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

#81 Hosken Bombo Disco

Hosken Bombo Disco

    Minnesota Twins

  • Moderator
  • 12,366 posts

Posted 15 May 2020 - 12:06 PM

It's certainly possible, but would absolutely require substantial pay cuts from the players to work. Fan revenue will be way down for a long time--no MLB team is going to allow a new league comprised of their former players to use their stadiums. There will be massive up-front costs in establishing all the necessary infrastructure to run a modern professional sports league. Either the players will need to both not pay themselves AND invest heavily from their career earnings/take out huge loans against future speculative revenue, or more likely, find 20-30 entities (individuals or corporations) willing to post 8-9 figure losses for multiple years. No one would be willing to pay all the start up costs necessary, with no guarantee of revenue, and an inflexible commitment of $100M or more a year in player salary.

Certainly possible, but probably too risky. I assumed they couldn’t use the stadiums, or the MLB team names either. They could still find places to play and actually do some traveling around the state. They would certainly make less money. I would want the new “Twins” to look a lot like the current Twins, too, but as essentially a new independent league I guess playere could scatter and reestablish themselves wherever they wanted. Fun to think about, but little more than that.
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

#82 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Member
  • 4,050 posts

Posted 16 May 2020 - 05:11 AM

 

Agree 100% that baseball needs better revenue sharing than the current situation.What is it right now, something like 30% of local media gets pooled?Does anyone know the exact terms and what is included?

https://www.baseball...Revenue_sharing


#83 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Member
  • 4,050 posts

Posted 16 May 2020 - 05:34 AM

 

And of course player salaries have remained the same over the last few decades?If owners are asking players to subsidize their losses (by asking players to accrue less revenue), then by the same logic, players are also asking owners to subsidize their losses (by asking owners to accrue less revenue).

 

Two quick googles show 68.5M fans in 2019, at an average ticket cost of $32.99.That's $2.17 BILLION dollars of revenue on tickets alone.It's completely reasonable to believe that concessions, merch, parking, and in-game sponsorships account for another billion, which means in an 81 game season played without fans, the owners are forgoing around $1.6B in revenue.Meanwhile, player salaries were $4.16 Billion last year ($138.6M average payroll x 30 teams, according to Spottrac).So players are asking for owners to still shell out over $2B dollars, while forgoing $1.5B in revenue.

Average ticket cost is not average amount spent on tickets. Places cite the average cost of a ticket to the stadiums.When you look at the people in the stands, more cheap seats are empty. Money from TV has been about 60% revenue. That is pure profit for the team. The rest of the revenue production all has money paid to make it exist. Revenue there is not equal to profit

  • Sconnie likes this

#84 rdehring

rdehring

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,895 posts

Posted 16 May 2020 - 11:46 AM

 

Thanks for linking that old nurse.But it is really puzzling.It says that pooling local media revenue had been contemplated, but never enacted.Then at the end, it says 48% of local revenues are pooled with each team getting 3.3%...which was over a hundred million in 2018.Not certain what to believe.


#85 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Member
  • 4,050 posts

Posted 16 May 2020 - 01:46 PM

 

Thanks for linking that old nurse.But it is really puzzling.It says that pooling local media revenue had been contemplated, but never enacted.Then at the end, it says 48% of local revenues are pooled with each team getting 3.3%...which was over a hundred million in 2018.Not certain what to believe.

This one may confuse you more

http://www.captainsb...ing-work/25425/

 


#86 rdehring

rdehring

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,895 posts

Posted 17 May 2020 - 10:23 AM

 

This one may confuse you more

http://www.captainsb...ing-work/25425/

Thanks, old nurse.

 

That's a lot of information. And as you said, not totally clear what is happening. A couple things that popped out to me were: a) The Twins had EBITDA of about $10,000,000 in 2018; :cool: it makes sense to borrow money for certain stadium costs as the interest expense reduces net local revenue; and c) after all is said and done they pool about 48% of net local revenue.

 

And maybe best of all, the Yankees wrote out a check for over $160,000,000. I like that.

 


#87 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Wooo!

  • Moderator
  • 6,080 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 17 May 2020 - 06:11 PM

Thanks, old nurse.

That's a lot of information. And as you said, not totally clear what is happening. A couple things that popped out to me were: a) The Twins had EBITDA of about $10,000,000 in 2018; :cool: it makes sense to borrow money for certain stadium costs as the interest expense reduces net local revenue; and c) after all is said and done they pool about 48% of net local revenue.

And maybe best of all, the Yankees wrote out a check for over $160,000,000. I like that.


Here’s my take away

“ As a reminder, the model upon which this analysis is based has inherent flaws. Without access to the precise inputs that go into the formula, we can’t definitively calculate exactly how much each team is contributing to or drawing from MLB’s revenue sharing plan. Still, at the very least, this analysis not only helps to illustrate how the plan works, but also whether the design is effective for meeting the stated aim.”

#88 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,445 posts

Posted 18 May 2020 - 11:40 AM

 

Average ticket cost is not average amount spent on tickets. Places cite the average cost of a ticket to the stadiums.When you look at the people in the stands, more cheap seats are empty. Money from TV has been about 60% revenue. That is pure profit for the team. The rest of the revenue production all has money paid to make it exist. Revenue there is not equal to profit

 

If this is true, and average ticket cost is not weighted based on purchases, but rather availability, and we assume that better seats are purchased at a higher level, that simply adds to what I'm saying; it would mean revenue from tickets is actually higher than the $2.2ish billion I was quoting, and it's therefore even more disadvantageous for owners to put on games for which they cannot accrue fan revenue.

 

I also was very clear to say revenue, not profit; that being said, you can't have profit without revenue, and the owners are looking at a 50% decline, at least, in revenue.


#89 Trov

Trov

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 410 posts

Posted 08 June 2020 - 10:10 AM

Just saw that MLB has new proposal, not sent to players yet.76 games at 75% prorated pay.My guess is players will again stand hard and say no reduce in pay.That has been their stance the whole time.Maybe they will counter with more games, but full prorate as they did before.  

 

I find it interesting how often the MLB is leaking their stances.This hurts the process because the whole purpose is two fold.One, to get the public on the owner sides, by either showing they are trying, or they are willing to work something out.The owners are trying to come across as reasonable and willing to make a deal.The second reason, get the info to the players as a whole and not just the player reps.For those who are not part of a union.The two sides work out a deal to send to the people being represented and then the people being represented will vote.They can tell their leaders what they want, but they do not normally know what is being talked about, unless the representatives tell them.  

 

So by leaking to public what they are thinking of proposing the players may tell the union leadership they would be willing to accept it and tell the leadership to send it down for a vote.It seems this tactic by the owners has not worked on that prong though.As neutral as I want to be, I want to lean towards the owners because they at least seem to be trying to work some middle ground, where players have not been willing to budge one bit.They may be right in that decision, I am not privy to all the info, but I want baseball, and the players seemed to have drawn a line in the sand and they will not cross it.Full prorated pay and at minimum half a season.They want more than half a season for more money, but from what was leaked seems like 82 games at full prorated would maybe get it done on player side.

 

So this offer, if it is an offer, will not get it done unless players willing to budge.The question is, will the players be willing to take nothing on pure principle?The owners claim to be willing to do 50 games at full prorated.Players say not worth it.So if MLB says 50 at full prorated, will players say no?Will they say no money to prove our point is better than some money?If I was a player making league minimum counting on my paychecks to pay mortgage on support family, it would be hard to fully swallow no money. 

 

To make matters worse, will this be a single season issue?Most likely we will have to deal with limited fans in seat next year and owners will have similar issues.Will players be willing to take 2 full seasons of no pay because of this?Would baseball ever survive something like that?If there is no season this year, it may harm future revenue because some fans will not care about the "who is right" thing.

 

Players claim they want to play more games, to tell the fans we want to give you more games.This is an attempt to look good to the fans.However, now that the MLB is saying more games at the 75% prorate, will the players say no?If the players say no, then what they are really saying is games do not matter, money does. Really, from what I have read, the 76 games at 75% is estimated to be about same loss to owners and pay to players at 50 games at full prorate.Math could be a little fuzzy there.However, if it is about games being played and not money then agree players. 

 

However, just as in most things in life, it is all about the money.I expect the players to say no to this and say full prorate.Will MLB then force 50 games?If so will players opt out sighting now safety concerns?Which may be legitimate, but could also be concerns of lowering FA value in short sample size should they have a poor season.

 

How many players will opt out?Will minor league players get called up while the players that opt out do not get paid?Will those players that opt out get service time? 

 

My personal thought is that this offer is final offer by owners and if players say no, then owners will either say no season or 50 games max at full prorate and move forward with that.  

  • TouchEmAllGuy likes this

#90 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 4,584 posts

Posted 09 June 2020 - 08:12 PM

When you do the math over a full season at full percentage of salary, each offer is the same - roughly 33-35% of full-season salary. The owners aren't offering any compromise. They're packaging the same turd up with a new wrapper and calling it something else.

 

The players aren't "all about the money". They've come significantly down from their initial stance, but there's been no movement to middle ground from owners. The problem for owners is that Tony Clark and the MLBPA have begun to use the media to negotiate in the same way that the owners have leaked proposals the entire process. A more adept MLBPA with media negotiation that's PO'd by the owners' tactics right now? Good luck in the 2021 CBA negotiations...

  • Mike Sixel likes this

Purveyor of videobaseballscout.com to cover all kinds of baseball!!

 


#91 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,689 posts

Posted 13 June 2020 - 04:55 PM

Each owner, each and every one, gets 22 million more per year under a new deal with TBS.... But sure, teams just aren't profitable..... Why are they asking for more money during this time? Shouldn't they be giving money back?

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


#92 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Member
  • 4,050 posts

Posted 13 June 2020 - 06:48 PM

 

Each owner, each and every one, gets 22 million more per year under a new deal with TBS.... But sure, teams just aren't profitable..... Why are they asking for more money during this time? Shouldn't they be giving money back?

"teams aren't profitable". Wow, now that is one claim that needs proof.

  • Mike Sixel likes this

#93 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Member
  • 4,050 posts

Posted 13 June 2020 - 06:51 PM

 

When you do the math over a full season at full percentage of salary, each offer is the same - roughly 33-35% of full-season salary. The owners aren't offering any compromise. They're packaging the same turd up with a new wrapper and calling it something else.

 

The players aren't "all about the money". They've come significantly down from their initial stance, but there's been no movement to middle ground from owners. The problem for owners is that Tony Clark and the MLBPA have begun to use the media to negotiate in the same way that the owners have leaked proposals the entire process. A more adept MLBPA with media negotiation that's PO'd by the owners' tactics right now? Good luck in the 2021 CBA negotiations...

From 100% of salary to 100% of prorated salary? It is all about the money for the players.  Same for the owners.


#94 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Wooo!

  • Moderator
  • 6,080 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 14 June 2020 - 01:22 PM

From 100% of salary to 100% of prorated salary? It is all about the money for the players. Same for the owners.

A197A181-4811-47EB-897E-F189D079CAA7.gif


This. Player or owner, it’s about the money. That’s ok. I want more money too