I've been browsing various other MLB club forums and they seem to think that Total Revenue sharing is coming soon to MLB because of this new "Power" the owners entrusted to Bud Selig. They are also of the opinion that Total Revenue sharing will doom the Yankees.
I'm I wrong or wasn't it just National TV and Internet revenues that are to be shared and not local TV & Radio?
And If I'm wrong and its all Revenues, how do you see this affecting the Yanks if at all?
Great New Site!
Revenue sharing will never work out. It ain't gonna help anybody. People don't buy sports franchises just to give the profits away. Plus the way things are going you could never give these cash strapped teams as much as they (claim to) need to compete. It's not even proven that bigger payrolls improve the team. Look at Baltimore - cash rich, full house every night, and they still suck. Revenue sharing won't amount to a hill of beans (IMO).
------------------
Best. Go Yanks!
Revenue sharing will have no affect on the Yanks, or any other team for that matter.
Selig now has the "power" to increase fines "in the best interest of baseball", and to take away all of the "Internet money" and give it to the small market teams.... What "Internet money" are they talking about, from official team websites?...and how much money will that be?...He was also given the "power" by the owners to "take away millions of dollars in national TV revenue from teams like the Yankees and Atlanta Braves and give it to clubs such as the Montreal Expos and Minnesota Twins." That may sound like he has the "power", but part of the collective bargaining agreement is that the players association must give their approval for any revenue sharing plan. I just don't see the players agreeing to that at this time. Something needs to be done to give the small market teams a chance, but I don't see this as making any significant difference anytime soon, if ever.
If they really want to level the playing field, then they'll have to institute a salary cap as implemented by the NFL. As a Yankee fan, I wouldn't want to see that since there would be down periods for the Yankees and us fans....
"Share the wealth..."
------------------
-Jim
Webmaster
Revenue sharing is not American. Who buys a business to share their profits with the competition so they can stay in business Do you think Wal-Mart or Home Depot is sharing its wealth with the small mom and pop shops. If a team can't compete then move or go belly up. The augment that its good for baseball is foolish. Strong competition is good for baseball like any other industry. Revenue sharing removes the incentive for small market team to produce a better product. I believe less teams would raise the level competition. Why do you think there is not enough good pitching. Not because of salaries, but because to many teams bidding for limit supply. The resource (player) has the leverage in salary negotiations not the team. How can you explain the contract Kenny Rogers just signed with Texas (don't remember the exact numbers)? Sure wasn't for his past performances. He is at best an average pitcher, and that is being kind. If we had less teams, average players would stay in the minors longer to develop their skills, player movement would lessen....., Net result would be better baseball, which is what I think we all want.
Remember when Minnesota, St Louie, KC and Pittsburgh had competitive teams!
A hard salary cap could work like football, but do you really think the player's association would allow that and yes it would hurt the Yanks.
As for Bud Selig and his new found power. If he uses it for the good of the game and does not make his agenda small market vs big market then great. But if not then the owners cast him off.
nyy15 makes some excellent points. There definitely has been too much expansion, but by the same token, with expansion has come some incredible talent from places that probably would not have been tapped if baseball clubs were not desperate for good players. The analogy between Home Depot and such doesn't really strike me as particularly valid though. While Home Depot could survive nicely without Lowe's, baseball teams depend on each other to provide good competition, and thus, sell tickets and cable rights, and souveniers and all that other stuff. It is in the best interest of baseball to make sure that there is decent competition lest people become bored with the product.
------------------
President and founder of the Ansky39 fan club
ditto orangema,
I hear ya nyy15 you're entitled to your view, but I have to disagree... I think the issue is getting a little clouded too, I mean one issue is revenue sharing, and not even 100% revenue sharing but exclusively the revenue anticipated from the internet and the power to act in the best interestes of the league...
Now I say this is a good thing because it will allow baseball to produce a better product for the nation, not just the biggest markets... I do see baseball as a partnership and like orangema said, you ain't gonna generate too many dineros w/ the yanks playing the twins every week unless we can give the twins a leg to stand on.... the best team should be measured by the best managed, best asset identification, development, and retention minded, the smartest most innovative front office, combined with most resourceful and crafty managing of the best trained and conditioned players... NOT the guy w/ the biggest endowment from his dad's business...
That promotes fair competion and gives the entire nation of stakeholders equal stakes i the future of the league as it grows...
I love the yanks as much as anyone, but I'm eagerly awaiting this seas, not soley because of I anticapate 26 in 2000, butmoreos becasue I see alotta opf offseas action across the league and hope to see a better overall product on the field in 2000, not just in yankees stadium... I mean in '99 for the first time ever I had to scratch out like a good 70% of the games becasue of sub par competition... This year I hope to see the A's, M's, White Sox, Tigers, Royals, and Devil rays just to name the al teams that have improved on paper in the offseas...
Now the other issue you introduced is expansion... I will agree that it's not working according to plan yet, but it's still early give it a shot... there's tons of untapped or not fully tapped sources of baseball talent emerging everyday... Not to mention there's a refocus to the inner cities that have been ignored since the days of recruiting such greats as my man straw...
I think there'll be enough talent to go around once baseball realizes it's full potential and I really do see this thing expanding to w a world stage some day, call me a dreamer... I see Australia, Cuba, Domincan Republic, Japan, Venezuela, even China, and some day Russia coming on board...
It's a good thing really... but it will take uncanny foresight and determination and innovativeness, something our "bud"dy Selig ain't exactly known for... maybe we can get Bill Gates to take over MLB I hear he's stepping down from Microsoft.... Now there's a man w/ vision...
a39, Pres, Founder, and Permanent Lifetime Member of the BTHGA...
26 in 2000
Orangemom and Ansky39 good points!
I would agree expansion has resulted in looking for talent in non-tradition places. This is good, because it brings the best to the game. Does baseball need KC? Baseball needs the Royals. If they moved to DC would it hurt? The Cards would draw better picking up KC fans and larger TV audience and Baltimore would get a new rival. That would be good for baseball.
Will the so called "have nots" produce a better product in 00, I hope so! On paper maybe, but as they say, "pay to play". Come June I hope the White Sox are competitive for a good weekend series and in Sept Minnesota has enough to play for. The past years would say not, but lets hope for the best.
To see the game truly go international not just Canada. A vision that baseball can realize that football is struggling with, because of its worldwide popularity. If this does happen what we call small market could really be in trouble. Do you think the Tokyo Giants will draw to see KC? I think its the Yanks, Braves, ... that will draw.
Baseball could have a major setback on this plan with the Mets being our ambassador to Japan this year
[This message has been edited by nyy15 (edited 27 January 2000).]
I'm not really in favor of giving Bud Selig a lot of power over anything, but I think a well done revenue sharing plan could benefit the smaller market teams, and still not hurt the Yankees, Braves etc. The teams with the best front office staff are always going to do better than the ones who hire incomeptents. However, I live near a very small city where we are trying to compete with bigger cities with more people, and more money, to keep our sports teams. It's difficult to say the least.
------------------
President and founder of the Ansky39 fan club
I agree w/ orangema, and although we don't have a high opinion of selig I feel some centralization of authority is needed...
but not to worry roy, I don't see this hamperring the yanks in my humble view... as noted it's not 100% revenue sharing just 100% of the dough expected to acrrue from internet rights... It will prove to be a windfall as I see BIG things in the future of this beautiful medium called the world wide web, but it also allows guys like steiny and angeloser to rake in as much as they want from conventional sources w/ out too much worry of having to fork it over to some guy in Kansas City... The only thing is once they realize how much money they've given away in the name of a stringer league, projected to start in the 100's of millions, some may frown, but too late... This was a great move for the future of baseball across the globe and I can only hope that that putz selig allows basebaall to reach it's true FULL potential via the web...
I can see it now, Yanks 3 Cuba 3 in the top of the 13th of game 1 w/ super slugger nick johnson approaching the plate, of the 2010 world series being brought live across the globe via the web... tell me advertisers won't pay out their noses for that kind of audience...
God I love Baseball...
a39
26 in 2000
Here's a interesting article about Bud's new power and revenue sharing......
The great and powerful Bud?
By Michael Knisley - The Sporting News
Before we start traipsing down the yellow brick road of baseball's big constitutional changes last week, before we assume Bud Selig now has carte blanche to fix every problem under the sun, let's remember a few realities about this great game of ours.
Let's remember that baseball's revenue-sharing plan still is subject to approval by the Players Association. If Selig wants to change it, he'll have to negotiate the changes with the union. He can have more power than the Tennessee Valley Authority (and if you listened to statements out of the ownership group in Phoenix last week, he does) and still not be able to single-handedly make George Steinbrenner in New York fork over one more fistful of dollars to Jeffrey Lurie in Montreal.
Let's remember that the union continues to think a salary cap is the work of Satan. If Selig wants to impose one when the current collective bargaining agreement expires, he'll be met with exactly the same response the Players Association gave the owners the last time they tried to jam a cap down the union's throat. The players will walk.
And let's remember we aren't dealing with a commissioner here who has a history of decisive, unilateral behavior. Selig's power base among the owners is built on a record of consensus and conciliation, not damn-the-torpedoes, full-speed-ahead action. Maybe he's changing (and some owners suggest he is), but it's still hard to picture him all of a sudden brandishing a terrible swift sword over the flaws in the game.
My take on Selig's new power? It's much ado about ... well, more than nothing. But not much more. I see people are saying Selig has more power now than any commissioner since Kenesaw Mountain Landis ruled the game with fists of fury from 1921 to 1944. Need I mention that the Players Association didn't take shape until 1956, and that Landis' reign over baseball wasn't fettered by organized labor? That hardly makes Selig's situation a fair analogy.
All I'm suggesting here is that we employ a touch of restraint when we listen to the patter about the commissioner's new ability to exercise power "in the best interests of the game." Maybe he can block a blatant salary-dumping trade that benefits a "have" at the expense of a "have-not." Maybe he can shake down violators of rules with new-muscle fines he couldn't levy before. Heck, maybe he can even strong-arm his way into the radical realignment that he wanted to implement a few years ago.
But he isn't going to be able to twang his magic twanger and suddenly make the baseball world safe for labor peace and democratic prosperity. In fact, if you believe the scuttlebutt you hear in corners of the baseball world, the big-market owners approved these new powers for Selig only because they know the Players Association won't allow him to use them in any meaningful way.
For the record, MLBPA executive director Don Fehr says no one from ownership, large or small market, spoke with him before the changes were made.
What the owners did in Phoenix is good, but it isn't a good of cataclysmic proportion. It isn't historically staggering, as Selig suggests it is. It's good in that baseball is realizing what the NFL and the NBA have known for years -- that the game grows faster and more efficiently when authority is centralized in a commissioner.
That's why last week's corollary decision by the owners to hand over their Internet rights to the commissioner's office is at least as significant as the shift in Selig's power. This is essentially new money -- a lot of it eventually, by most guesses -- and now it presumably can be shared equally, the same way each franchise shares equally in the moola from national television contracts. A positive step toward greater competitive balance, to be sure.
Selig clearly has won the trust of the owners. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that the changes the owners made in the power of his office also position them to present a strong, unified front the next time they challenge the Players Association. The current collective bargaining agreement expires after the upcoming season, although the union is expected to exercise its right to extend it through 2001. With his new clout, Selig will be able to formulate pretty much whatever labor strategy he desires.
Is there any reason to think that strategy won't be as hard-nosed and unforgiving as it has been in past strikes and lockouts? Nope. Call me paranoid, but lost in the hullabaloo over last week's changes is the news that White Sox chairman Jerry Reinsdorf was appointed to baseball's Executive Council, which essentially is Selig's inner circle of advisors. Six years ago, Reinsdorf was one of the architects of the owners' take-no-prisoners approach to war with the union, which cost us the last 2 1/2 months of the 1994 season, including the World Series.
Selig, more than anyone, should understand what happens to commissioners who don't take hard-nosed and unforgiving stances in these labor battles. He replaced one who didn't, Fay Vincent. That's another baseball reality we, as well as he, should remember.
Michael Knisley is a senior writer for The Sporting News.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote