Obviously referring to the two schools on the east coast. It will be interesting to see what creative accommodations will be made for them if every other B1G team is a go.
Likelihood of no CFB in 2020
- Thread starter BigNUFan51
- Start date
Obviously referring to the two schools on the east coast. It will be interesting to see what creative accommodations will be made for them if every other B1G team is a go.
Won’t someone please think of the baseball team owners? Oh, the humanity!
I actually agree with you about helping out store workers, doctors, nurses, truck drivers and delivery people but calling people worthless garbage, is just plain stupid. Guess it's fine with you that the millionaire owners take in as much cash, while they sit away in their resort-like accommodations. In the meantime baseball players should just work for half of what was already agreed upon, while playing and working in close quarters on the field, in the dugout and in the locker room. Not to mention being basically quarantined in a hotel, while traveling around in crowded buses and planes. Also lets not forget they will either have their families quarantined as well or separated from them for months. Remember that virus KILLS!
This is speculative at best. How can you say that players will work for half of what was agreed upon, if you don't know what revenue they'd be sharing?
Very true. They could also be working for one tenth of what was agreed upon.
Because the owners, the people who put the capital at risk to operate MLB teams, are not generating the same amount of revenues that were the basis for giving out those salaries in the first place. If you believe professional sports should resume at all, A 50/50 revenue split is fair given the uncertainty. If players don’t Want to play at all because of safety, I understand that but that should be the case regardless of compensation. If owners don’t want to resume operating unless the players agree to a 50/50 split, I also find that position understandable.
I'm finding I can get along fine without baseball. Players better be careful not to kill the golden goose. These are extraordinary times and demanding your full salary like Snell is doing is tone deaf. They already canceled one World Series in my lifetime so what's another one. I'm just glad to hear that Morty Shapiro says today that the Big Ten expects all 14 teams to be playing football this fall. Meeting in June to make plans on how to do it?
Actually think there a lot of more important things that our country needs to work on. Can definitely do without baseball, basketball, hockey, pro football and yes, even college football.
I’ll be curious to hear the plans for college football. The bar to resume college sports is higher in my mind because these are student athletes, not paid professionals. If schools don’t feel it’s safe enough to have all students come back on campus in the fall, then I don’t think college sports should be played in the fall.
I remember when the NFL players went on strike and a few games were played by replacement players. I didn't think the games were that different to watch, honestly.
I can understand the owners wanting a 50/50 split and I can understand the players not being comfortable going out there with that kind of revenue split. What I don't understand is the shock that players might not want to take that deal.
Jerry Reinsdorf very publicly refuses to renegotiate player deals once they've signed a long-term contract (it's obviously a major story point in "The Last Dance"). Now, owners want to renegotiate the deal they just made with the players a couple of months ago. And they want to do it in a way that has never been part of the baseball financial model.
So, because they want this sacrifice this season, are owners going to pay out bonuses to players if revenue booms next season? We don't really need to answer that, do we?
If I were a rookie bench guy on a minimum contract, I'd be psyched to go out for the league minimum of $535,000 and you could even convince me that being the person who has to take the health risk (are the owners gonna be down on the field with everybody else? C'mon...) would be worth it. Throw in the good it might do for the collective psyche of sports fans and the opportunity to grow the sport by being first out there, I could see it.
GIve me that same opportunity with the caveat that you can't guarantee me any more than $60,000 and tell me that you haven't really worked out the details of how you're going to keep this 100-person traveling circus safe? I might not be as interested and enthusiastic.
The owners' capital hasn't really been "at risk" for quite some time though. They have been making record profits for quite a while and there's nothing wrong with that. Just as there is nothing wrong with labor not being interested in the risk that ownership might want them to take. Frankly, ownership capital is more "at risk" without games than with, so they are incentivized to make a deal. And that's what both sides will do. This is a negotiation, pure and simple and you go with the leverage and financial interests that serve you best. Players are just doing the same thing that owners always do...look out for themselves.
Two things.
First, the player’s contracts stipulate that they only get paid if the games are actually played. We are in a previously unthinkable scenario where the owners won’t go forward with the season under the contemplated scenario because they would be losing money each game that was played if they have to pay players their full contracts while playing games without game day revenues. Game day revenues make up a much larger piece of the baseball economics pie than in any other professional sport and so it’s unreasonable to ask any business owner to continue to operate on a daily basis when their daily revenues don’t cover their variable expenses. No owner will open his business if he is losing money every day. That’s would be putting capital at risk. The question is do the players prefer to play and split whatever revenues are generated with the owners on a 50/50 basis or do they prefer to not play and get paid nothing for one season of their finite professional baseball careers?
Secondly, my issue with what i’ve Heard from some players is that they appear to be using the safety issues as a negotiating ploy to not take a pay cut. If they are concerned about safety, then their position should be that they are unwilling to play at any level of pay.
Last edited:
It was very thinkable because the union and the owners already reached an agreement about how to approach a modified season. Now owners want to renegotiate the deal they just made - which Jerry (and a lot of owners) would never do if the shoe was on the other foot. The owners want players to act like "partners", but then don't want to make them "partners".
I guess you've never heard of hazard pay.
Sure they will...if they'll lose more money not having their business open.
Like I said, it's a negotiation. You just want the players to take the owners' first offer. I definitely wouldn't have you negotiate on my behalf either.
It was very thinkable because the union and the owners already reached an agreement about how to approach a modified season. Now owners want to renegotiate the deal they just made - which Jerry (and a lot of owners) would never do if the shoe was on the other foot. The owners want players to act like "partners", but then don't want to make them "partners".
I guess you've never heard of hazard pay.
Sure they will...if they'll lose more money not having their business open.
Like I said, it's a negotiation. You just want the players to take the owners' first offer. I definitely wouldn't have you negotiate on my behalf either.
Yep, it is a negotiation. I don’t believe there are only two options of 1) take a 50/50 split or 2) don’t play at all. Isn’t the proposal for a 80 game season? The owners would essentially be giving up 40 home dates. A loss no doubt, but it really is an example of the owners not seeing the Forrest for the trees. Can you imagine the audience a MLB game would draw now on the idiot box when we are all locked down? People are so starved for sports they are watching corn hole and South Korean Baseball on ESPN. I would be setting my DVR for that A’s versus Rangers tilt right about now. It is a chance to grow your game by expanding your audience. Short term loss for potential of long term gain.
It was very thinkable because the union and the owners already reached an agreement about how to approach a modified season. Now owners want to renegotiate the deal they just made - which Jerry (and a lot of owners) would never do if the shoe was on the other foot. The owners want players to act like "partners", but then don't want to make them "partners".
I guess you've never heard of hazard pay.
Sure they will...if they'll lose more money not having their business open.
Like I said, it's a negotiation. You just want the players to take the owners' first offer. I definitely wouldn't have you negotiate on my behalf either.
They never contemplated any sort of season, modified or otherwise, where the games would be played with no fans in attendance. That was never contemplated and makes the economics of playing the games unworkable for the owners unless the players compromise. No business owner, regardless of what type of business we are talking about, should be expected to operate his/her business when his daily revenues don’t exceed his variable expenses.
How will baseball owner lose more money by not playing the games? Please don’t even try to argue that the value of their franchises will be damaged. These owners are long term investors. There may be some short term declines in the paper value of baseball franchises but that will be temporary and never impact these guys when they actually go to monetize their enterprise values.
Last edited:
How will the baseball owners benefit from increased TV viewership? The TV contracts are already locked in. Perhaps if the TV contracts could be renegotiated, then there may be another way to do this but I think there is little chance of that happening at all or certainly quickly. Baseball, unlike any other professional sports league, derives a much bigger percentage of its revenues from game day activities. If the games can only be played with no fans in attendance, then the players have to be part of the economic solution if baseball is going to be played. There may not be a way to do this which satisfies all parties and that's ok. Maybe the answer is that baseball shouldn't be played right now.
Last edited:
Baseball generates less than 30% of its revenue from ticket sales. At least half of that is gone for 2020 already. Teams are forming their own TV networks for a reason. That $5 added to most folks monthly cable bill whether you watch or not by the Cubs in an example of where they get most of their revenue. TV and Sponsorship is where the money is.
I disagree with that no business should be expected to operate with a periodic loss. It happens all the time. In the case of baseball, many teams lose money on an annual basis more often than they make money. The owners are smart enough to know that the real money in their investment is in sky rocketing franchise values. I would take a $10M loss for 10 years in order to reap the benefits of a franchise value that easily doubles in a decade.
These Teams are owned by Billionaires. They have made fortunes in other businesses in order to buy one of these teams. To some, owning is about ego and a hobby. The comment about every business making money is taking in a vacuum and doesn’t consider the overall financial ramifications that ownership has to their individual net worth. Again, owning a sports team would be a horrendous investment if it wasn't for the appreciation value of the franchise. It suddenly goes from horrendous to excellent. If the owners want a revenue split, then open your books to the public. That is something they will never do.
It's not just tickets sales, it's also game day merchandising and concessions, which when you add it all up is a more meaningful percentage of team revenues that in any other professional sport. Even if it was only 30% (it's not), what business can experience a 30% decline in revenue with little offsetting decline in variable expenses and be able to continue to operate? I think you'd be surprised at how thin margins are if you looked at the financials of an average MLB baseball franchise. I had the opportunity to look at the financials of the Cubs, one of the more profitable franchises around, when the Ricketts family was working to acquire the team from the Tribune and Sam Zell in 2008-09 and was shocked at how thin the profit margins were. I am sure the Cubs financials have improved since then and obviously values of sports franchises in general have benefited from Enterprise value multiple expansion but the reality is that the majority of the franchises out there are operating on very thin profit margins.
Last edited:
Actually, I think we agree on the profit margins being slim. You are making my point on enterprise value. Ricketts bought the Cubs in 2009 for $700 million. The Cubs are valued at $3 Billion today. I hardly feel sorry for them that their revenues were impacted by the virus. They can afford to take the short term hit and IMO come off at least as bad as the players. I feel much worse for the small business owners that have been completed wiped out by the virus than I do for Ricketts and his fellow owners that refuse to even open their books to support their poor man claim.
Come on, you are better than this. These are arguments that ignorant meathead fans make about owners on sports radio every day. Yes, they put significant amounts of their capital at risk and made a wise investment that is worth a lot more today than it was when they bought it ( don’t forget that happened after they invested a billion dollars more to upgrade the stadium and their other facilities) but none of that means anybody has a right to ask them to take money out of their own pocket to run their business at a loss on a daily basis. The Cubs will be worth $3 billion whether the games are played this year or not. Given that, Why would the Ricketts family or any owners chose to play games this year without fans in the stand if they end up losing money every game that is played? No sane business owner would agree to do that whether you and others feel sorry for them or not. That’s just bad business.
Last edited:
Secondly, my issue with what i’ve Heard from some players is that they appear to be using the safety issues as a negotiating ploy to not take a pay cut. If they are concerned about safety, then their position should be that they are unwilling to play at any level of pay.
Why would that be? There are lots of jobs that pay better because of the risk factors involved. Football is already one of them.
I'm working as a Teacher aid with special needs kids. I get kicked, punched, bitten, spit on and stabbed with pencils on a regular basis. They offered me 25% more to drive the bus route. I said no because I didn't want to take on the risk of driving up and down Parley's Canyon with a bus load of kids in snowy weather. Had they offered me 100% more, I probably would have done it.
Why would that be? There are lots of jobs that pay better because of the risk factors involved. Football is already one of them.
I'm working as a Teacher aid with special needs kids. I get kicked, punched, bitten, spit on and stabbed with pencils on a regular basis. They offered me 25% more to drive the bus route. I said no because I didn't want to take on the risk of driving up and down Parley's Canyon with a bus load of kids in snowy weather. Had they offered me 100% more, I probably would have done it.
You have a point that I think is applicable to most people. When it comes to most MLB players who are millionaires even as entry level players, then the utility value of marginal income is lessened particularly when they believe that marginal income puts their lives at risk. If baseball players legitimately feel that playing games puts their lives at risk, then they should be unwilling to play for almost any amount of pay. The fact that some players are saying that they won’t play for anything less than their full per game rate, suggests that their position is more a negotiating ploy than genuine concern over their own health/safety.
Are you OK with the airline or hotel employees being asked to take on revenue split to return to work? Unions negotiated these contracts. Does management agree to boost salaries of the common man by a similar percentage when revenues exceed projections?
No business owner, regardless of the business, is going to operate their business for an extended period of time when they expect marginal revenues not to exceed variable expenses. That’s just a basic economic reality that is taught in every entry level microeconomics class. So yes, I am supportive of employees in any business being given a choice of not working at all or working temporarily at reduced pay. If given the choice, wouldn’t you prefer to Keep your job at a temporarily reduced level of pay over being furloughed or let go completely? The employees may choose not to work for that reduced pay and that is ok but at least they have a choice.
One last thing I want to point out. Let’s remember that MLB owners are already losing money while the games are not played. There are fixed costs associated with running these businesses that cannot be shut off. So it’s not like the owners are immune to what is going on. They are losing money already and are not eager to lose even more money by being forced to play games at an operating loss. That’s a very rational position to take.
Last edited:
I just reread your post and wanted to address your comment that businesses operate at a loss all the time. I think you are missing an important distinction between profits vs. cash flows and accrual accounting vs. cash basis accounting. Show me a business that operates generating consistent negative cash flows on a daily basis and I’ll show you a business that will be filing for bankruptcy in the near future. That’s just not a sustainable business model.
Seems to me we will have to be adaptive in our response. Noone can predict future events. We just need to respond accordingly. I can forsee football beginning,at least the NFL. But what happens in November is anyone's guess. Most assuredly,there will be less fans. I love football,but love college wrestling more. Wrestling needs football to prosper. So lots of anxiety with my friends regarding college wrestling,and football.
The fact that discussions are ongoing suggests alternative scenarios are being considered. One of those alternatives has to be contemplating that some, but not all, students will be back on campuses for college sports to be played in the fall.
if what I have seen with regard to restaurants reopening holds true for schools reopening then there will continue to be a lot of people reluctant to return even if allowed. Online options will most likely continue to be made available to the extent possible even with some classes resuming on campus.
Last edited:
For the record, I'm with corbi296 on this one.
Separately, from my perspective, there are players - particularly at the lower rungs of the pay distribution - who have far more to lose than anyone else in this scenario and if the players' union wants to play a game of chicken because they have a philosophical opposition to revenue-sharing-that-includes-salary-but-actually-doesn't, I don't think they're acting in the best interests of all their players.
That’s fair. When I said all, I didn’t mean it literally. I meant athletes and non athletes alike.
What specifically is the owners proposal? I am not following the “revenue-sharing-that-includes-salary-but-actually-doesn’t”.
Well, Amazon took about 5 years before its operating cash flow turned positive!
jk. Cash flow is indeed the truth serum in financial accounting.
Reminds me of the Seinfeld bit. I cheer for the clothing. As long as the players are wearing the clothes of my team, I'll watch and root for them.
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/...ners-50-50-revenue-split-for-2020-season/amp/
Anyone that cares for a played perspective should read this.
I stand behind the players on this one!
Anyone that cares for a played perspective should read this.
I stand behind the players on this one!
Me too. If they don't feel that given these unprecedented circumstances they feel safe playing the season, then they shouldn't play regardless of compensation.
While I don't disagree, it was pretty naive of both sides to not contemplate the games being played without fans in the stands. As was already evident back in February the Japanese teams were already advising that they would be playing without fans. In March preseason games were being played with fans attending in the United States and the Japanese TV stations were broadcasting them to the Japanese audience to supplement their games being played without fans present.
Here is my post from February 27h from over on the Rant Board about the subject:
"Country by country response is fast moving. Japan is preparing to take significant measures as reported from a news feed from Japan that I am watching at this moment.
Starting tomorrow no tourists from China or South Korea will be allowed entry into Japan.
The opening games of this year’s baseball season will be played in empty stadiums. Artists and performers who have scheduled events have been requested to postpone them until after March 15th at the earliest,
Public schools in Hokkaido where 49 cases have been identified are closed. Schools in other areas are adjusting their starting times so students who commute by train can avoid crowded commutes.
While Japan is not the authoritarian country that China is there exists a self imposed adherence to requests and regulations that is unlike what we are familiar with in the United States - a sentiment that is ironically reflected by responses on this thread.
As the news cast continues detailed instructions are being given as to how to protect against the spread of the virus in each Japanese home with for example limiting the care and contact of a family member to only one other family member for anyone with cold or flu like symptoms."
78 Alaskawildkat, Feb 27, 2020
Last edited:
Similar threads
