurs under the section "Players Compensation and Benefits", the resumption criteria occur in a different section. if the owners wanted to tie the Compensation to the Criteria, they should have had language referencing that criteria in the Compensation section.. Or an addendum page that ties that 2 sections together. Not a lawyer, but have dealt in many Real Estate contracts. I don't see the language for the owners to renegotiate compensation. IMO, they are covering for their own contractual mistake.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jun 16, 2020 19:05:46 GMT -5
I feel the need to bash a side because this seems crazy. If you don't want to play okay I get that 100%. Yet if both sides want to play it seems crazy an agreement can't be made. Yet both sides have good points. Normally I would side with workers and say the employer should eat the loss. Yet Baseball players aren't just regular employees, they make close to 50% of revenue. It's closer to a partnership than normal employer/worker relationship. I get the owner's not wanting to bare the brunt of losses and I get players not wanting to play for very little given the current risks. Yet it's only going to get worse if there is no season. Can you imagine next year free agent period after teams make zero money for a year? Nevermind they are running out of time. With so many TV shows unable to film, they could have big ratings. Players have a short window in which to earn money for being among the best in the world at what they do. Owners are in it for the long haul. Not playing hurts the game over the long term. The compromise should be easy: pay the players full prorated salaries so they can make the most of their earnings potential in the short term; and play the games, which will be good for baseball in the long term. As it is, the owners are aiming a gun at their own head, and they just might pull the trigger to keep the players from taking a slight short-term advantage.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Jun 16, 2020 19:30:23 GMT -5
It seems simple to determine what the net revenue loss of having sero attendance would be.
The players get prorated salaries less 50% of the projected revenue from having fans in the seats for the number of games played prorated among all players based on salary.
To give the players a full prorated salary when the teams will be losing over a million dollars per game in lost live fan revenue seems pretty one sided. The players should at least share in this loss of revenue.
|
|
|
Post by aboynamedkimandrew on Jun 16, 2020 20:24:30 GMT -5
I disagree. That provision was an explicit acknowledgement that the original agreement was made in contemplation that fans would be in the stands. If not, then additional "good faith" negotiation was intended. How are counter proposals that basically say, "We should get all of the benefits of the original agreement" considered "good faith" when we are now being faced with that precise change in circumstances? Don't get me wrong, I question the "good faith" on the part of the owners too (I've yet to see a real justification for their calculations), but for the players to make that claim is absurd. The stipulation for the players pay occurs under the section "Players Compensation and Benefits", the resumption criteria occur in a different section. if the owners wanted to tie the Compensation to the Criteria, they should have had language referencing that criteria in the Compensation section.. Or an addendum page that ties that 2 sections together. Not a lawyer, but have dealt in many Real Estate contracts. I don't see the language for the owners to renegotiate compensation. IMO, they are covering for their own contractual mistake. The contract calls for renewed good faith discussions in the event that fans could not attend in order to make playing economically viable. That makes it clear that there would be revisiting of economic issues, which are, of course, discussed in other sections of the agreement. What is the biggest economic issue with the MLBPA? Salaries. It is disingenuous to claim that they didn't think a discussion of economic issues would include the biggest expense.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Jun 16, 2020 22:40:45 GMT -5
It seems simple to determine what the net revenue loss of having sero attendance would be. The players get prorated salaries less 50% of the projected revenue from having fans in the seats for the number of games played prorated among all players based on salary. To give the players a full prorated salary when the teams will be losing over a million dollars per game in lost live fan revenue seems pretty one sided. The players should at least share in this loss of revenue.Why?
|
|
Canseco
Veteran
Posts: 941
Member is Online
|
Post by Canseco on Jun 16, 2020 23:02:29 GMT -5
It seems simple to determine what the net revenue loss of having sero attendance would be. The players get prorated salaries less 50% of the projected revenue from having fans in the seats for the number of games played prorated among all players based on salary. To give the players a full prorated salary when the teams will be losing over a million dollars per game in lost live fan revenue seems pretty one sided. The players should at least share in this loss of revenue.Why? That’s what I’m wondering. Is there some type of language in the CBA that would stop players from expecting prorated pay?
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Jun 17, 2020 0:17:06 GMT -5
It seems simple to determine what the net revenue loss of having sero attendance would be. The players get prorated salaries less 50% of the projected revenue from having fans in the seats for the number of games played prorated among all players based on salary. To give the players a full prorated salary when the teams will be losing over a million dollars per game in lost live fan revenue seems pretty one sided. The players should at least share in this loss of revenue.Why? Why? The players say they want a season. In a 50 game season the net revenue shortfall with no fans could easily be 75 million per team. At that level it would make little to no sense for the owners to go through and play the season. I know the owners are greedy and awful, but lets not paint the players as saints here. They are not. Owners still have full payments due on their debt, are paying all or some of operating staff, etc. I get it. This was not in the CBA, but at the time of the CBA, or even at the time when COVID-19 closed baseball, nobody knew what the impact on the game, or even the country, would be. It is not uncommon for CBA's in other businesses to be reworked mid contract in the case of an extraordinary world event. Why not baseball? On another front, considering recent case spikes, should baseball really be considering even a shortened season anyway?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 17, 2020 7:29:09 GMT -5
I feel the need to bash a side because this seems crazy. If you don't want to play okay I get that 100%. Yet if both sides want to play it seems crazy an agreement can't be made. Yet both sides have good points. Normally I would side with workers and say the employer should eat the loss. Yet Baseball players aren't just regular employees, they make close to 50% of revenue. It's closer to a partnership than normal employer/worker relationship. I get the owner's not wanting to bare the brunt of losses and I get players not wanting to play for very little given the current risks. Yet it's only going to get worse if there is no season. Can you imagine next year free agent period after teams make zero money for a year? Nevermind they are running out of time. With so many TV shows unable to film, they could have big ratings. Players have a short window in which to earn money for being among the best in the world at what they do. Owners are in it for the long haul. Not playing hurts the game over the long term. The compromise should be easy: pay the players full prorated salaries so they can make the most of their earnings potential in the short term; and play the games, which will be good for baseball in the long term. As it is, the owners are aiming a gun at their own head, and they just might pull the trigger to keep the players from taking a slight short-term advantage. Umm talk about not looking at the numbers. I'm going to make up numbers so it's easy to look at, assume revenue is 1 billion. Players and owners come close to splitting that in a normal year. Fans represent 40% of revenue. So the revenue goes to 600 million, yet the players should still get 500 million? That doesn't even account for the extra costs of testing and taking steps so people don't get sick. The loss of billions will effect players salaries for years, long-term the owners likely will be 100% fine. It's the players with short careers that will be hurt the most. They'll never make that money back. People have already projected that Betts getting 350 to 450 million is gone, now more like 250 million and who knows what if there isn't a season. Nevermind my numbers are just an overview of the whole league, a bunch of teams would have margins much closer and could be looking at losing tens of millions. Like I said I normally side with workers, yet they aren't normal workers. They get the highest percentage of revenue of any workers in the world to begin with. Owners paid out 170 million so they had money during the pandemic. You'd have trouble naming many businesses that closed and gave workers an advance. It's a partnership and while I see the players point of view, they need to give a little.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Jun 17, 2020 8:14:37 GMT -5
I feel the need to bash a side because this seems crazy. If you don't want to play okay I get that 100%. Yet if both sides want to play it seems crazy an agreement can't be made. Yet both sides have good points. Normally I would side with workers and say the employer should eat the loss. Yet Baseball players aren't just regular employees, they make close to 50% of revenue. It's closer to a partnership than normal employer/worker relationship. I get the owner's not wanting to bare the brunt of losses and I get players not wanting to play for very little given the current risks. Yet it's only going to get worse if there is no season. Can you imagine next year free agent period after teams make zero money for a year? Nevermind they are running out of time. With so many TV shows unable to film, they could have big ratings. Players have a short window in which to earn money for being among the best in the world at what they do. Owners are in it for the long haul. Not playing hurts the game over the long term. The compromise should be easy: pay the players full prorated salaries so they can make the most of their earnings potential in the short term; and play the games, which will be good for baseball in the long term. As it is, the owners are aiming a gun at their own head, and they just might pull the trigger to keep the players from taking a slight short-term advantage. Except it's really more like both sides are aiming guns at their own heads. The players, too, would rather take less money to prove a point than accept less than 100% pay per game but play significantly more games. They're doing this because they think it will help them in future negotiations, which doesn't make sense to me given that a paycut here would obviously be under very specific extenuating circumstances. You can argue that the players have the moral high ground, but unless they think the owners are going to break or they're really going to win a grievance and win the money anyway, they're acting irrationally by being totally uncompromising on the pay issue.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 17, 2020 10:01:26 GMT -5
There are a number of articles that have pointed out that the difference in player pay, per team, between a 50-game season and an 82-game season is something like $25 million per team at most. Teams are worth at least $1 billion each. Also, for those asking why the players don't want to share in the loss - THEY HAVE. By not playing half the year, they have forfeited at least half of their 2020 salaries. There is no scenario in play in which players don't lose at least 50% of their expected 2020 earnings. Meanwhile, the owners are making proposals in which they come out even while the players take even more of a pay cut. Here are two links worth reading. First, a very simple version by the always excellent Tom Boswell in the Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/06/15/dont-let-mlb-owners-cry-poor-they-can-afford-do-whats-right-baseball/Next, the detailed version by Craig Edwards on Fangraphs, which actually puts the number at $10M per team: blogs.fangraphs.com/players-ask-owners-how-much-baseball-they-want/Again, the players have already given up about half of their salaries. That's the part of this that people seem to be missing. They're not doing a great job negotiating, I don't think, but that's different than their being unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 17, 2020 10:41:06 GMT -5
The concept of owners being scared of their business' losing money is certainly understandable. Let's not forget that the Wilpon's were, by some accounts, bankrupt after the Madoff scandal. MLB, the owners, as an industry bailed them out. Frank McCourt sold the Dodgers when baseball had to take over the team's finances. I don't believe any of these owners are at risk of bankrupting their franchises. They should looking to each other for help in this uncertain time as well. That is a problem because they have never found the appropriate way to share their revenues. Recent articles peg the amount of Owners against starting as 6 to 8. That is a minority and you wonder if the players are, again, being asked to mend what is essentially an argument between owners.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Jun 17, 2020 10:44:22 GMT -5
There are a number of articles that have pointed out that the difference in player pay, per team, between a 50-game season and an 82-game season is something like $25 million per team at most. Teams are worth at least $1 billion each. Also, for those asking why the players don't want to share in the loss - THEY HAVE. By not playing half the year, they have forfeited at least half of their 2020 salaries. There is no scenario in play in which players don't lose at least 50% of their expected 2020 earnings. Meanwhile, the owners are making proposals in which they come out even while the players take even more of a pay cut. Here are two links worth reading. First, a very simple version by the always excellent Tom Boswell in the Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/06/15/dont-let-mlb-owners-cry-poor-they-can-afford-do-whats-right-baseball/Next, the detailed version by Craig Edwards on Fangraphs, which actually puts the number at $10M per team: blogs.fangraphs.com/players-ask-owners-how-much-baseball-they-want/Again, the players have already given up about half of their salaries. That's the part of this that people seem to be missing. They're not doing a great job negotiating, I don't think, but that's different than their being unreasonable. Well, the players lost half their salaries, but did they really "give up" that money? As far as I can tell, they didn't really have any choice in that matter, because the national emergency meant the league could suspend contracts. You could just as easily say the owners "gave up" all the revenue they normally would have gotten from the first half of the season, but that's just because the money disappeared. The question now is about the additional losses that come from playing the second half of the season without fans, and both sides do seem completely unwilling to share any of those losses. Obviously the owners could pretty easily afford to just pay the players, and I think it's probably foolish for them not to do so. Their offers have not been fair, and I wouldn't take them either if I was a player. That said, the players can't control what the owners do, and I think they could get a pretty good deal done if they were willing to make even a small concession on pro-rated pay. Or maybe they still couldn't get a good offer from the league, but at least they'd have a stronger case that the league was the one failing to negotiate. The owners are the ones driving the train off the cliff, but I think it's pretty bad that the players are willing just to cross their arms and watch it happen out of spite.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jun 17, 2020 10:46:18 GMT -5
There's a big joker in this deck, and that's MLBAM income. With no fans in the stands it's safe to say that there will be an increase and likely a significant one in online viewership. Is any of that revenue being accounted for in the negotiations? Would all of that simply go into the pockets of ownership?
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jun 17, 2020 10:58:47 GMT -5
There are a number of articles that have pointed out that the difference in player pay, per team, between a 50-game season and an 82-game season is something like $25 million per team at most. Teams are worth at least $1 billion each. Also, for those asking why the players don't want to share in the loss - THEY HAVE. By not playing half the year, they have forfeited at least half of their 2020 salaries. There is no scenario in play in which players don't lose at least 50% of their expected 2020 earnings. Meanwhile, the owners are making proposals in which they come out even while the players take even more of a pay cut. Here are two links worth reading. First, a very simple version by the always excellent Tom Boswell in the Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/06/15/dont-let-mlb-owners-cry-poor-they-can-afford-do-whats-right-baseball/Next, the detailed version by Craig Edwards on Fangraphs, which actually puts the number at $10M per team: blogs.fangraphs.com/players-ask-owners-how-much-baseball-they-want/I'm not sure that the perspective of Boswell and all that "the owners are rich enough to afford to carry the loss" is productive. Because it lends itself to the exact same argument aobut the players -- Stanton, Betts, etc. are rich enough to take 80% of their salary to reflect the lack of revenues. And the owners even built that in, to make sure the rich players absorb more of the loss than the Boswell cited scrubs. So, if the issue of "who is rich enough" to carry the loss prevails, then the owners and players can both carry the loss. That is all being asked -- that the players share some of the new reality. By that logic, the owners have already given up about half of their profits, and from your prior posts, that seems to be an even larger value thatn the salaries. Again, further to this point, if you believe that the virus is killing baseball not just this year but in the future, then by the same Boswell logic of exponential growth in franchise values, we should expect to see exponential loss of franchise values. Those would dwarf the player losses. In the end, unless I am missing something, the players have not budged off the 100% of pro rata, which pushes the owners to minimize that total by reducing the number of games. I suspect that if the players had agreed to 80%, we'd have more games. But the lack of flexibility in addressing a problem leads us here.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Jun 17, 2020 11:13:16 GMT -5
All these arguments mean nothing if there is no season. I think there's a better than 50% chance that could happen. How do you distance yourself with the batter, catcher, and umpire close together at home plate? Or do you place the umpire behind the pitcher like in Little League practice? I think the season is lost and hopefully they find a vaccine by next Spring.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Jun 17, 2020 11:42:18 GMT -5
Again, the players have already given up about half of their salaries. That's the part of this that people seem to be missing. They're not doing a great job negotiating, I don't think, but that's different than their being unreasonable. By that logic, the owners have already given up about half of their profits, and from your prior posts, that seems to be an even larger value than the salaries. Again, further to this point, if you believe that the virus is killing baseball not just this year but in the future, then by the same Boswell logic of exponential growth in franchise values, we should expect to see exponential loss of franchise values. Those would dwarf the player losses. In the end, unless I am missing something, the players have not budged off the 100% of pro rata, which pushes the owners to minimize that total by reducing the number of games. I suspect that if the players had agreed to 80%, we'd have more games. But the lack of flexibility in addressing a problem leads us here. And about half of their expenses...
|
|
|
Post by aboynamedkimandrew on Jun 17, 2020 11:47:26 GMT -5
Meanwhile, the owners are making proposals in which they come out even while the players take even more of a pay cut. Even relative to what? Are you saying that the owners' income statements will actually be break-even for the entire year based on a a 54-game season and pro-rata salaries or one of the longer season options with reduced pro-rata salaries (both with playoffs)? Frankly, I find it hard to believe that's enough to recover all fixed and semi-fixed costs for facilities, player discovery and development, administration, etc., particularly since I expect there will be a lot of givebacks and offsets this year and next for many sponsorship and co-marketing investments with the team due to reduced eyeballs in and out of stadium. However, if it is the case that they can break-even in 1/3 of a season then I will agree that these guys are just greedy bastards (OK, greedier bastards since we already know they are greedy) just looking to off-load all risk. Where is it documented that they will break-even under their proposal?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 17, 2020 12:17:50 GMT -5
By that logic, the owners have already given up about half of their profits, and from your prior posts, that seems to be an even larger value than the salaries. Again, further to this point, if you believe that the virus is killing baseball not just this year but in the future, then by the same Boswell logic of exponential growth in franchise values, we should expect to see exponential loss of franchise values. Those would dwarf the player losses. In the end, unless I am missing something, the players have not budged off the 100% of pro rata, which pushes the owners to minimize that total by reducing the number of games. I suspect that if the players had agreed to 80%, we'd have more games. But the lack of flexibility in addressing a problem leads us here. And about half of their expenses... That's not really true. Teams have large fixed expenses, the players have none. The Red Sox are paying to maintain Fenway even if there are zero games. They had to pay Management and Scouts because of the draft. They have to pay draft picks. They gave an advance of 170 plus million, all with no income. The players are just losing income, the Owners are fully up negative balances. It's not equal.
|
|
|