xisxisxis

If anyone wonders how it got this far, look no further than the voting. Both the Owners and MLBPA "executive" committees voted against the proposal, while the vast majority of owners and the rank-and-file players voted yes. Maybe both sides should take a look at who's on their main negotiating team before the just approved CBA expires.

And Aaron Rodgers is vaccinated... Right?

Can you provide a link where the MLBPA refused a revenue sharing plan from the owners? You seem to think that the owners were offering a grand gesture by offering a floor. From here (https://www.royalsreview.com/2021/8/19/22631822/mlb-owners-reportedly-propose-a-salary-floor-but-theres-a-big-catch) the owners offered this initially (and was rejected by the MLBPA, duh, because they aren't stoopid) and how much it would affect salary: Floor at $100M (increase salary by $146M) Cap at $180M (reduce salary by $259M) That's exactly why the MLBPA will not discuss a floor, because when the owners discuss it their motivation is not equity/clarity, but to REDUCE salaries (when there revenues are going up each year to new records). For an example from the NFL and NBA: NFL (2021): Cap=$182.5M Floor= $180M NBA (CBA): Floor = 90% of CAP The owners floor offer was roughly 45% lower. A non-starter from the beginning. And your assertion about the big earners is completely refuted by the NBA and NFL as their top earners exceed MLB top earners by a ton. Also, the MLBPA caved on the biggest issue that impacts small market teams (years of pre-Arby/Arby). The MLBPA wanted reductions and gave them up for increased minimums. If they stood firm on reducing years of control the Brewers and other small markets would have been screwed.

But that wording is not inconsistent with what I posted. Yes, that is true that "the Packers" have not lined up any trades, it is Rodgers who is out exploring options for his salary and possible trade parameters. Heck, the reason the Packers haven't talked to Adams could be that Rodgers also wants Davante to be part of the package.

Floors and caps only work with a defined share of revenues. Based on the initial offer from the owners there was no clear idea where the players share of Revenue would be based on an artificially low floor that allowed the current revenue sharing among owners to continue. The NBA and NFL use those methods (cap/floor) to make sure they are allocating the correct amount from Revenues to players salaries. If baseball owners wanted long-term labor peace they would come up with a way to guarantee a revenue split with the MLBPA. Unfortunately, the owners want to squeeze every dime from the players. I've said this for months, but there will continue to be long-term labor fights/shutdowns/strikes as long as the owners don't want to commit to a split of revenues with the players. Every agreement is a battle between the two sides to tweak the variables to try and get a little more for them and the fans sit and wait for the pigs to feed at the trough. But I guess that's why I'll never be a billionaire as I don't treat every negotiation as how can I win and the other side loses, because it appears win-win is just not in their DNA.

Well don't rule out the fact that if Rodgers decision is to come back to the Packers, then from that point forward then the media will move on to other things. Aaron is an attention whore so this could drag out awhile. So far the Packers have done what they have to do, no matter what Rodgers decides, to get under the cap. If they trade Rodgers and let Adams go/tag&trade then they are close to being under the cap. All reports I have seen are that the Packers have had no discussions with Adams since the season ended. So read those tea leaves...

Florio can pound sand: From Demovsky: "Packers GM Brian Gutekunst said this week at the combine that he hasn't gotten a single call about trading Rodgers and, per a source, this remains true: The Packers have NOT engaged in trade talks with any teams about Rodgers." Maybe they got over a hundred calls. That's not "A Single" call and the Packers can parse words like Rodgers does. Doesn't mean that they didn't give Rodgers the go ahead to reach out and discuss contract with teams and compensation for the Packers. Doesn't mean the Packers have to agree to the compensation, but that it's a starting point. The Packers don't have to start negotiating until Rodgers makes his decision.

Why Not? Isn't the company motto: Free Free Free Free Free Free Most owners would say: "You had me at Free"

When they offer to move 35% from their position and the owners move 5% then they are "giving up" more than the owners. What the owners have offered/agreed to is a $150,000 raise to minimum wage and $25M for a bonus pool. If 10 players per roster are on minimum and the bonus pool went through that's roughly $2.3M committed (per team) more salary, let's round up to $75M for all teams. Where else have the owners promised? $10M in the luxury tax cap that about 8 teams might use? another $80M? So the total payroll for baseball was about ~$3.57B last year compared to a high of ~$4.0B in 2017. That's a $155M commitment of more salary while salaries have gone down $430M. Yep, those are pretty equal.

You already posted earlier. If the revenues are going up, then everybody gains. Why would a workforce give up anything when each year revenues hit a new record? Because the owners want even more profit. No reputable union would give away member benefits in the face of RECORD REVENUE, especially when a vast majority of operating expenses are those member salaries (i.e. other forces leading to increased expenses are minimal). "federal law does not permit independent contractors to unionize,” said a statement from the Fisher Phillips law firm.

The bolded part tells you all you need to know about the owners attitude to the players - you're just employees and you should be happy with what we give you and if we decide to give you something we can take it away or charge you for it (directly or indirectly) if we want. What's next? Pay toilets in the clubhouse? A fee for having indoor toilets instead of port-o-potties at the back end of the parking lot? Oxygen usage surtax? Uniform fees? We've been sold the con that baseball costs are escalating because it's not a sport, it's an entertainment business. I wonder how the Rolling Stones would feel if they were told there's vending machines down the hall if you feel hungry or thirsty. Where have you gone Hank Steinbrenner, A nation turns its lonely eyes to you... I think that's the way it goes... I get what you're saying, but it seems to me that you feel the owners are bad for noting that they have an expense in providing free food, but the players aren't bad for accepting that free food willingly? I'm pretty sure the players pay a nominal fee for the food that is prepared at the stadium. Their "meal money" is when traveling their other meals need to be covered (IIRC). Sure, owners don't have to provide food after the game, but at some point federal and state laws apply for how long someone can be "working" before getting a meal break. They don't just clock in then walk out to introductions. The players are at the stadium hours before games start and games are 3.5 hours long or more plus post-game. I'm sure the owners want the players around after the game in a good mood (even when they lose) to interact with the media, not rushing to get out and not telling the media to get lost because they are in a hurry to get a meal. And really what is the total cost for the "meal money"? Maybe 0.02% of the $220M luxury tax. Is it really a bargaining position to discuss something that small or is it just a dig to piss off the other side. I haven't been through a divorce, but from my experience from friends/associates some very petty issues come up that are closer to 1% of the total issues/dollars that will be fought over because one side or the other digs in and just wants to piss off the other side. Damn an agreement, I want to win that battle... Part of the problem with taking sides in this disagreement are the arguments that Apples equal Oranges or the owners moving 2% is equal to the players giving 20%, or vice, versa.

The bolded part tells you all you need to know about the owners attitude to the players - you're just employees and you should be happy with what we give you and if we decide to give you something we can take it away or charge you for it (directly or indirectly) if we want. What's next? Pay toilets in the clubhouse? A fee for having indoor toilets instead of port-o-potties at the back end of the parking lot? Oxygen usage surtax? Uniform fees? We've been sold the con that baseball costs are escalating because it's not a sport, it's an entertainment business. I wonder how the Rolling Stones would feel if they were told there's vending machines down the hall if you feel hungry or thirsty. Where have you gone Hank Steinbrenner, A nation turns its lonely eyes to you... I think that's the way it goes...

What a waste of time. I didn't make it past 5 minutes of clearly a pro-owners take on every bargaining issue. I especially love how when discussing the expanded playoffs and how those evil players turned it down because they thought teams wouldn't spend as much yet there was no mention of the ALREADY negotiated $130M deal with ESPN to televise the extra round of playoffs and NO plan to share any of the additional revenue with the actual players. Don't know what the link to Boras was and don't care. It's all just PR BS.

And the owners do? The only outrageous local TV deal is the Dodgers deal. The Yankees, Angels, Red Sox deals are at the top, but they aren't in the same ballpark. In total their are 6 teams with large enough local TV revenue to financially argue against complete sharing of local TV revenue. Based on that MLB could vote tomorrow for complete revenue sharing. Why don't they? Because sharing would likely require a salary floor and I would bet a years salary that more than half the small market teams WOULD HATE TO LOSE THEIR CURRENT MASSIVE PROFITS. It isn't the big markets that are stopping revenue sharing, it's them plus enough of the small/mid-market owners that are stuffing their pants, shirts, wives, childrens, mistresses blouses, panties, bras with all of the massive cash they are making each year. Yeah, the owners really care about competitive balance right up until it reduces their incomes by $0.01.

That's no true. Liberty (owner's of the Braves) are a public company and the most recent years profit was released recently. I believe svuemrules summarized the numbers earlier in this thread (IIRC). I believe the the number of $43M profit (ABITDA?) per year was mentioned as an average team profit (extrapolating from the known numbers). I saw that. And that's good. It's also 1/30 teams. And what about the league office? I think the point stand in terms of ownership hypocrisy. We see 100 percent of the players' financials and about 3% of the owners. I think your point that the burden is on the owners is correct. I was just pointing out that there is some data and it's nothing like "we can't afford it" or "we don't have the money". If those numbers are close to an accurate average then as an industry they are making over $1B in profit, but they argue that they can't afford more than $25M for a bonus pool for pre-arby players, while the MLBPA, *gasp* wants $100M. I really believe that if the players payroll over the last CBA hadn't dropped they would have gladly gone along with continuing the terms from the last agreement. The fact they are losing ground has emboldened them, especially with the owners stonewalling attempts to address the issue.