Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Potential Owner Player Salary Fight

  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#21 DocBauer

DocBauer

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 6,520 posts

Posted 11 May 2020 - 04:08 PM

I could do multiple quotes, assuming I could remember how to again, lol, but will just state that various arguments here are all valid in their intended arguement. And my following point(s) are not directed at any single post or poster, just the debate we are having. Want to be clear on that.

I don't know what the original agreement was tentatively put in place between the owners and players in regard to 2020 salaries. Perhaps it was fair. But perhaps, as time has gone one, there has been a re-evaluation where projected revenue and projected losses now appear to be vastly different than expected. Let's just say original projections were 50% for arguement sake but now look more like 60-70%. For the structural integrity of the game itself, and it's future, that is huge.

I take no sides in this. I want baseball and I miss it, and I want it back in the best form we can have for 2020. I also want the game to be healthy. Players want to play and get paid. Owners want to get paid. Financially, I can't and won't side with either party as I can't even conceive of the $ we are talking about as a "normal Joe". But ML franchises are still a business. And those billionaires that own them also have many other investments and businesses that are feeling the hurt at this time. What about those businesses and the people that are affected including the "average Joe's" like us who work for them? Would they be OK losing salaries and jobs because MLB paid out full salaries for a shortened season? So just stating billionaires are billionaires and they will be OK is really not a valid arguement.

Again, I'm not for or against either side. I'm just looking at MLB as a separate business entity, which it is. Both sides can be OK here if they just compromise in the situation here. Everyone still gets paid, baseball comes back, and things hopefully return to normal in 2021. It's just fair compromise on both sides.
  • Tomj14 and rdehring like this
"Nice catch Hayes...don't ever f*****g do it again."

--Lou Brown


#22 AZTwin

AZTwin

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,103 posts

Posted 11 May 2020 - 05:07 PM

Isn’t most of the money made with tv deals anyway? With more people watching maybe ownership should be negotiating with the cable companies for more money?

#23 Cast of Thousands

Cast of Thousands

    Elizabethton Twins

  • Member
  • 46 posts

Posted 11 May 2020 - 07:33 PM

Mind-numbingly stupid to think that the players shouldn't/couldn't agree to some kind of agreement that correlates to revenues for this season alone.  The level of uncertainty and unknown is beyond comprehension and the players shouldn't have any skin in the game?  


#24 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Wooo!

  • Moderator
  • 6,080 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 11 May 2020 - 07:49 PM

Isn’t most of the money made with tv deals anyway? With more people watching maybe ownership should be negotiating with the cable companies for more money?

the owners, for good reason, are not transparent about revenue. Most estimates like Forbes use 50/50 at the stadium (tickets, concessions, etc) vs TV. Every team is different, different ticket structures, different TV deals. It does appear the better off teams have the better TV deals. Of course what is opaque as black tar is revenue earned by other subsidiaries of the ownership because of the games but not earned by the ballpark.

Example, Atlanta’s ownership group owns a huge business development around the ballpark and the Pohlads own media and part of FSN and advertising companies that broadcast or simulcast games.

We just don’t know, but if I were a player, my spidey-senses would tingle on the offer of 50-50 split of revenue between players and teams vs salaries because it’s really “50-50 split of the revenue we tell you about”. Only Atlanta is publicly held, all the rest are private and not subject to SEC rules or GAAP
  • SQUIRREL likes this

#25 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,689 posts

Posted 11 May 2020 - 09:39 PM

Then why are arguing so strongly against my position that it shouldn't just be the owners taking a hit when/if they begin playing games with nobody in the stands.

Yes, the owners screwed up by not getting clearer language in their original agreement about resuming games without fans. But as DocBauer pointed out, both sides are going to have to be reasonable to get this game back on the field. And comments I have seen from Mr. Boros and others sure don't sound like they want to be reasonable. But that may also be their first salvo at bargaining, which would be understandable.


Are the owners going to share extra revenue with players when they get more? Of course not. The players should get their pro rated salary. Nothing less.

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#26 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,689 posts

Posted 11 May 2020 - 09:41 PM

Mind-numbingly stupid to think that the players shouldn't/couldn't agree to some kind of agreement that correlates to revenues for this season alone. The level of uncertainty and unknown is beyond comprehension and the players shouldn't have any skin in the game?


Will the owners increase everyone's salary when revenue rises? Of course not. They'll pay the salary they agreed to. Not one penny more.

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#27 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,689 posts

Posted 11 May 2020 - 09:43 PM

I could do multiple quotes, assuming I could remember how to again, lol, but will just state that various arguments here are all valid in their intended arguement. And my following point(s) are not directed at any single post or poster, just the debate we are having. Want to be clear on that.

I don't know what the original agreement was tentatively put in place between the owners and players in regard to 2020 salaries. Perhaps it was fair. But perhaps, as time has gone one, there has been a re-evaluation where projected revenue and projected losses now appear to be vastly different than expected. Let's just say original projections were 50% for arguement sake but now look more like 60-70%. For the structural integrity of the game itself, and it's future, that is huge.

I take no sides in this. I want baseball and I miss it, and I want it back in the best form we can have for 2020. I also want the game to be healthy. Players want to play and get paid. Owners want to get paid. Financially, I can't and won't side with either party as I can't even conceive of the $ we are talking about as a "normal Joe". But ML franchises are still a business. And those billionaires that own them also have many other investments and businesses that are feeling the hurt at this time. What about those businesses and the people that are affected including the "average Joe's" like us who work for them? Would they be OK losing salaries and jobs because MLB paid out full salaries for a shortened season? So just stating billionaires are billionaires and they will be OK is really not a valid arguement.

Again, I'm not for or against either side. I'm just looking at MLB as a separate business entity, which it is. Both sides can be OK here if they just compromise in the situation here. Everyone still gets paid, baseball comes back, and things hopefully return to normal in 2021. It's just fair compromise on both sides.


No one is asking for a full salary. They should get their pro rated salary. No one is asking for a full salary.

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#28 Tomj14

Tomj14

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,139 posts

Posted 12 May 2020 - 07:55 AM

 

No one is asking for a full salary. They should get their pro rated salary. No one is asking for a full salary.

isn't that just semantics? The players per game salary isn't changing, but the owners per game revenue is.

The players are dealing with the same stuff half the country is, no pay for no work, so asking for their whole yearly salary they would be joke.

Are the teams paying their employees that work at the stadium but won't be working because they aren't needed without fans?

  • rdehring likes this

#29 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,689 posts

Posted 12 May 2020 - 09:41 AM

So if the owners per game revenue goes up in a year, they will pay the players more than their contracts?

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#30 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Showing Up to Summer Camp in the Worst Shape of my Life!

  • Member
  • 13,510 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 12 May 2020 - 09:56 AM

*Checks calendar*

Yep, the CBA is expiring next year. Owners act like they’re pinching pennies when it’s time to meet at the negotiating table.

Honestly at this point it would be more entertaining if a team actually went bankrupt just to see what happens. Owners crying that they’re on the verge of bankruptcy doesn’t do it for me anymore.

NBA owners whines about barely making enough money to keep the lights on before their last CBA. From what I’m gathering, there are still 30 teams in that league.
  • DocBauer likes this

#31 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,445 posts

Posted 12 May 2020 - 10:46 AM

 

Isn’t most of the money made with tv deals anyway? With more people watching maybe ownership should be negotiating with the cable companies for more money?

 

Let's say a team draws 20,000 fans a game (25 teams were above that threshold last year). Let's say the average ticket price is $20 (probably low), and each fan spends $10 on concessions.That's 48.6M in revenue, and as previously stated, that number is in all probability tens of millions low for most teams.TV definitely makes up the lion's share of team revenue, but in-stadium revenue is far from small.

 

The cable companies also have no reason to renegotiate right now--the team can threaten to move to a different channel, or start it's own broadcast company if they don't, but so long as there is a contract, the team isn't going anywhere.Most teams would also struggle to find a viable second channel in their home market, and the start-up costs for a new broadcast channel I'm sure are quite high.Add to that the reality that the cable providers are under no obligation to add a new channel to their platform (which is where the majority of cable channels' revenue comes from), and walking away from tens of millions a year is a risky proposition.

  • Sconnie likes this

#32 Trov

Trov

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 410 posts

Posted 12 May 2020 - 10:54 AM

So not knowing all the ins and outs of the deal back in March, from how the article states it, the owners still have all the power.I get the players would say we made a deal lets stick to it.However, the deal was if games would be played.The owners could say, until we can have fans no games, and unless we can start on July 4th, no games because cannot have meaningful enough season.Then the players get the share their 170 million, however they do that, and owners are out much less money, than if they pay players half salaries to empty ball parks.I have read up to 40% comes from game days tickets and other sales.So if you cut out 40% of money off your budget now you have 60% budget.Then you would assume 50% tv money, unless you can work out deal there because nothing else to watch and cannot go to game so ratings will be higher.But assume you cannot get extra from tv.Now you have 30% budget and paying out 50% to players.That is a 20% shortfall.Pretty big hit to a business.

  • DocBauer and rdehring like this

#33 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,445 posts

Posted 12 May 2020 - 11:01 AM

 

Are the owners going to share extra revenue with players when they get more? Of course not. The players should get their pro rated salary. Nothing less.

 

Are the players going to give back salary when revenue goes down?Of course not.Contracts were signed, and they should be honored, except for in those circumstances, like this one, where extraordinary circumstances make normal operations impossible.If games are played without fans, but the players are unwilling to make salary concessions, they are asking the owners to forgo tens of millions in revenue--of course the owners are going to balk at that.What other business would keep it's highest cost active while giving up it's 2nd largest revenue stream?

  • DocBauer, rdehring and heresthething like this

#34 Hosken Bombo Disco

Hosken Bombo Disco

    Minnesota Twins

  • Moderator
  • 12,366 posts

Posted 12 May 2020 - 11:46 AM

Are the players going to give back salary when revenue goes down?Of course not.Contracts were signed, and they should be honored, except for in those circumstances, like this one, where extraordinary circumstances make normal operations impossible.If games are played without fans, but the players are unwilling to make salary concessions, they are asking the owners to forgo tens of millions in revenue--of course the owners are going to balk at that.What other business would keep it's highest cost active while giving up it's 2nd largest revenue stream?

I do see your point of view. But then part of me wonders, because these are extraordinary circumstances to say the least, why cannot owners absorb their share of the pain here, for just 2020, then deal with 2021 when that time comes.
  • Mike Sixel likes this
He measured the achievements of others by what they had accomplished, asking of them that they measure him by what he envisaged or planned.
- J. L. Borges

#35 Tomj14

Tomj14

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,139 posts

Posted 12 May 2020 - 12:22 PM

 

I do see your point of view. But then part of me wonders, because these are extraordinary circumstances to say the least, why cannot owners absorb their share of the pain here, for just 2020, then deal with 2021 when that time comes.

aren't the owners already but not having revenues by not having fans? and possibly paying up to 50 players?

 

 

  • Cap'n Piranha likes this

#36 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Showing Up to Summer Camp in the Worst Shape of my Life!

  • Member
  • 13,510 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 12 May 2020 - 12:52 PM

aren't the owners already but not having revenues by not having fans? and possibly paying up to 50 players?


If there’s one subgroup of people who can handle that loss, it’s billionaire owners of sports teams.
  • Mike Sixel and Hosken Bombo Disco like this

#37 Hosken Bombo Disco

Hosken Bombo Disco

    Minnesota Twins

  • Moderator
  • 12,366 posts

Posted 12 May 2020 - 12:53 PM

aren't the owners already but not having revenues by not having fans? and possibly paying up to 50 players?

The owners are taking a bath—of course they are. The players haven’t been paid yet, except for the token amount offered after the season was suspended, in exchange for pro-rated full salaries once the season resumed. That’s my understanding. Like another poster said above, we don’t really know the fine details.
  • DocBauer likes this
He measured the achievements of others by what they had accomplished, asking of them that they measure him by what he envisaged or planned.
- J. L. Borges

#38 Tomj14

Tomj14

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,139 posts

Posted 12 May 2020 - 01:33 PM

 

If there’s one subgroup of people who can handle that loss, it’s billionaire owners of sports teams.

When we ask all owners of businesses are held to this standard I will hold baseball owners.

  • DocBauer likes this

#39 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,689 posts

Posted 12 May 2020 - 01:48 PM

 

When we ask all owners of businesses are held to this standard I will hold baseball owners.

 

How do you feel about tax subsidies for ballparks? same as other businesses? And, in theory, that IS the standard other businesses are held to. They own capital, and make more money when there is more revenue, and less money when there is less revenue. I'm guessing most people that are still employed by huge corporations that have hundreds of millions in revenue aren't taking pay cuts beyond having their hours cut.......

 

They have a contract. They agreed to pro-rate salaries in March. They now don't want to honor that agreement. 

  • Vanimal46 likes this

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#40 Tomj14

Tomj14

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,139 posts

Posted 12 May 2020 - 01:59 PM

 

How do you feel about tax subsidies for ballparks? same as other businesses? And, in theory, that IS the standard other businesses are held to. They own capital, and make more money when there is more revenue, and less money when there is less revenue. I'm guessing most people that are still employed by huge corporations that have hundreds of millions in revenue aren't taking pay cuts beyond having their hours cut.......

 

They have a contract. They agreed to pro-rate salaries in March. They now don't want to honor that agreement. 

funny the Mayo clinic did sweeping pay cuts and furloughs (https://www.mprnews....-cuts-furloughs)

I am pretty sure the Mayo gets tax subsidies as well.

 

Of course I am bias because I don't think any pro sports should be playing if the amateurs and kids aren't allowed to play.