Baseball Player Haters....Have you seen this?

[rudedawg]

I read that too.

The thing is, the owners are generally billionaires who are wealthy with, or without, the team.

Owners can live with a strike. If baseball went away, the owners would still be rich. Not so, the players. And so owners have more leverage.

I kinda understand your point......but they still aren't going to risk losing their investment. Also the high end players could go on for quite sometime without another check. Unfortunately the 1st - 4th year guys can't go nearly as long.

I remember Cecil Fielder getting up in front of 500 guys at the Biltmore in Phoenix in 94 before the season and telling guys that they would have to get jobs. I was LMAO.

The Major League Baseball Players Union has been said to be the strongest ever and if this story of Doubleday, Wilpon, & Selig ends up in a Federal Court it might just take ALL the power away from the owners.

I doubt Doubleday would even start this process if it wasn't true.

 

[GinNJuice]

You are crazy. Where di you get any of this stuff? I can't believe I am bothering with a response to you. Jesus fucking Christ you are missing my point.

I will use small words for you:

1. My comments are in the context of the baseball strike, in response to rudedawg.

2. The owners typically force the players' hands, because the owners can live with a strike or lockout, due to their (typically) tremendous wealth. Hicks owns a cable company, Steinbrenner a shipbuilding company, etc.

3. Except for the richest of the players, they need the income to maintain their lifestyle. Not so, the owners. Owners havemore money, and as such, more leverage in these deals.

Oh, I almost forgot:

Hey Asshole! Where the fuck did I talk about re-distributing wealth or the costs of maintaining wealth? Please get your head out of your ass if you want to quote and respond to my posts.

LOL @ Matt.

Chill out, I was mainly just kidding.

It's just amazing to me that people say the owners don't need money. Well, lots of people would say that A-Rod doesn't need money either......... it's too bad that the ultimate losers during a strike are the marginal players and the customers (fans) that actually support the high-priced players and owners.

 

[GinNJuice]

Nope....no surprise here. The player's union has been asking for over a decade for the owners to open their books.....yet they won't. Why? Cuz the pictures aren't as gloomy as they want to paint to John Q Public.

I don't think the owners SHOULD have to open their books. Runner, made a statement that the player's salaries are public knoledge...... but I would also say that the player's salaries should NOT be public either. Hell, I don't tell everyone how much I make, so why should the players have too (or the owners)

Of course they are in it to make money. Why would they buy a franchise/business that was losing money? I doubt very seriously there is a sports team out that their is a sole proprietorship. Why are profits from any business anyone's business according to your thought process?

Well, I don't follow baseball much, but I'd say that many of the teams are limited partnerships, and are NOT public.... so the profit and losses should only be between the partners and the IRS like any normal business.

And, YES, I don't think any business' profits should be public except for PUBLIC companies.

Are we just to accept the owners words that they are losing money? If they are losing money then why do they keep giving out the "outrageous" contracts? Better yet why do they make it public knowledge about how much they are paying a player? It's no one's business but the owner, the player, and the agent right?????

Nope I believe that of course the owner should make a profit. Again why would someone own a business that LOSES money annually??????????

Again, I don't think it is any of our business if the owners make money or not.

They give out big contracts as 'investments'. Think about it, if a company that makes widgets is losing money, but they have a new design for a better widget, they might PAY big money to re-tool thier manufacting process in order to make a BIGGER return in the future. If a team has small attendance, and is losing money, maybe they 'think' that signing a big time player will draw more paying attendees which could bring in a BETTER Return On Investment. ????? I don't know

I don't know why they make a player's salary public knowledge, but they probably should not. It should be private

 

[Natymike]

It would be nice if the fans striked, then the players and owners would be totally fucked.

only in a perfect world.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

LOL @ Matt.

Chill out, I was mainly just kidding.

It's just amazing to me that people say the owners don't need money. Well, lots of people would say that A-Rod doesn't need money either......... it's too bad that the ultimate losers during a strike are the marginal players and the customers (fans) that actually support the high-priced players and owners.

Hee hee...

owners are taking a huge loss too, but the fans really take it up the ass.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

LOL @ Matt.

Chill out, I was mainly just kidding.

It's just amazing to me that people say the owners don't need money. Well, lots of people would say that A-Rod doesn't need money either......... it's too bad that the ultimate losers during a strike are the marginal players and the customers (fans) that actually support the high-priced players and owners.

Hee hee...

owners are taking a huge loss too, but the fans really take it up the ass.

A fan strike would be a really cool thing to pull off, indeed.

 

[rudedawg]

I don't think the owners SHOULD have to open their books. Runner, made a statement that the player's salaries are public knoledge...... but I would also say that the player's salaries should NOT be public either. Hell, I don't tell everyone how much I make, so why should the players have too (or the owners)



Well, I don't follow baseball much, but I'd say that many of the teams are limited partnerships, and are NOT public.... so the profit and losses should only be between the partners and the IRS like any normal business.

And, YES, I don't think any business' profits should be public except for PUBLIC companies.



Again, I don't think it is any of our business if the owners make money or not.

They give out big contracts as 'investments'. Think about it, if a company that makes widgets is losing money, but they have a new design for a better widget, they might PAY big money to re-tool thier manufacting process in order to make a BIGGER return in the future. If a team has small attendance, and is losing money, maybe they 'think' that signing a big time player will draw more paying attendees which could bring in a BETTER Return On Investment. ????? I don't know

I don't know why they make a player's salary public knowledge, but they probably should not. It should be private

One word ........ antitrust

 

[rudedawg]

It would be nice if the fans striked, then the players and owners would be totally fucked.

only in a perfect world.

Wasn't there a group that tried to do that July 4th?

 

[rudedawg]

Here is a good one to digest:

"As Doug Pappas of the Society for American Baseball Research points out on his Web site, Major League Baseball's numbers show that revenues have risen 156 percent since 1995, while player salaries, supposedly the cause of baseball's financial woes, have risen only 113 percent. Meanwhile, other expenses have risen 134 percent. If baseball's in such financial trouble, why is it allowing non-salary expenses to skyrocket like that?

Because baseball's not in financial trouble, that's why. No franchise in modern times has ever lost value. Incredibly rich people keep paying incredibly steep prices for franchises -- the Red Sox were bought by a group led by John Henry this month for $660 million. Henry had just sold the Florida Marlins, a team so pitiful it's in danger of being "contracted," for $158.5 million -- to Jeffrey Loria, who had just sold the supposedly worthless Montreal Expos to his fellow owners for $120 million. "

 

[GinNJuice]

One word ........ antitrust

Ok, you got me there, 'cause I don't know enough about baseball to know how it would monopolize sports entertainment...... nor how the knowledge of players and team profit would limit copetition in sports entertainment.