[QUOTE]Originally posted by itsinthegame:
Big and VC,
"Owners would certainly be a tough bunch to defend."
But it's lucrative to do so. Just ask their Lawyers.
"But I still admire what Schilling did. It was a refreshing change - as I stated before - and one that I am sure will not be appreciated by alot of folks in the rep. business."
As previously stated my gripe with Schilling was the fact that he said he can do as good a job as an Agent...in a very public way so he could tell the world how great he was. Then he didn't do it. But knowing what I know about the guy, just getting to flex his ego on a national stage was worth millions to him so maybe in a weird way he broke even. Plus he did save that all important 5% he didn't pay an Agent.
"A slightly different angle - The flip side of Capitalism: I can recall - 3 years in a row - one of the NBA teams I worked for - lost money -every year.
Every year - the salaries went up dramatically -and every year the ticket prices went up. And every year the cost of concessions went up. And they were locked into a long term television agreement - so virtually no added revenue there.
And every year - they lost money. Were the owners greedy in that case? Stupid maybe - but greedy? Shoot - they were holed up like rats in a corner. Pay the salaries - or watch your franchise fall apart. End of story."
It's great when Pro franchises generate positive cash flow. However, the REAL money is in:
1) return on investment when the team is sold
2) the tax benefits of depreciation of equipment & contracts.
I don't think the owners of the NBA team you mentioned had to apply for welfare. AT WORST, they could always sell the team for what they paid for it, write the losses off against gains in their other businesses & cry all the way to the bank.
"Are we now to believe that salary levels do not affect the cost of viewership?"
Of course they do. The salaries of EVERYONE... including what they pay their children/wives/in-laws/ outlaws etc. who work for the teams they own, how much they pay themselves etc.
"MY MAIN POINT:
If both owner and player can be satisfied (ala Schilling) without the middleman getting a piece - I'm all for it. That, also, is an example of Capitalism. Some would argue - at its most efficient."
Yes, ownership has always been so fair to players. Certainly no reason to think that Players need the MLBPA & Agents any more.