Will There Be a 2020 Season?

[bmags]

Owning a house is as good an analogy to being a baseball owner as comparing it to businesses.

[greg775]

28 minutes ago, Quin said:

I think his point is that owning a sports franchise is essentially one of the most risk free businesses possible.

The league backs you, the city and government subsidizes new stadiums, etc.

Very true. But in corona-America I bet you some owners are scared. With the prospect of sports without crowds (until there is a vaccine/cure) and what that entail$$, owners are relying only on TV money. And at some point all the networks will be stripped of money to pay those contracts because of the collapsed economy. We could be at 50 percent unemployment in the USA by the end of corona concerns.

[ptatc]

29 minutes ago, bmags said:

They own a franchise in a league association with incredible barriers to any competition (a legal monopoly!). 

There are markets in everything, there is business in baseball. But applying somebody starting an IT consulting business to buying a baseball franchise where you have legal right to prevent any other baseball team competition from operating for local dollars is silly.

 

In the level of minutia, no businesses are exactly the same, so you are correct. However, the principle of who laid out the risk to start/buy the business thus the risk vs. the employees who have little to no risk it's similar. Especially in baseball where the players have guaranteed contracts they assume zero risk. Owning a franchise is less risk, but still more than a player where profit is absolutely guaranteed.

[ptatc]

35 minutes ago, Quin said:

Significant risk suddenly appears for the league if all of the best baseball players in the world strike.

To be relatively risk free, they need the good players. The players want their slice of the pie.

Right so the owners have risk, they can lose money or have little profit. The players have none, their money is guaranteed, unless they strike.

[ptatc]

29 minutes ago, bmags said:

Owning a house is as good an analogy to being a baseball owner as comparing it to businesses.

Somewhat. That is risk from one point of view. The important aspect of the player is they have absolutely no risk, where the owner (home owner) still has some risk. There are factors which can lower the value/profit of the home owner.

[Jack Parkman]

2 hours ago, ptatc said:

I usually do. The owners take the risk of laying out the capital to start the business.  The employees, typically, have little risk other than losing their jobs. It's not to say they don't have rights, they just don't have much risk.

 

In this particular case though, they had an agreement to pro-rate the salaries and should stick to it.

Not going there with you. This has been discussed on this board ad nauseum. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[ptatc]

55 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Not going there with you. This has been discussed on this board ad nauseum. 

yep. We have a totally different view of business. Which is fine. If everyone agreed on everything Life would be boring.

Disagreement is fun.

 

Of course they also start wars.........?

Edited May 12, 2020 by ptatc

[Jack Parkman]

31 minutes ago, ptatc said:

yep. We have a totally different view of business. Which is fine. If everyone agreed on everything Life would be boring.

Disagreement is fun.

 

Of course they also start wars.........?

Absolutely. I have no problems agreeing to disagree. Makes life fun, I agree. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Ducksnort]

Just read that LA is going to have stay at home order until August...

[Jose Abreu]

9 hours ago, KrankinSox said:

Why? Never is a pretty strong word lol. Unions can be unreasonable with their demands in negotiations too.

I understand an agreement was already in place for pro-rated salaries, but at the time teams were probably hoping to have fans in some capacity.  With no gate revenue, players and owners will have to get creative to come together on a plan that makes sense for both sides.  Pro-rated salaries with 40% of all revenue gone may not be realistic.  Companies and industries of all kinds are experiencing layoffs/furloughs. The players may not like the structure but a compromise has to be made if baseball is going to happen this season and they want paychecks.  Hoping both sides can be reasonable and come to an agreement. Still plenty of time to make this work.

The Players Union has no reason to believe that this would be true. Same goes for the claim that the owners would be "operating at a loss". Until they can back up their claims with evidence, it's all meaningless. And personally, I have a hard time believing that concessions + ticket sales account for half of teams' revenue in 2020

[Y2Jimmy0]

8 hours ago, ptatc said:

Right so the owners have risk, they can lose money or have little profit. The players have none, their money is guaranteed, unless they strike.

Baseball salaries are guaranteed but only if they play games. If they don't play a game in 2020, they don't see another dime. 

[greg775]

Illinois governor gets ripped by nbc writer for mouthing off in favor of the owners. This guy is controversial enough with his decisions regarding COVID-19. He gets ripped a good one, here.

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2020/05/12/illinois-governor-j-b-pritzker-slams-mlb-players-for-holding-out/

[KrankinSox]

10 hours ago, Jose Abreu said:

The Players Union has no reason to believe that this would be true. Same goes for the claim that the owners would be "operating at a loss". Until they can back up their claims with evidence, it's all meaningless. And personally, I have a hard time believing that concessions + ticket sales account for half of teams' revenue in 2020

Yeah, transparency from the owners regarding revenue streams certainly would help. I'm not sure how common that is in MLB or other sports during CBA negotiations to even know if this is something owners would consider doing.

Passan cited 40 % in his article, which is why I used that figure. Although he did say some reports indicate it may be in the 30's. Either way, I think there is enough public data regarding revenue for the PA to make an educated calculation of local revenue loss for the teams. Nobody said 'half' so I'm not sure why you decided to throw that inaccurate number out there?

The fact is, if the players want a paycheck this year, they're likely going to have to compromise because they don't have a ton of leverage. Some data shows that the 50/50 split may not even be a compromise at all for the players, strictly in terms of dollars and cents in 2020, although it does shift the risk.

 

[Texsox]

18 hours ago, ptatc said:

Could be, its just that they do front a great deal of capital to buy them. The Ricketts paid close to a billion in cash, loans etc. It's now catching up to them and they are pulling back some. That's still more risk than any players has, which is none.

A MLB, NBA, NFL, or NHL team is the most solid investment you could make. I'm not certain the same rules apply. Investment Banks don't draft the top MBAs coming out of college and tell them they can only work here. Insurance companies don't have exclusive territories where no other insurance company can open shop. No one is limiting hotels to 30 in the country. It's an artificial arena that rarely exists anywhere else. So once we start allowing team owners that artificial arena, there needs to be artificial market rules to protect everyone else, including the fans and players. 

I'll agree that owners are too often unfairly maligned, given too much blame or credit, and their contribution should be respected. 

[Harold's Leg Lift]

22 minutes ago, KrankinSox said:

Yeah, transparency from the owners regarding revenue streams certainly would help. I'm not sure how common that is in MLB or other sports during CBA negotiations to even know if this is something owners would consider doing.

Passan cited 40 % in his article, which is why I used that figure. Although he did say some reports indicate it may be in the 30's. Either way, I think there is enough public data regarding revenue for the PA to make an educated calculation of local revenue loss for the teams. Nobody said 'half' so I'm not sure why you decided to throw that inaccurate number out there?

The fact is, if the players want a paycheck this year, they're likely going to have to compromise because they don't have a ton of leverage. Some data shows that the 50/50 split may not even be a compromise at all for the players, strictly in terms of dollars and cents in 2020, although it does shift the risk.

 

The players have leverage because they are in the right.  They already agreed to a pay structure.  If the owners want to come back and renegotaite that agreement they will have to give up something in return and I hope it's somethng big.  

[Texsox]

5 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

The players have leverage because they are in the right.  They already agreed to a pay structure.  If the owners want to come back and renegotaite that agreement they will have to give up something in return and I hope it's somethng big.  

They also had an agreement in January but were willing to renegotiate. As things change I can see further changes. 

[KrankinSox]

11 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

The players have leverage because they are in the right.  They already agreed to a pay structure.  If the owners want to come back and renegotaite that agreement they will have to give up something in return and I hope it's somethng big.  

Being "right" isn't leverage.  The agreement they made is based on the payment structure once baseball resumes. Baseball still hasn't resumed, therefore, there's no violation of the agreement.  There's nothing forcing Manfred to resume the season under the current agreement. If there's no season, there's no paychecks for the players.  The players want paychecks.  They don't hold a ton of leverage.

[Harold's Leg Lift]

In a public negotiation being "right" absolutely is leverage.  If it wasn't the owners wouldn't be on this smear campaign. 

[Texsox]

3 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

In a public negotiation being "right" absolutely is leverage.  If it wasn't the owners wouldn't be on this smear campaign. 

What would the difference be if there wasn't a season and the fans blamed the players versus the owners? 

[Harold's Leg Lift]

It matters a ton.  You can see how badly the owners need fans in the stadium.  If the fans blame the owners for not playing this season they may not go out to games when they do finally play.  

[Texsox]

9 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

It matters a ton.  You can see how badly the owners need fans in the stadium.  If the fans blame the owners for not playing this season they may not go out to games when they do finally play.  

But if the fans blame the players they will go to games? To cheer on the owners and boo the players? 

[Harold's Leg Lift]

7 minutes ago, Texsox said:

But if the fans blame the players they will go to games? To cheer on the owners and boo the players? 

Uh yeah.  After the 1994 strike the fans "literally" booed the players.  

[Texsox]

I just don't see how the owners win by smearing the players. What's the difference between I'm staying away because of the owner and I'm staying away because of the players? 

[Harold's Leg Lift]

They'll stay away in much higher numbers if they blame the owners.  

[Texsox]

2 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

They'll stay away in much higher numbers if they blame the owners.  

I disagree. People go to games to watch the players not the owners. Players are on the field and who the fans are watching. But here to you for going to games because you like the owners.