Yankees May Go On Trial - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Hanxter · 03-30-2004, 08:20 AM

i counldn't find a link, but the boston herald had a story in the march 30 edition saying...

Quote:

"Are the New York Yankees the greatest baseball team ever or an Evil Empire with a megabucks payroll that is ruinig the game?

We know where you stand but ESPN wants to put the Bronx Bombers on trial. A two hour mock court clash entitled "Break Up The Bombers: The Yankees On Trial" will air soon on the sports network according to the New York Post.

Bruce Cutler, who has had some experience representing cutthroat mobs - he was John Gotti's lawyer - will represent the Yankees, while Alan Dershowitz will prosecute the case against George Steinbrenner & Co. Court TV's Catherine Crier will be the judge."

the only thing i did find was a pay per read story in the Post dated march 29...

ESPN did this with Pete Rose july 17, 03 and it declared him eligable for induction...
it's a form of trial by public opinion...
what's yours?

Nimbletoe · 03-30-2004, 08:58 AM

I still don't understand why there aren't salary caps in the NHL or MLB. It's stupid that teams spend so much money to get all the star players on their team. Although, its funny when they get beat by fish... *cough*YANKEES*cough*

pan6467 · 03-30-2004, 09:12 AM

I feel ALL TEAMS are equal subsidiaries/divisions of MLB. Therefore ALL PROFITS should be spilt equally. Each team needs the other. To argue differently is to argue as to why MLB has so many teams if they can't produce.

I've said this before on here. Give each team a 32nd of the total profit and from that 65-75% goes to payroll, 10% to owners and front office, 5-15% goes to minor legue development, 10% goes to community relations.The percentages may need worked on but that inspires King George and the 29 other owners to make sure a Detroit sells as much as possible. It would eventually force teams and owners to produce, sell or relocate to become more profitable.

The revenue sharing now almost is an incentive for poor owners to stay poor, so that they don't have to spend as much and they get league welfare.

Every city would feel they had a chance and the game would be where it should be in the GM's hands and not the wallet.

KING GEORGE is guilty on all counts of hording money and making sure other divisions cannot compete financially.

Averett · 03-30-2004, 09:14 AM

There needs to be a salary cap in baseball. There is no way that one player (A-Rod) can be worth more than an entire team (Devil Rays)

Baseball is being ruined by money

Bill O'Rights · 03-30-2004, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Averett
Baseball is being ruined by money

Word!!

Jesus Malverde · 03-30-2004, 04:42 PM

But salary caps could also lead to more lockouts and strikes.

The NFL should be proud of themselves for setting an example that, unfortunately, other professional leagues don't follow.

djtestudo · 03-30-2004, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pan6467
I feel ALL TEAMS are equal subsidiaries/divisions of MLB. Therefore ALL PROFITS should be spilt equally. Each team needs the other. To argue differently is to argue as to why MLB has so many teams if they can't produce.

I've said this before on here. Give each team a 32nd of the total profit and from that 65-75% goes to payroll, 10% to owners and front office, 5-15% goes to minor legue development, 10% goes to community relations.The percentages may need worked on but that inspires King George and the 29 other owners to make sure a Detroit sells as much as possible. It would eventually force teams and owners to produce, sell or relocate to become more profitable.

The revenue sharing now almost is an incentive for poor owners to stay poor, so that they don't have to spend as much and they get league welfare.

Every city would feel they had a chance and the game would be where it should be in the GM's hands and not the wallet.

KING GEORGE is guilty on all counts of hording money and making sure other divisions cannot compete financially.

You could do that plan, but only if you are willing to go several years either without any baseball or with extremely substandard replacement players, 'cause the union would fight that to the last man, and would win the fight in any court in this country.

Kurant · 03-30-2004, 05:31 PM

This is ridiculious.

How about putting baseball on trial for allowing no revenue sharing? For not taking control of money and baseball before the players and money became bigger then the game of baseball? It's not the Yankees, it's your boy Budsmoker Selig.

Blame Baseball for letting owners spend whatever they want.

The Yankees are the greatest team in Baseball history because the league allowed them to be that way. It's the biggest market in baseball, he with the most toys, wins.

(must go barf now, I defended the yankers.)

Serpent · 03-30-2004, 07:00 PM

The public opinion isn't already right unless they all know the facts and have accurate reasoning ability, which most people tend not to..

tim2shady · 03-31-2004, 08:25 AM

equal profit sharing and a salary cap....hmmm and no performance enhancing drugs allowed for the umpires.

pan6467 · 03-31-2004, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by djtestudo
You could do that plan, but only if you are willing to go several years either without any baseball or with extremely substandard replacement players, 'cause the union would fight that to the last man, and would win the fight in any court in this country.

It would not be hard to prove in court that MLB is nothing more than a General Motors with each team a subsidiary, much like Chevy, Cadillac and so on. In doing so they would prove that each team needs the same amount of financing and salary caps. HOWEVER, the biggest problem with that is the owners would have to give up their Anti-Trust immunity. It would be a double edged sword for them.

Somewhere in the near future the owners and union have to do what's best for the game or it will die. Total revenue sharing and salary caps are the only way to preserve the game. The Yankees will still get the cream of the crop because of the tradition of being a Yankee.

djtestudo · 03-31-2004, 10:01 AM

I agree, but your plan isn't "revenue sharing", it's "communism". Not just due to the complete sharing, but the complete regulation of the dispersion of funds.

I think throwing just all media money into a pot, and splitting ticket sales like they used to, would be sufficiant sharing. Then you make the share you get from the media pot the salary floor, and twice it the salary cap, and you will have a plan going.

As long as the team spends that minimum they can do whatever they want with the rest of the money they get. Plus, this allows for particularly wealthy owners to spend their own money on the team if they wish.

pan6467 · 03-31-2004, 02:42 PM

That's a good plan DJ, however, splitting ticket income also allows disparity. The Yankees hated or loved sell far better than say the Devil Rays or Royals. So say by Cleveland sharing 1/2 the ticket with the Yankees brings the Yankees a hell of a lot more than the Devil Rays. Doesn't seem like much, but ticket revenue is a major part that does add to the disparity.

This is due to ticket prices, Boston charges what now $40 average and Cleveland's is $20 so Cleveland has to sell twice as many? Then teams like Tampa, KC, Milwaukee and so on have a hard time selling at all. Splitting ticket revenue would only work if the teams all charged the same and had close to the same sales. Otherwise, it just keeps the parity going.

As far as communism, my plan is just saying MLB as a whole is a corporation and therefore all money is part of that corporation and should be split equally. Nothing communistic about that. Like I said, General Motors or Proctor and Gamble or any large corporation splits money amongst their divisions. Sometimes those money losing divisions end up making profits and adding more money to the pot. Sometimes those divisions lose and are discontinued after the losses become too much of a burden.

As far as regulating the dispersion, it makes sure there is a level playing field and every team has a chance. Otherwise you'll have owners living on the welfare of other teams that refuse to disperse funds. By having a minimum and maximum you do the same thing as control disbursement, just different language than I used. But by making sure each team spends relatively the same it evens up the playing fields and all the teams start drawing more attendance.

Use this plan only for a set amount of years and review what happens. I think what it will show is MLB will be the healthiest it has ever been and attendance everywhere is up.

djtestudo · 03-31-2004, 03:52 PM

You're missing the point. The point is to give teams a chance to compete, not make everyone equal.

The NFL still has small-market and big-market teams even with the revenue sharing and salary cap system. However, the small-market teams that spend their money better are helped by being able to spend a LOT more then they could otherwise.

If everyone were equal, it would be just as boring as it would be if the Yankees won every game.

GM does distribute their money that way, but they OWN all their subsidiaries. Despite the structure of Major League Baseball, the teams themselves are completely owned by the owners. That is why they are franchises and not subsidiaries.

An example I've always liked is thinking about a series of McDonalds' restaurants in a city. Each wants to make as much money as they can, but they don't want to put the others out of business due to the financial advantages in marketing and just people knowing what they'll get at each place.

As for the ticket-splitting, you miss the fact that yes, the Yankees gain by sharing ticket sales with the Devil Rays in Tampa, but the Devil Rays gain a LOT more when the games are in New York. The Red Sox can charge that much, and it allows the other teams to get more when they play in Boston.

The NFL doesn't have anything near as powerful as what you are proposing, yet they are the model for a truly well-run league. A system like that should be the goal. Not complete sharing to make everyone equal, but giving teams money so that they have a real chance.

Hanxter · 04-07-2004, 12:38 PM

FYI - the trial is on espn thursday, the 8th at 7:00 - i think est

03-30-2004, 08:58 AM	#2 (permalink)
Nimbletoe Junkie Location: Michigan	I still don't understand why there aren't salary caps in the NHL or MLB. It's stupid that teams spend so much money to get all the star players on their team. Although, its funny when they get beat by fish... coughYANKEEScough __________________ Go Pistons!

03-30-2004, 09:12 AM	#3 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I feel ALL TEAMS are equal subsidiaries/divisions of MLB. Therefore ALL PROFITS should be spilt equally. Each team needs the other. To argue differently is to argue as to why MLB has so many teams if they can't produce. I've said this before on here. Give each team a 32nd of the total profit and from that 65-75% goes to payroll, 10% to owners and front office, 5-15% goes to minor legue development, 10% goes to community relations.The percentages may need worked on but that inspires King George and the 29 other owners to make sure a Detroit sells as much as possible. It would eventually force teams and owners to produce, sell or relocate to become more profitable. The revenue sharing now almost is an incentive for poor owners to stay poor, so that they don't have to spend as much and they get league welfare. Every city would feel they had a chance and the game would be where it should be in the GM's hands and not the wallet. KING GEORGE is guilty on all counts of hording money and making sure other divisions cannot compete financially. __________________ 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?"

03-30-2004, 09:14 AM	#4 (permalink)
Averett Is In Love Location: I'm workin' on it	There needs to be a salary cap in baseball. There is no way that one player (A-Rod) can be worth more than an entire team (Devil Rays) Baseball is being ruined by money __________________ Absence is to love what wind is to fire. It extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great.

03-30-2004, 04:42 PM	#6 (permalink)
Jesus Malverde Psycho Location: Sinaloa, Mexico	But salary caps could also lead to more lockouts and strikes. The NFL should be proud of themselves for setting an example that, unfortunately, other professional leagues don't follow. __________________ ...I'm that cat by the bar toasting to the good life...

03-30-2004, 05:31 PM	#8 (permalink)
Kurant Junkie Location: Don't worry about it.	This is ridiculious. How about putting baseball on trial for allowing no revenue sharing? For not taking control of money and baseball before the players and money became bigger then the game of baseball? It's not the Yankees, it's your boy Budsmoker Selig. Blame Baseball for letting owners spend whatever they want. The Yankees are the greatest team in Baseball history because the league allowed them to be that way. It's the biggest market in baseball, he with the most toys, wins. (must go barf now, I defended the yankers.) Last edited by Kurant; 03-30-2004 at 05:35 PM..

03-30-2004, 07:00 PM	#9 (permalink)
Serpent Insane Location: florida	The public opinion isn't already right unless they all know the facts and have accurate reasoning ability, which most people tend not to..

03-31-2004, 08:25 AM	#10 (permalink)
tim2shady Tilted Location: Chicago, IL	equal profit sharing and a salary cap....hmmm and no performance enhancing drugs allowed for the umpires. __________________ mean people suck.....period.

03-31-2004, 10:01 AM	#12 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	I agree, but your plan isn't "revenue sharing", it's "communism". Not just due to the complete sharing, but the complete regulation of the dispersion of funds. I think throwing just all media money into a pot, and splitting ticket sales like they used to, would be sufficiant sharing. Then you make the share you get from the media pot the salary floor, and twice it the salary cap, and you will have a plan going. As long as the team spends that minimum they can do whatever they want with the rest of the money they get. Plus, this allows for particularly wealthy owners to spend their own money on the team if they wish. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

03-31-2004, 02:42 PM	#13 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	That's a good plan DJ, however, splitting ticket income also allows disparity. The Yankees hated or loved sell far better than say the Devil Rays or Royals. So say by Cleveland sharing 1/2 the ticket with the Yankees brings the Yankees a hell of a lot more than the Devil Rays. Doesn't seem like much, but ticket revenue is a major part that does add to the disparity. This is due to ticket prices, Boston charges what now $40 average and Cleveland's is $20 so Cleveland has to sell twice as many? Then teams like Tampa, KC, Milwaukee and so on have a hard time selling at all. Splitting ticket revenue would only work if the teams all charged the same and had close to the same sales. Otherwise, it just keeps the parity going. As far as communism, my plan is just saying MLB as a whole is a corporation and therefore all money is part of that corporation and should be split equally. Nothing communistic about that. Like I said, General Motors or Proctor and Gamble or any large corporation splits money amongst their divisions. Sometimes those money losing divisions end up making profits and adding more money to the pot. Sometimes those divisions lose and are discontinued after the losses become too much of a burden. As far as regulating the dispersion, it makes sure there is a level playing field and every team has a chance. Otherwise you'll have owners living on the welfare of other teams that refuse to disperse funds. By having a minimum and maximum you do the same thing as control disbursement, just different language than I used. But by making sure each team spends relatively the same it evens up the playing fields and all the teams start drawing more attendance. Use this plan only for a set amount of years and review what happens. I think what it will show is MLB will be the healthiest it has ever been and attendance everywhere is up. __________________ 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?" Last edited by pan6467; 03-31-2004 at 02:49 PM..

03-31-2004, 03:52 PM	#14 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	You're missing the point. The point is to give teams a chance to compete, not make everyone equal. The NFL still has small-market and big-market teams even with the revenue sharing and salary cap system. However, the small-market teams that spend their money better are helped by being able to spend a LOT more then they could otherwise. If everyone were equal, it would be just as boring as it would be if the Yankees won every game. GM does distribute their money that way, but they OWN all their subsidiaries. Despite the structure of Major League Baseball, the teams themselves are completely owned by the owners. That is why they are franchises and not subsidiaries. An example I've always liked is thinking about a series of McDonalds' restaurants in a city. Each wants to make as much money as they can, but they don't want to put the others out of business due to the financial advantages in marketing and just people knowing what they'll get at each place. As for the ticket-splitting, you miss the fact that yes, the Yankees gain by sharing ticket sales with the Devil Rays in Tampa, but the Devil Rays gain a LOT more when the games are in New York. The Red Sox can charge that much, and it allows the other teams to get more when they play in Boston. The NFL doesn't have anything near as powerful as what you are proposing, yet they are the model for a truly well-run league. A system like that should be the goal. Not complete sharing to make everyone equal, but giving teams money so that they have a real chance. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

04-07-2004, 12:38 PM	#15 (permalink)
Hanxter The Griffin	FYI - the trial is on espn thursday, the 8th at 7:00 - i think est