MLB Owners Support Thread

[CalCub]

Originally Posted by gradedeflator

I believe players want the books open because owners have claimed they will lose $640k per game played. Players asked for proof. No evidence has been shared to support this. If it were, in concept it might nudge players towards sharing Im the 2020 pain more. That is why they want books opened or some data

No evidence? If the owners could make money giving the players full prorated salaries without ticket sales, they would already agreed to the MLBPA's past offers, it's as simple as that, what owner would give up the opportunity to make money & lie instead and say they are losing money??? Exactly none, not sure why you think this argument of seeing "the books" has merit, no company shows their employees the books, but of course you expect people to give MLB players everything they ask for.

If you were an MLB owner, would you show the players your books?

[CalCub]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

Your argument of “if owning a team is so profitable, why don’t the owners build their own stadiums?” is classic post hoc ergo propter hoc. A strong debater would know that.

BS, I made a valid point

[CalCub]

Originally Posted by mfw13

If that's the case, then it's up to them to prove it by opening their books.

Until they do so, nobody is going to believe them.

No it's not, you're business acumen is very poor, because no company ever shows their employees the books, just another unrealistic & outrageous demand by the players union & greedy agents

[CalCub]

Originally Posted by tkraft24

The “stock piles of money” is the wealth they continue to build by growing the value of their team WHILE being profitable along the way. Why else would someone with strong business acumen hold onto a business that can be sold for an enormous profit?

I haven’t seen the actual language so can’t speak to the latter part. I’m also guessing part of the grievance is that box office revenues are estimated by many to have low profit margins factoring in operating costs. It’s all part of the show to get the easy money (tv deals, advertisements, licensing, etc).

What other employees across the country get more money from their employer based on company valuation??? Again, this does not happen, yet you think the MLB players you admire so much should be the exception.

Microsoft Corp had FY2019 revenue of $125 billion, yet MSFT is currently valued at $1.4 trillion...you think a group of MSFT employees can demand that MSFT pay them more because the company's valuation is x10 revenue??? Not a chance


Also, the argument you're trying to make that the owners should pay the players more because of MLB owner's future asset value is valued more than revenue, is just like MLB owners' evaluating each MLB player's assets, i.e. the value of the player's nice homes & value of their investments, and then saying, "well because your total property value is $x and your retirement/investment assets equate to $x, we can give you a much lower salary than what you're asking for..." I mean that's essentially what you're saying when you argue the owners should be paying the players more in this environment where there's no revenue coming in from ticket sales....doesn't make any sense, poor business acumen on your part, just like the MLBPA planning to sue MLB owners for $1 billion of additional pay is operating in bad faith on the players part

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by CalCub

No it's not, you're business acumen is very poor, because no company ever shows their employees the books, just another unrealistic & outrageous demand by the players union & greedy agents

There it is, the bot response!!!!

We could make this into a drinking game, lol

[GoBeavs]

Originally Posted by gradedeflator

I believe players want the books open because owners have claimed they will lose $640k per game played. Players asked for proof. No evidence has been shared to support this. If it were, in concept it might nudge players towards sharing Im the 2020 pain more. That is why they want books opened or some data

There's a bit of a point there. I think most probably feel that the number was inflated for effect. However, what is the real objective with auditing the numbers? What do they gain by finding the number is only $200K/game loss? Other than making the owners state "oh fine, we exaggerated a bit", what does it gain? I'm sure the players are inflating some of their data as well. Anyone who's dealt with Best Offers on eBay knows it happens in all negotiations. Does anyone really think the owners are still making profits this year with no fans in the stands? Do we really need to analyze books to know what basic logic already tells us is true?

And all that is assuming that everyone is agreeing to use the same accounting methods of analyzing the books. More than likely there will be a lot of room for interpretation about the figures that will lead to more arguments which, again, have no real relevance to the core discussion. It's all arguing for the sake of arguing.

[tkraft24]

Originally Posted by CalCub

What other employees across the country get more money from their employer based on company valuation??? Again, this does not happen, yet you think the MLB players you admire so much should be the exception.

Microsoft Corp had FY2019 revenue of $125 billion, yet MSFT is currently valued at $1.4 trillion...you think a group of MSFT employees can demand that MSFT pay them more because the company's valuation is x10 revenue??? Not a chance


Also, the argument you're trying to make that the owners should pay the players more because of MLB owner's future asset value is valued more than revenue, is just like MLB owners' evaluating each MLB player's assets, i.e. the value of the player's nice homes & value of their investments, and then saying, "well because your total property value is $x and your retirement/investment assets equate to $x, we can give you a much lower salary than what you're asking for..." I mean that's essentially what you're saying when you argue the owners should be paying the players more in this environment where there's no revenue coming in from ticket sales....doesn't make any sense, poor business acumen on your part, just like the MLBPA planning to sue MLB owners for $1 billion of additional pay is operating in bad faith on the players part

I’m not saying the players get paid based on the team’s valuation. I’m saying if the teams valuation is 5-10x the original purchase price then the owners wouldn’t be clinging on to their teams if they weren’t profitable. That’s it. It’s not rocket science. Everything is in a black box so we don’t know how much owners make but it’s completely irrational to think owners are not profitable while valuations continue to grow by the year and are reinforced by actual sales.

Your focus is continually on the top tier players. Obviously there’s in enormous inequality in pay for MLB players but it’s the owners that bid against themselves to arrive at those numbers in free agency. If more players were in free agency sooner then maybe the market would correct itself on that front. But in the end, top tier talent is in limited supply and has no substitutes for the marketability of a team which drives all types of revenue streams.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by CalCub

No it's not, you're business acumen is very poor, because no company ever shows their employees the books, just another unrealistic & outrageous demand by the players union & greedy agents

If your company was basing you and your coworkers pay on revenue and saying “we will pay you 50% of the revenue we make” you 100% would want to look at their books. You would not just take them at their word.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by GoBeavs

There's a bit of a point there. I think most probably feel that the number was inflated for effect. However, what is the real objective with auditing the numbers? What do they gain by finding the number is only $200K/game loss? Other than making the owners state "oh fine, we exaggerated a bit", what does it gain? I'm sure the players are inflating some of their data as well. Anyone who's dealt with Best Offers on eBay knows it happens in all negotiations. Does anyone really think the owners are still making profits this year with no fans in the stands? Do we really need to analyze books to know what basic logic already tells us is true?

And all that is assuming that everyone is agreeing to use the same accounting methods of analyzing the books. More than likely there will be a lot of room for interpretation about the figures that will lead to more arguments which, again, have no real relevance to the core discussion. It's all arguing for the sake of arguing.

This is 100% correct but I also think you are looking a little to broadly.

I think the point is owners saying we are losing X per missed game should be taken a grain of salt. Maybe they lose a million, maybe it’s 200k, point is we don’t know, nor do I care, but I can see what players do

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by CalCub

If you were an MLB owner, would you show the players your books?

No I wouldn’t but in return them I shouldn’t be asked to a revenue spilt between the two sides

[CalCub]

Originally Posted by tkraft24

I’m not saying the players get paid based on the team’s valuation. I’m saying if the teams valuation is 5-10x the original purchase price then the owners wouldn’t be clinging on to the their teams if they weren’t profitable. That’s it. It’s not rocket science. Everything is in a black box so we don’t know how much owners make but it’s completely irrational to think owners are not profitable while valuations continue to grow by the year and are reinforced by actual sales.

Your focus is continually on the top tier players. Obviously there’s in enormous inequality in pay for MLB players but it’s the owners that bid against themselves to arrive at those numbers in free agency. If more players were in free agency sooner then maybe the market would correct itself on that front. But in the end, top tier talent is in limited supply and has no substitutes for the marketability of a team which drives all types of revenue streams.

Sorry but I understand valuation and business finance way more than you do, because if you did know more, you wouldn't be siding with the players and suggesting that due to team valuation increasing over the years, that the owners should give players full prorated pay when there's no revenue coming in from ticket sales to cover full prorated pay.

And yes company/business valuations usually increase over time when a company is profitable, but you're acting like COSTS are staying flat while team valuation & revenue increases, which you're suggesting the MLB owner's profits margins % just keep increasing at the same rate....if you used more common sense, you'd know that as revenue & team valuation increase, so does a teams costs, including player salaries....

I'm not only focusing on the top tier players either....sure MLB minimum salary hasn't moved that much, but arbitration salaries for younger players & free agent contracts continue to increase along with increased revenue. You care so much about player salaries, what about stagnant minimum wage wages for Fast Food workers and other low skilled work??? MLB minimum wage is very high relative to the average American, so don't act like MLB players are struggling to make ends meet.

[marterburn]

I'm becoming more and more convinced by the post that CalCub is a troll bot.

Not because of his viewpoints, but because of the way he responds.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[CalCub]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

No I wouldn’t but in return them I shouldn’t be asked to a revenue spilt between the two sides

That makes no sense, you don't have to show employees the books to ask them to take pay cuts

[tkraft24]

Haven’t gotten a blowout fix in a while, this will hold me over for a while.

[CalCub]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

If your company was basing you and your coworkers pay on revenue and saying “we will pay you 50% of the revenue we make” you 100% would want to look at their books. You would not just take them at their word.

Another poor argument, the MLBPA already has good estimates on what MLB revenue would be with ticket sales & without ticket sales....pretty sure it's widely published that FY2019 total MLB revenue was ~ $10.7 billion...again, you don't need to see the books to evaluate revenue, you need to see the books to see profit margin %....and as greedy as the players, union bosses and agents are, if they did see "the books", they'd ask for even more money and squeeze the profit margins of MLB owners to the point where the owners are just breaking even, which would run the league into the ground & in financial ruin

[CalCub]

Originally Posted by marterburn

I'm becoming more and more convinced by the post that CalCub is a troll bot.

Not because of his viewpoints, but because of the way he responds.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

No one cares what you think marterburn

[GoBeavs]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

This is 100% correct but I also think you are looking a little to broadly.

I think the point is owners saying we are losing X per missed game should be taken a grain of salt. Maybe they lose a million, maybe it’s 200k, point is we don’t know, nor do I care, but I can see what players do

That's where you and I differ in opinion. I don't think the players really care. If they did, then your other post would be relevant to this discussion. However, the players have constantly stated they have no interest in revenue sharing.

Originally Posted by Peties Army

If your company was basing you and your coworkers pay on revenue and saying “we will pay you 50% of the revenue we make” you 100% would want to look at their books. You would not just take them at their word.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by CalCub

That makes no sense, you don't have to show employees the books to ask them to take pay cuts

You don’t understand

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by GoBeavs

That's where you and I differ in opinion. I don't think the players really care. If they did, then your other post would be relevant to this discussion. However, the players have constantly stated they have no interest in revenue sharing.

No I agree 100% to what you are saying. I think I came in mid topic and was confused

[FreshOutThePack]

The reason is simple really...

I had a card listed for $120 on eBay, received an offer of $100. I accepted the offer.

Can you guess what % of my asking price that was?

83%.

Just like the owners were asking the players.

Play for 83%.

Card was up for about a month.

Players have been stalling for 2 months+ now.

I didn't even try to counter, because I knew at this point it would be probably the best I was going to get.

[Peties Army]

What the hell are you talking about?

Oh and

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1383528

[tkraft24]

Originally Posted by CalCub

Sorry but I understand valuation and business finance way more than you do, because if you did know more, you wouldn't be siding with the players and suggesting that due to team valuation increasing over the years, that the owners should give players full prorated pay when there's no revenue coming in from ticket sales to cover full prorated pay.

And yes company/business valuations usually increase over time when a company is profitable, but you're acting like COSTS are staying flat while team valuation & revenue increases, which you're suggesting the MLB owner's profits margins % just keep increasing at the same rate....if you used more common sense, you'd know that as revenue & team valuation increase, so does a teams costs, including player salaries....

I'm not only focusing on the top tier players either....sure MLB minimum salary hasn't moved that much, but arbitration salaries for younger players & free agent contracts continue to increase along with increased revenue. You care so much about player salaries, what about stagnant minimum wage wages for Fast Food workers and other low skilled work??? MLB minimum wage is very high relative to the average American, so don't act like MLB players are struggling to make ends meet.

Well I’m not going to endlessly defend myself against things you’ve said I said. I’ve stated from the beginning there’s wrong on both sides and the entire system is antiquated and needs an overhaul.

[marterburn]

Originally Posted by CalCub

No one cares what you think marterburn

Spoken like a true troll bot.

Also, my posts in this thread for the last 20? pages are purposefully vacuous. I feel sorry for you in not realizing that.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Gilbey]

Calcub is that why beer cost $16 at a game? I think concessions cover most of the game day payroll. What about $40 parking? Do the players get a cut of that?

[Lonewolf]