The MLB lockout is lifted!

[Texsox]

34 minutes ago, Quin said:

Then they can sell the team and invest in the stock market!

Which is like saying players can quit and find a better paying job ?

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

23 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

I’m sorry, this subject tilts me when people start getting righteous in either direction,

It makes absolutely zero sense to give a shit about this on an emotional level. The very concept of “are you for the owners or for the players? Are for the millionaires or for the billionaires??” is insultingly childish and should be beneath all of us. There is NO moral high ground here.

These are two extremely wealthy, extremely prepared private interest groups engaged in pushing their own interests as far as they can possibly push them. They do not care about you AT ALL. They do not care about fairness; they do not care about morals. They are both simply trying to take as much of the “pie” as they can. There is nothing moral or ethical about it, and they will make no concessions for your interests whatsoever. The fan matters only to the extent that it affects the negotiation. If you find yourself being appealed to by either side, understand that, EVERY TIME, the side you’re hearing from is trying manipulate you for leverage. 

It is cringey af to act like your stance on this says something about your virtues. Why would you even HAVE a stance? These are two departments in an entertainment mogul trying to decide how to divide YOUR money. “Labor vs. the man”? GMAFB. This is like virtue signaling in favor of car salesmen vs. car manufacturers. Who would ever give a shit about that that wasn’t directly involved? Please, for the sake of humanity, have more self respect than that. Everyone involved in this in this negotiation is living better than you and has everything they need to ensure they’ll keep doing so, however the chips fall. 

And if you read this and find yourself angry at me for not understanding or respecting the “greater narrative” about the importance of labor unions, get back to me when you start giving a shit about teachers unions, or nurses unions, or any other group that is actually important and could actually use the support of your moral outrage.

Oh wow, thank you so much for telling us all what the real narrative is.

I root for labor in negotiations. It's not a difficult concept to understand. I root for Kellog workers, truckers, starbucks, amazon and baseball players all the same. Every fight won by labor is a fight won by the guys who deserve a larger piece of the pie IMO. It's really as simple as that.

I care about teachers unions, nurses unions, warehouse unions, trucking unions. I don't stop caring about the fight for greater workers rights, protections, and earnings because the earnings are more than I make. You're either pro-union or you're not. It's really that simple. 

There's actually nothing more absurd than telling someone else what they should and shouldn't care about under the guise that they're "too stupid" to understand what is "actually" happening.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Jack Parkman]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Oh wow, thank you so much for telling us all what the real narrative is.

I root for labor in negotiations. It's not a difficult concept to understand. I root for Kellog workers, truckers, starbucks, amazon and baseball players all the same. Every fight won by labor is a fight won by the guys who deserve a larger piece of the pie IMO. It's really as simple as that.

I care about teachers unions, nurses unions, warehouse unions, trucking unions. I don't stop caring about the fight for greater workers rights, protections, and earnings because the earnings are more than I make. You're either pro-union or you're not. It's really that simple. 

^^^^^^^

[Texsox]

20 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

I’m sorry, this subject tilts me when people start getting righteous in either direction,

It makes absolutely zero sense to give a shit about this on an emotional level. The very concept of “are you for the owners or for the players? Are for the millionaires or for the billionaires??” is insultingly childish and should be beneath all of us. There is NO moral high ground here.

These are two extremely wealthy, extremely prepared private interest groups engaged in pushing their own interests as far as they can possibly push them. They do not care about you AT ALL. They do not care about fairness; they do not care about morals. They are both simply trying to take as much of the “pie” as they can. There is nothing moral or ethical about it, and they will make no concessions for your interests whatsoever. The fan matters only to the extent that it affects the negotiation. If you find yourself being appealed to by either side, understand that, EVERY TIME, the side you’re hearing from is trying manipulate you for leverage. 

It is cringey af to act like your stance on this says something about your virtues. Why would you even HAVE a stance? These are two departments in an entertainment mogul trying to decide how to divide YOUR money. “Labor vs. the man”? GMAFB. This is like virtue signaling in favor of car salesmen vs. car manufacturers. Who would ever give a shit about that that wasn’t directly involved? Please, for the sake of humanity, have more self respect than that. Everyone involved in this in this negotiation is living better than you and has everything they need to ensure they’ll keep doing so, however the chips fall. 

And if you read this and find yourself angry at me for not understanding or respecting the “greater narrative” about the importance of labor unions, get back to me when you start giving a shit about teachers unions, or nurses unions, or any other group that is actually important and could actually use the support of your moral outrage.

X2

I remember when people here felt that the union auto workers in Detroit were paid too much to assemble a car. 

I still don't care who gets what in the negotiations, I just want it over and continue building next year's roster.

 

 

[Texsox]

4 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Oh wow, thank you so much for telling us all what the real narrative is.

I root for labor in negotiations. It's not a difficult concept to understand. I root for Kellog workers, truckers, starbucks, amazon and baseball players all the same. Every fight won by labor is a fight won by the guys who deserve a larger piece of the pie IMO. It's really as simple as that.

I care about teachers unions, nurses unions, warehouse unions, trucking unions. I don't stop caring about the fight for greater workers rights, protections, and earnings because the earnings are more than I make. You're either pro-union or you're not. It's really that simple. 

So would you support the players and not go to games played by non union players or support the vendors, ticket takers, etc and go to games?

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

6 minutes ago, Texsox said:

So would you support the players and not go to games played by non union players or support the vendors, ticket takers, etc and go to games?

I don't cross picket lines in any scenario, so yes that's correct.

This is like arguing if I'd stop supporting the trucking union when places start to run out of food due to their strikes. It's not the truckers fault, it's the fault of those who refuse to pair a fair wage. 

It's not the players fault that people aren't supporting vendors because players went on strike, it's ownerships fault (this case it's a lockout so even more on the owners). This is something people seem to have a difficult time understanding. Just because you're not starving or living paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean you no longer deserve a fair share of the pot that is built on the back of your work. Fair compensation and workers rights degrade over time; they are chipped away CBA after CBA. The reason we're sooo far from the 40's-60's in regards to profit distribution to workers is because they have been chipped away one CBA, one union breakup, one lobbiest proposal at a time. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Jack Parkman]

4 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I don't cross picket lines in any scenario, so yes that's correct.

This is like arguing if I'd stop supporting the trucking union when places start to run out of food due to their strikes. It's not the truckers fault, it's the fault of those who refuse to pair a fair wage. 

It's not the players fault that people aren't supporting vendors because players went on strike, it's ownerships fault. This is something people seem to have a difficult time understanding. Just because you're not starving or living paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean you no longer deserve a fair share of the pot that is built on the back of your work.

^^^^

I purposely boycotted Kellogg's to support their workers on strike. 

People died recently because their bosses wouldn't let them go home instead of having to work during a tornado outbreak. 

I try to avoid shopping at Wal-Mart, Meijer and Amazon as much as possible. I shop at Jewel even though it's more expensive because they're a union shop. I put my money where my mouth is. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Jack Parkman

[ThirdGen]

40 minutes ago, Quin said:

Then they can sell the team and invest in the stock market!

Using a S&P 500 return calculator on the internet, based on $20,000,000 being invested in 1980, all dividends reinvested:

"If you invested $20000000 in the S&P 500 at the beginning of 1980, you would have about $2,335,058,166.69 at the beginning of 2021, assuming you reinvested all dividends. This is a return on investment of 11,575.29%, or 12.10% per year."

We obviously don't know all the ins and outs of money over the years and there were real estate transactions during the ballpark move that may have created some cash, but assuming that turning 30 million into 1.65 billion over 40 years is some ridiculous return is wrong.  They could have dropped the money into the market, put no thought or effort into it and had $700,000,000 more today.  And the investment would have had liquidity and anonymity.

 

[mqr]

27 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

I’m sorry, this subject tilts me when people start getting righteous in either direction,

It makes absolutely zero sense to give a shit about this on an emotional level. The very concept of “are you for the owners or for the players? Are for the millionaires or for the billionaires??” is insultingly childish and should be beneath all of us. There is NO moral high ground here.

These are two extremely wealthy, extremely prepared private interest groups engaged in pushing their own interests as far as they can possibly push them. They do not care about you AT ALL. They do not care about fairness; they do not care about morals. They are both simply trying to take as much of the “pie” as they can. There is nothing moral or ethical about it, and they will make no concessions for your interests whatsoever. The fan matters only to the extent that it affects the negotiation. If you find yourself being appealed to by either side, understand that, EVERY TIME, the side you’re hearing from is trying manipulate you for leverage. 

It is cringey af to act like your stance on this says something about your virtues. Why would you even HAVE a stance? These are two departments in an entertainment mogul trying to decide how to divide YOUR money. “Labor vs. the man”? GMAFB. This is like virtue signaling in favor of car salesmen vs. car manufacturers. Who would ever give a shit about that that wasn’t directly involved? Please, for the sake of humanity, have more self respect than that. Everyone involved in this in this negotiation is living better than you and has everything they need to ensure they’ll keep doing so, however the chips fall. 

And if you read this and find yourself angry at me for not understanding or respecting the “greater narrative” about the importance of labor unions, get back to me when you start giving a shit about teachers unions, or nurses unions, or any other group that is actually important and could actually use the support of your moral outrage.

Yeah, if we were talking about vendors and event staff I'd be singing a different tune. The only thing that has me in the players corner at all is athletics and entertainment are pretty much the only way to claw yourself out of abject poverty.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

Just now, ThirdGen said:

Using a S&P 500 return calculator on the internet, based on $20,000,000 being invested in 1980, all dividends reinvested:

"If you invested $20000000 in the S&P 500 at the beginning of 1980, you would have about $2,335,058,166.69 at the beginning of 2021, assuming you reinvested all dividends. This is a return on investment of 11,575.29%, or 12.10% per year."

We obviously don't know all the ins and outs of money over the years and there were real estate transactions during the ballpark move that may have created some cash, but assuming that turning 30 million into 1.65 billion over 40 years is some ridiculous return is wrong.  They could have dropped the money into the market, put no thought or effort into it and had $700,000,000 more today.  And the investment would have had liquidity and anonymity.

 

But this completely ignores the actual profits they have also generated on the ball club in that time. This is just raw investment to invest worth ignoring $$ and profits generated over that same 41 year window.

[Marqhead]

3 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I don't cross picket lines in any scenario, so yes that's correct.

This is like arguing if I'd stop supporting the trucking union when places start to run out of food due to their strikes. It's not the truckers fault, it's the fault of those who refuse to pair a fair wage. 

It's not the players fault that people aren't supporting vendors because players went on strike, it's ownerships fault (this case it's a lockout so even more on the owners). This is something people seem to have a difficult time understanding. Just because you're not starving or living paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean you no longer deserve a fair share of the pot that is built on the back of your work. Fair compensation and workers rights degrade over time; they are chipped away CBA after CBA. The reason we're sooo far from the 40's-60's in regards to profit distribution to workers is because they have been chipped away one CBA, one union breakup, one lobbiest proposal at a time. 

[ThirdGen]

6 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

But this completely ignores the actual profits they have also generated on the ball club in that time. This is just raw investment to invest worth ignoring $$ and profits generated over that same 41 year window.

You are assuming they pull all the profits out (dividends) every year and have a cash call whenever they don't make money.  That's why I mention we don't know all the ins and outs of cash, and dividends are reinvested.  But I seriously doubt that is the case- typically partnerships like this retain the profits, which is why the value increases so quickly.  Sports franchises aren't known for their liquidity, just because the value increases doesn't mean cash increases, and cash is needed to pay dividends.  Investors know they won't see their return until the team is sold (or their portion) but they will be buried in cash when that happens.

Owning a sports franchise is a vanity investment.  No one does it to expect annual cash flow personally, it's done for the many perks of ownership, and yes, a shitload of money on the way out.

[mqr]

1 minute ago, ThirdGen said:

Owning a sports franchise is a vanity investment.  No one does it to expect annual cash flow personally, it's done for the many perks of ownership, and yes, a shitload of money on the way out.

At this point it's more about the real estate and broadcasting opportunities that come along with owning a team than the actual sporting side of it. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

8 minutes ago, ThirdGen said:

You are assuming they pull all the profits out (dividends) every year and have a cash call whenever they don't make money.  That's why I mention we don't know all the ins and outs of cash, and dividends are reinvested.  But I seriously doubt that is the case- typically partnerships like this retain the profits, which is why the value increases so quickly.  Sports franchises aren't known for their liquidity, just because the value increases doesn't mean cash increases, and cash is needed to pay dividends.  Investors know they won't see their return until the team is sold (or their portion) but they will be buried in cash when that happens.

Owning a sports franchise is a vanity investment.  No one does it to expect annual cash flow personally, it's done for the many perks of ownership, and yes, a shitload of money on the way out.

This is the way it once was, but absolutely is not the way it is today. The Braves, who are really the only books we can look at, are going to walk away with over 100 million in profits in 2021. If you want to use 2019 when they didn't win a World Series they walked away with 54 million. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Texsox]

29 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I don't cross picket lines in any scenario, so yes that's correct.

This is like arguing if I'd stop supporting the trucking union when places start to run out of food due to their strikes. It's not the truckers fault, it's the fault of those who refuse to pair a fair wage. 

It's not the players fault that people aren't supporting vendors because players went on strike, it's ownerships fault (this case it's a lockout so even more on the owners). This is something people seem to have a difficult time understanding. Just because you're not starving or living paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean you no longer deserve a fair share of the pot that is built on the back of your work. Fair compensation and workers rights degrade over time; they are chipped away CBA after CBA. The reason we're sooo far from the 40's-60's in regards to profit distribution to workers is because they have been chipped away one CBA, one union breakup, one lobbiest proposal at a time. 

Do you think the players would honor other picket lines?

[Dick Allen]

4 minutes ago, ThirdGen said:

You are assuming they pull all the profits out (dividends) every year and have a cash call whenever they don't make money.  That's why I mention we don't know all the ins and outs of cash, and dividends are reinvested.  But I seriously doubt that is the case- typically partnerships like this retain the profits, which is why the value increases so quickly.  Sports franchises aren't known for their liquidity, just because the value increases doesn't mean cash increases, and cash is needed to pay dividends.  Investors know they won't see their return until the team is sold (or their portion) but they will be buried in cash when that happens.

Owning a sports franchise is a vanity investment.  No one does it to expect annual cash flow personally, it's done for the many perks of ownership, and yes, a shitload of money on the way out.

Here's what I don't understand. How do they know it is going to make them a ton of money when it's sold? It's a business. If it's almost impossible to make money until the business is sold, it's not going to keep increasing in value, especially not at the rate it is increasing. I will believe they are struggling financially when one team is actually forced to either sell or go out of business because business is so bad. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

Just now, Texsox said:

Do you think the players would honor other picket lines?

I don't base my actions in life on the choices others make. I'm sure, just as exists in any workforce on the planet, there are people who wouldn't and people who would. In large groupings of people you will find diverse opinions. 

[Texsox]

In the end the players will gain a little, the owners will lose a little. The game will go on. 

[ThirdGen]

11 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

This is the way it once was, but absolutely is not the way it is today. The Braves, who are really the only books we can look at, are going to walk away with over 100 million in profits in 2021. If you want to use 2019 when they didn't win a World Series they walked away with 54 million. 

They aren't "walking away" with $100 million; they did not pay a penny in dividends.  The profit was retained by the team (Liberty) which caused the value of the team to increase.  That's how team values increase, not by dumping cash on owners every year.

The Braves also have over $700 million in debt.  I would guess that debt contains covenants limiting how much cash, if any, can be paid as dividends.  That debt by the way increased from the prior year.

[Texsox]

Now shall we look at some players and see how well they did? If we all agree that a corporation shouldn't make 100 million how much should one individual be allowed to make?

How about a limit that the highest paid employee can only make 50x the lowest earning.

[caulfield12]

2 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

As someone who rails against billionaires on the regular, I get your point....however that just ignores reality at the moment. 

How society values entertainers is a completely different argument. 

Are entertainers grossly overpaid? Absolutely. Our current society values individuals based on how much profit they generate for their employer. (I think that's wrong, but that's another story) 

To me, it's a simple argument of labor vs management. You know where I stand on that issue. 

We're more on the same page than you think. 

This is not even true since the 1980’s, with much higher worker productivity leasing to tepid salary increases…at best.  Now it’s more a calculus of how much they can exploit workers until a breaking point is reached, with older workers frequently retiring involuntarily after 55+ and the Millennials increasingly likely to take their services elsewhere.  Part of it is salary-based, part of it is how owners value their contributions.  (cue arguments from those who assert this youngest generation is lazier, e-sports-sports addicted and prefers to stay at home rather than working diligently to “get ahead”) 

[35thstreetswarm]

1 hour ago, Eminor3rd said:

I’m sorry, this subject tilts me when people start getting righteous in either direction,

It makes absolutely zero sense to give a shit about this on an emotional level. The very concept of “are you for the owners or for the players? Are for the millionaires or for the billionaires??” is insultingly childish and should be beneath all of us. There is NO moral high ground here.

These are two extremely wealthy, extremely prepared private interest groups engaged in pushing their own interests as far as they can possibly push them. They do not care about you AT ALL. They do not care about fairness; they do not care about morals. They are both simply trying to take as much of the “pie” as they can. There is nothing moral or ethical about it, and they will make no concessions for your interests whatsoever. The fan matters only to the extent that it affects the negotiation. If you find yourself being appealed to by either side, understand that, EVERY TIME, the side you’re hearing from is trying manipulate you for leverage. 

It is cringey af to act like your stance on this says something about your virtues. Why would you even HAVE a stance? These are two departments in an entertainment mogul trying to decide how to divide YOUR money. “Labor vs. the man”? GMAFB. This is like virtue signaling in favor of car salesmen vs. car manufacturers. Who would ever give a shit about that that wasn’t directly involved? Please, for the sake of humanity, have more self respect than that. Everyone involved in this in this negotiation is living better than you and has everything they need to ensure they’ll keep doing so, however the chips fall. 

And if you read this and find yourself angry at me for not understanding or respecting the “greater narrative” about the importance of labor unions, get back to me when you start giving a shit about teachers unions, or nurses unions, or any other group that is actually important and could actually use the support of your moral outrage.

I have a few problems with this argument.  First, your last paragraph aims this screed at people who "care" about the MLBPA's interests but don't "care" about those of teachers and nurses.  Fair point -- those people are awful hypocrites.  But who exactly are these monsters, and how many of them are there?  Probably not too many.  I haven't seen anyone on this board express this sentiment anyway.

Same goes for the implication that pro-labor hearts are somehow bleeding for millionaire baseball players.  I think everybody understands that these guys are (mostly) very wealthy and privileged in the extreme, and I don't think any reasonable person "cares" on an emotional level about pro athletes' ability to afford a larger mansion in the way they "care" about a teacher's ability to achieve a decent quality of life (though I do think people often overlook many MLB players impacted by these negotiations whose playing careers do *not* give them generational wealth).  

Lastly, I think that suggesting someone cannot take a principled stand on a negotiation simply because the parties are motivated by their respective economic self-interest kind of misses the point.  *All* labor vs. management fights involve parties pressing their economic self-interest, not just this one.  Parties aren't willingly giving up ground based on pure altruism in too many labor negotiations (maybe teachers' unions do).  People who root on labor don't do so because they think unions are "nicer" during negotiations, (they shouldn't be - that's why workers have unions!) they do so because they think that gains by labor contribute to the greater public good in a way that management victories do not.  Now I think most would concede that the outcome of the MLB negotiation will far have less impact on the public good than negotiations involving teachers and nurses, but imo it's not irrational to take a consistent, principled pro-labor stance on all negotiations , including in professional sports.

[caulfield12]

32 minutes ago, ThirdGen said:

They aren't "walking away" with $100 million; they did not pay a penny in dividends.  The profit was retained by the team (Liberty) which caused the value of the team to increase.  That's how team values increase, not by dumping cash on owners every year.

The Braves also have over $700 million in debt.  I would guess that debt contains covenants limiting how much cash, if any, can be paid as dividends.  That debt by the way increased from the prior year.

According to a quarterly filing by team owner Liberty Media with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Braves’ debt as of June 30 included $297 million from the construction of Truist Park (formerly SunTrust Park), $206 million from the construction of The Battery Atlanta mixed-use complex adjacent to the stadium, $30 million from construction of a spring training facility in North Port, Fla., and $185 million for operations.

The Braves’ debt load has increased from $559 million at the end of 2019, with the additional borrowing used for operations and for ongoing construction of the second phase of The Battery. That phase is expected to cost $200 million by completion, with about $95 million in additional debt funding remaining, according to Liberty Media.

One way for the Braves to pay down debt could be the offselling of some parts of The Battery. The team sold the 531 rental apartments in the development in 2018 for $156 million.

https://www.ajc.com/sports/atlanta-braves/how-the-braves-accumulated-718-million-in-debt/43R3KBSGIRFAJMIQ55QBFMS63M/

 

Sounds like a lot of creative accounting…just like if Amazon, Wal-Mart or the Reinsdorfs combined their company’s real estate ventures (tax write-offs) with baseball ops.  This is also why fans totally get fed up, when they’re priced out of tickets for sports because of complicated debt financing that still benefits owners in the long term.  See Cubs’ fans in a similar predicament with Ricketts off field investments.

 

Edited December 20, 2021 by caulfield12

[Jerksticks]

Hey so is everybody who works for baseball collecting paychecks right now?

Trainers, PR, Sodfather, FO people etc?

 

[caulfield12]

4 hours ago, buckweaver said:

I like this post, Tex. A couple points on this whole issue that I haven't seen yet. 1. Where are all the former star players lining up to be part of MLB ownership groups? Derek Jeter is the only one I can think of. But if being an owner was such a wonderful financial boon, I'd guess some of these other very rich men would want part of that action. 2. I believe the players would have a lot more people on their side if they advocated for their minor league brethren (I understand  they are not currently part of the union, but that could be changed...no one is taking up that mantel) and/or made a push for a significantly higher MLB player minimum salary (last year's was $570,500; make it $2 million to guarantee those guys who make it to the show actually have significant earnings. Overall, I agree more with the players this time around. Like all of us, I hope it settles without disruption to the season.

A-Rod as well…largely because there aren’t many billionaire players yet.  They can be part of an ownership group, but usually not the lead investor, Wayne Gretzky, for example.

Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, LeBron, etc.  You’re talking numbers in the mere handfuls with the necessary capital.