Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Interests > Tilted Sports


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-17-2006, 06:49 AM   #1 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Gee... what an idiot

Ok. So let's say I own a smaller market MLB, say the Indians, Reds, Tigers, whatever. My base is pretty limited, what I can charge for tickets is pretty limited, what I get for television revenue is pretty limited and so on. So what I can pay for F/A to compete is limited. Also, unless I compete my income doesn't reach full potential and it becomes a downward spiral.

Even in the Indians at their height in the 90's lost money if they didn't go to the playoffs. DIck Jacobs said if the Indians weren't the #1 merchandised team (he was smart enough to own the team stores) and they didn't make the playoffs, the Indians would lose big money. Even the past few years when they gutted salary, they barely made profit because of the spiral effect.

The Red Sox, Yankees, and so on do not have this problem. They have HUGE market bases, can charge whatever they want for tickets and sell out almost every night.

So revenue sharing is needed. Why? Because we are all subsidiaries of the same company MLB. If the small market clubs go bankrupt it hurts the overall industry. Think of it this way, MLB is GM and each team is Pontiac, Chevy, GMC trucks, etc.

Also the tax is needed because some teams like the Yankees and Bosox will go out and buy whomever they want and if the player tanks, they can go out and buy another guy.

So my answer to the Bosox owner crying over revenue sharing and the tax is this...... Don't like it, make a sal cap or don't pay F/A so much money.

Teams like the Marlins don't NEED a new stadium or to move, they need new ownership and a chance to compete that allows the team to make money and not go heavily indebt.

But as long as King George rules baseball and MLB treats each team as it's own business, not a subsidiary.... the sport will continue to have problems and teams near bankruptcy that will never be able to compete.

Quote:
Red Sox owner bothered by baseball's revenue-sharing system

February 16, 2006

BOSTON (AP) -- Major league baseball's current revenue-sharing system, even while bettering the game, is too burdensome on the wealthiest clubs which are substantially subsidizing some of their opponents, according to Boston Red Sox principal owner John Henry.

Team ownership must bring in roughly $2 on every $1 invested in order to break even, Henry was quoted as saying in Thursday's editions of the Boston Herald. The Herald said his comments came in an exchange of e-mails with the newspaper over the past week.


"Baseball has to address the disincentives created by large-scale transfers of revenue from successful clubs to less successful clubs," Henry said. "At high enough tax levels, the incentive is to invest somewhere other than in baseball."

He said the disincentives are just as powerful for lower-revenue clubs as for the higher-revenue clubs.

"The Red Sox have taken an aggressive stance in investing in all aspects of the franchise," he said. "But one has to wonder how many teams will do so when the financial risks often outweigh the potential financial benefits."

About $50 million to $60 million of the Red Sox money is flowing per year to less successful clubs, Henry said.

"The commissioner and the union have radically altered the game of baseball for the better over the last few years by transferring enormous amounts of dollars," he said. "But as with all taxes, there is a point at which taxation discourages effort and investment to the point that baseball clubs one by one come to the same, unfortunate conclusion."

Boston sells out every game and has been aggressively expanding Fenway Park. Henry leads the investment group that bought the Red Sox and the New England Sports Network cable television station from the Yawkey Trust four years ago for $660 million.

"The Red Sox have lost money and NESN has made money," Henry said. "The continuing investments in Fenway Park help revenues but are not cheap. It is not a coincidence that the teams paying a lot of money in revenue sharing are investing substantial sums in ballparks because that is the only deduction available."

Henry said commissioner Bud Selig has done a good job in reducing the debt ratio allowed by individual clubs.

"(Selig) may have, in fact, saved the industry from itself by acting to limit debt," Henry said.

Most teams have large and growing debts, Henry said. He said he knew some owners who have lost more than $100 million over the last 10 years. In his three years as owner of the Florida Marlins, he said he lost about $50 million.

Link: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slu...v=ap&type=lgns
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 07:55 AM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
In a sense I agree. I mean, if teams that are at the bottom of the barrel, and don't improve over time, despite getting added funding as a result of this, why should these teams continue to suck revenue?

I'm of the mindset that there should be a hard salary cap (ala NFL) or no cap at all. I don't think the big spenders should give $50-60 million to the scrub teams that seem to make no real effort at improving. Examples include: Devil Rays, Royals, Reds, and Rockies. These teams should be contracted, not encouraged by payouts of "free money" that is granted at the expense of teams that are successful and able to spend more as a result of their success.
__________________
Desperation is no excuse for lowering one's standards.
Jimellow is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 08:25 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
John Henry: You can suck it. Your luxury tax payment was only $4,156,476. If you don't like paying luxury tax here is a simple solution: don't let payroll exceed $136.5M. 28 other teams found a way to do that last year and 6 of them made the playoffs. You don't need to spend over 100M to win.

Florida is a totally different story. They've won two WS and the city hasn't done shit to say thanks. They were 28th in attendance in 2003 (1.3M tickets) and their big boost for the next season was to go up to 26th (1.7M tickets). That city doesn't deserve an MLB franchise.
kutulu is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 08:40 AM   #4 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
I think the revenue sharing model works fine. The luxury tax model is worthless though. With the 2006 cap at 136.5M it doesn't do a damn thing. The threshold shoul dbe closer to 100-110M. Instead of having a fixed percentage based on how many times hte team exceeds the cap, it should be an escalating %. If the threshold is 100M, then it could follow this:

10% on the first 10M
20% on the second 10M
30% on the third 10M
40% on anything else

Last year, only NYY and BOS paid luxury taxes. They paid 34M and 4M respectively. If it was done the way I proposed above it would work out like this:

Code:
NYY	 $213.10 	 $39.24 
BOS	 $141.90 	 $10.76 
NYM	 $119.20 	 $2.84 
LAA	 $115.90 	 $2.18 
SEA	 $111.90 	 $1.38
One other thing. In order to prevent parasitic teams from just taking the revenue sharing money and running. If a team's salary does not equal 1.5x the money they got via revenue sharing (averaged over like 5 years to account for rebuilding) they lose revenue sharing elibility for the next five years.

/I didn't know Seattle spent so much money last season. Ouch!

Last edited by kutulu; 02-17-2006 at 08:43 AM..
kutulu is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 10:22 AM   #5 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Sarasota
At the root of this argument is the fact that MLB does not have a real commissioner. Bud Selig is the owners' 'boy'.

The game needs a commissioner to do what is right for the league, not just for the owners. In any real negotiation, nobody gets what they ask for. I agree that the game needs a salary cap ala the NFL, but the players don't want that. OK, if you have a cap then you should have a floor too. I think this was discussed but Selig didn't have the cahones to stand up to the owners. I am a Rays fan. Most of you fans know that Vince (Do you know who I am?) Naimoli no longer owns the team. A young guy named Stuart Sternberg now owns the team. He is committed to trying to win. That is really all fans can ask for. We will never compete for the pennant in the AL east against NYY, BOS, TOR, and BAL. Naimoli was what was wrong with baseball. He 'wanted' to win, but made no real effort to. The Rays had the second lowest payroll, and were the second most profitable team. WTF? They received +/- $25MM in luxury tax money and their profit was $ +/- $23MM. He took the luxury tax $$ and put it in his pocket. The fans hated him for it. I used to have season tickets and then stopped buying them just because of this.

If the league had a real commissioner who would make an owner 'do the right thing', IMO the league would be so much better off. As has been said, it doesn't take the largest payroll to make the playoffs or even go .500. Baseball needs to understand that they are in the entertainment business. People come to watch a competition. Americans like to root for an underdog. A Yankee friend of mine says 'so what if we have the best team and you always don"t?' . Because this is not a game of world domination, it is not a war, it is a baseball league. They have rules against monopolies don't they.

Sorry to go off on a rant there but I played baseball for close to twenty years and love the game but after the steroid scandal they better do something to get the fans back on their side or baseball as we know it may disappear in the next 10-15 years.
__________________
I am just a simple man trying to make my way in the universe...

"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." - Thoreau

"Nothing great was ever accomplished without enthusiasm" - Emerson
DDDDave is offline  
 

Tags
gee, idiot

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:09 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360