quote:
I agree with you in most cases - but at the same time I also think it is refreshing to see some high profile players starting to put a value on things other than squeezing the last possible penny out of each organization. After all - we pay for it.



It would also be refreshing for a club to say "ya know, we know that you can command 14,000,000 dollars on the opend market. We are so grateful that you have been a good trooper, that we are gonna give you 16 mill".

The organization tries to squeeze every penny out of the players, fans, cable, advertisers, etc. Why would you apply one standard to the player and want him to be warm and fuzzy. Yet not apply that standard to the boss who is a business man and hording every dollar. I think that an agent is a needed entity for the protection of the player. Let us face it. There is little loyalty on either side. The agents did not do that. The players and owners did.

the Florida Bombers
"I love the HSBBW"
If players across the board agreed to a unilateral 25% reduction in their salaries, on average a roughly $15 million decrease, how much of that $15 million would go to lower ticket prices, media contracts, parking fees, popcorn, beer etc.? NOT ONE DIME.

Do you think the owners would match their 25% reduction by taking 25% less in their salaries or selling their teams for 25% less? HELL NO!

Bottom line the plyers are taking what they can get during their brief career. The owners are keeping what they can. HOORAY FOR CAPITALISM!
Marvin Miller is the guy who should get a % from every player. A very smart guy who did a tremendous job for all players and agents.
Big and VC,

I am sure that you can do "what ifs" from now until kingdom come to support your view - and rail against the owners as well. Owners would certainly be a tough bunch to defend. LOL

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.

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.

Are we now to believe that salary levels do not affect the cost of viewership?

I do think players deserve whatever someone is willing to pay them - and I also think owners deserve to make a return on their investment. Pretty basic stuff.
But someone has to be paying for that stuff right? The money doesnt just materialize.

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.
[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.
Well there are not many "what ifs" to defend the owners, that is my point. The bone yard is littered with players who were duped into a feeling of loyalty to the teams.

If owners want a return on their investment, then they ought to be good business men.

quote:
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.



Well, can't blame the players because the owners are poor businessmen or bought a bad franchise. Most of these guys take their tax loses to their billion dollar companies anyway.

I appreciate what Shilling did also, I guess! If undermining an up and coming players abilitlity to baragain in the future is noble. Then he is noble. It is easy for him to be noble. He has all he could want. What about the next guy.

Let us not stick our head in the sand here. It is a tough business and it is about capitalism as well as sport. Maybe once upon a time it was great to be a total loyalist to a team. It sure was easier considering the players had no rights. Now it is just business. Sad but true. I wouldn't demonize either group, just TCB.

the Florida Bombers
"I love the HSBBW"
Guys,

Interesting perspectives IMO.

VC - The interesting part for me - was that I was part of the whole life cycle (purchase, operation and ultimate sale). You are absolutely right IMO - about where the money really is for owners.

Big - if I put my head in the sand for even one second - I would have been fired - immediately. LOL
quote:
Originally posted by itsinthegame:
LOL - With my legs - I would never wear shorts.


I thought you said it was the owners who had the shorts?
VC,

As you know, and like Tom Hanks said, "there is no crying in the business world." LOL

Some win - some break even - and some get crushed.

And if their legs look anything (even remotely) like mine - I strongly suggest they stay away from shorts too. LOL
Last edited {1}

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×