A league of their own....
Sagy P. Mintz
Let's get to the bottom line. If the players are right in their claims that
the owners are making "too much" then why don't the players start a league
by themselves. They can:
1) Get 100% of all revenues.
2) Make all the players FA every year (or as often as they like).
3) Satisfy any other demand that they have.
The only reason that owners are needed is for the financial stability of
the game. If the players are correct then owners are not needed since the
game has enough financial strength to carry itself.
If the owners are needed, then the they are the one that are taking the
financial risk. Since this is not a communist or a socialist country,
the people that take the financial risk are the ones that should get the
most financial gains.
--
Sagy P. Mintz
sa...@bonzo.austin.ibm.com
*** All opinions herein expressed are exclusively my own! ***
Reede Stockton
> Let's get to the bottom line. If the players are right in their claims that
> the owners are making "too much" then why don't the players start a league
> by themselves. They can:
Sigh. No one has said anything to indicate that they believe the owners
are making too much money. In fact, the last several proposals made by
players will tend to pull down salaries, resulting in more profits for the
owners. Where are you getting this stuff?
> 1) Get 100% of all revenues.
> 2) Make all the players FA every year (or as often as they like).
> 3) Satisfy any other demand that they have.
>
> The only reason that owners are needed is for the financial stability of
> the game. If the players are correct then owners are not needed since the
> game has enough financial strength to carry itself.
Arrrrgggggghhhhh!
If I start from the premise that the sun is dark, I can prove that day is night.
> If the owners are needed, then the they are the one that are taking the
> financial risk. Since this is not a communist or a socialist country,
> the people that take the financial risk are the ones that should get the
> most financial gains.
Gee, I missed that in my rule book.
Owners can make as much money as they're smart enough to make within the
parameters set by the market. Being an owner is not a grant from God to
make a certain level of profits. In order to make money, they have to run
their businesses well and intelligently. Players, in order to make money,
must produce on the field.
Reede
--
Reede Stockton
Will Riley Software Works
re...@nbn.com
Doug P0001
>the people that take the financial risk are the ones that should get the
>most financial gains.
No -- "since this is not a communist or a socialist country, the MARKET
should determine the allocation of income between the players and
owners." You and the owners seem to have some trouble comprehending that
rather basic principle.
Doug Pappas
Mike Jones
>Let's get to the bottom line. If the players are right in their claims that
>the owners are making "too much" then why don't the players start a league
>by themselves. They can:
Here's your first misconception. The players are not claiming that the
owners are making too much. They are claiming that the owners are
trying to rig the salary system so that the players will get less
money than the free market would allocate.
>If the owners are needed, then the they are the one that are taking the
>financial risk. Since this is not a communist or a socialist country,
>the people that take the financial risk are the ones that should get the
>most financial gains.
Here's your second misconception. Since this is not a communist or
socialist country, there's no guarantee that taking a financial risk
will lead to financial gains. Capitalism, remember? Free market,
remember? If the players don't like the financial prospects of being
baseball players, they can decide to enter another line of work. If
the owners don't like the financial prospects of owning baseball
teams, they can sell them and invest in Microsoft or something. But
labor negotiations is one of the larger factors in determining those
prospects *for both sides*. We no longer believe in the divine right
of either kings or capital.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
Conceptual integrity in turn dictates that the design must proceed
from one mind, or from a very small number of agreeing resonant minds.
- Frederick Brooks Jr., "The Mythical Man Month"
David M. Tate
Sagy P. Mintz <sa...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>Let's get to the bottom line.
OK. Bottom line: you have some badly mistaken ideas about what the
players have claimed, and about what capitalism is.
For example,
>If the players are right in their claims that
>the owners are making "too much"
The players have never made any such claim.
Similarly,
>If the owners are needed, then the they are the one that are taking the
>financial risk. Since this is not a communist or a socialist country,
>the people that take the financial risk are the ones that should get the
>most financial gains.
Since when?
If I go to Vegas and put $10,000 on 'red', I'm the one taking the financial
risk. Do *deserve* some fixed portion of the result of this wager, whether
I win or lose?
If I buy 1000 shares of Consolidated Bungee, Ltd. on the stock exchange, I'm
the one taking the financial risk. Do I deserve some sort of guaranteed
return on this investment?
If I open a restaurant ("Dr. Dave's Casa de Vegemite"), putting up money
for land, facility, staff, decor, etc., do I get some sort of guarantee
that I'll make a certain level of profits? No. Is it reprehensible of my
wait staff and chefs to prefer a straight salary to some fraction of the
profits? No.
In our society, the person who puts up the cash as an investment is
entitled to a corresponding share of the *profits*. Profits are WHAT IS
LEFT OVER after you subtract operating costs from revenues. NOBODY is
entitled to revenues (except the IRS). Operating costs include paying
your employees the salaries you agreed to pay them, regardless of whether
you now regret having offered those salaries. The danger of getting stuck
with nothing (or worse) is offset by the possibility of making lots of
money and not having to share it with anyone (except the IRS). Presumably,
you wouldn't have taken the chance if you didn't think your chances were
good enough.
Are the owners entitled to the profits from major league baseball?
Absolutely. Are they free to refuse to offer more money in salaries
than they think they can recoup in revenues? Absolutely. Should they
be free to guarantee that no other owner be allowed to take the risks
that they themselves would be unwilling to take? Never.
--
David M. Tate Decision-Science Applications, Inc.
dt...@dsava.com 1110 N. Glebe Road, Suite 400
Senior Operations Research Analyst Arlington, VA 22201
(703) 243-2500
Sagy P. Mintz
In article <3e1d8g$q...@usenet.rpi.edu> (Mike Jones) writes:
> sa...@austin.ibm.com (Sagy P. Mintz) writes:
> >Let's get to the bottom line. If the players are right in their claims that
> >the owners are making "too much" then why don't the players start a league
> >by themselves. They can:
>
> Here's your first misconception. The players are not claiming that the
> owners are making too much. They are claiming that the owners are
> trying to rig the salary system so that the players will get less
> money than the free market would allocate.
>
get whatever "free market would allocate." It seems to me that, the players think
that the amount of money that they would get under "free market allocation" is
greater than the "owners rigged system". Therefore, if the players would start a
league of their own they would get their wishes.
> >If the owners are needed, then the they are the one that are taking the
> >financial risk. Since this is not a communist or a socialist country,
> >the people that take the financial risk are the ones that should get the
> >most financial gains.
>
> Here's your second misconception. Since this is not a communist or
> socialist country, there's no guarantee that taking a financial risk
> will lead to financial gains.
True, but there is an implied guarantee that taking the financial risk
will lead to a financial gain if the business is successful. By the
way, there is also an implied guarantee that if the business fails the
person that took the financial risk will loss his/her money. If baseball
is a successful business that one would expect the owners to get the
greater share of the profits.
> Capitalism, remember? Free market,
> remember? If the players don't like the financial prospects of being
> baseball players, they can decide to enter another line of work. If
> the owners don't like the financial prospects of owning baseball
> teams, they can sell them and invest in Microsoft or something. But
> labor negotiations is one of the larger factors in determining those
> prospects *for both sides*. We no longer believe in the divine right
> of either kings or capital.
Agreed, just one more reason for the players to start their own league
and keep the owners out. If the players can make more money, or be
better satisfied, without the owners they can keep going forever.
If they players find that running a league without the owners is not
as good then they will go back to the owners and take what is being
offered.
Since the players claim that the owners offers are "not fair" I would
expect them to give a league of their own a try. The only reason, that
I can think, why the players don't start a league is that they "know"
that the owners offer is a better deal.
>
> Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
>
> Conceptual integrity in turn dictates that the design must proceed
> from one mind, or from a very small number of agreeing resonant minds.
> - Frederick Brooks Jr., "The Mythical Man Month"
Ted Frank
>In article <3e1d8g$q...@usenet.rpi.edu> (Mike Jones) writes:
>> sa...@austin.ibm.com (Sagy P. Mintz) writes:
>> >If the owners are needed, then the they are the one that are taking the
>> >financial risk. Since this is not a communist or a socialist country,
>> >the people that take the financial risk are the ones that should get the
>> >most financial gains.
>>
>> Here's your second misconception. Since this is not a communist or
>> socialist country, there's no guarantee that taking a financial risk
>> will lead to financial gains.
>
>True, but there is an implied guarantee that taking the financial risk
>will lead to a financial gain if the business is successful. By the
>way, there is also an implied guarantee that if the business fails the
>person that took the financial risk will loss his/her money. If baseball
>is a successful business that one would expect the owners to get the
>greater share of the profits.
Non sequitur. Players don't get profits; players are expenses. Owners
currently get 100% of the profits.
You have a very curious notion of what capitalism is.
>Agreed, just one more reason for the players to start their own league
>and keep the owners out. If the players can make more money, or be
>better satisfied, without the owners they can keep going forever.
Well, let's repeal the antitrust exemption and see what happens.
>Since the players claim that the owners offers are "not fair" I would
>expect them to give a league of their own a try. The only reason, that
>I can think, why the players don't start a league is that they "know"
>that the owners offer is a better deal.
No, the owners have a monopoly on baseball stadiums and, because of the
antitrust exemption, can engage in anticompetitive and retaliatory
behavior against players and other leagues.
--
ted frank "The mood outside of rsbb is anti-player." "If that is
so, that's another testament to the intellectual skills
of the target audience for Keystone beer ads."
- Mark Anderson & Victor Yodaiken in r.s.bb
Reede Stockton
> > >If the owners are needed, then the they are the one that are taking the
> > >financial risk. Since this is not a communist or a socialist country,
> > >the people that take the financial risk are the ones that should get the
> > >most financial gains.
> >
> > Here's your second misconception. Since this is not a communist or
> > socialist country, there's no guarantee that taking a financial risk
> > will lead to financial gains.
>
> True, but there is an implied guarantee that taking the financial risk
> will lead to a financial gain if the business is successful. By the
> way, there is also an implied guarantee that if the business fails the
> person that took the financial risk will loss his/her money. If baseball
> is a successful business that one would expect the owners to get the
> greater share of the profits.
This is totally brain-dead. The _definition_ of a successful business is
a business which makes money. There is no "implied guarantee that taking
the financial risk will lead to a financial gain if the business is
successful." The financial gain is the one and only definition of success
for the business.
David M. Nieporent
>Let's get to the bottom line. If the players are right in their claims that
>the owners are making "too much" then why don't the players start a league
>by themselves. They can:
The players made no such claims.
>If the owners are needed, then the they are the one that are taking the
>financial risk. Since this is not a communist or a socialist country,
>the people that take the financial risk are the ones that should get the
>most financial gains.
the MARKET rewards the most are the ones that should get the most financial
gains.
--
David M. Nieporent
Niep...@delphi.com OR DNiep...@aol.com
Send Email to DNiep...@aol.com if you want me to see it
Orioles 1995: MVP - Palmeiro, RotY - Benitez, Cy - Mussina
Mike Jones
>In article <3e1d8g$q...@usenet.rpi.edu> (Mike Jones) writes:
>> sa...@austin.ibm.com (Sagy P. Mintz) writes:
>> >Let's get to the bottom line. If the players are right in their claims that
>> >the owners are making "too much" then why don't the players start a league
>> >by themselves. They can:
>> Here's your first misconception. The players are not claiming that the
>> owners are making too much. They are claiming that the owners are
>> trying to rig the salary system so that the players will get less
>> money than the free market would allocate.
>Assuming you are right. If the players start a league of their own then they will
>get whatever "free market would allocate." It seems to me that, the players think
>that the amount of money that they would get under "free market allocation" is
>greater than the "owners rigged system". Therefore, if the players would start a
>league of their own they would get their wishes.
Whether the players start a league of their own or not, they serve
whatever the free market would allocate. You work for IBM; your salary
is negotiated between you and IBM. If you didn't like IBM's offer, you
could go down the street to Sun, Apple, or whomever else and
negotiate another deal. IBM has no place in these deals. That's what
the players what: the same thing you have. What the owners want is, in
effect, the same as letting IBM tell Apple what they can pay for
labor.
Yes, if the players started a league of their own they could get this;
you are overlooking startup costs.
>> >If the owners are needed, then the they are the one that are taking the
>> >financial risk. Since this is not a communist or a socialist country,
>> >the people that take the financial risk are the ones that should get the
>> >most financial gains.
>> Here's your second misconception. Since this is not a communist or
>> socialist country, there's no guarantee that taking a financial risk
>> will lead to financial gains.
>True, but there is an implied guarantee that taking the financial risk
>will lead to a financial gain if the business is successful. By the
>way, there is also an implied guarantee that if the business fails the
>person that took the financial risk will loss his/her money. If baseball
>is a successful business that one would expect the owners to get the
>greater share of the profits.
For starters, there is nothing of the kind. Secondly, the owners have
been taking very nice fiancial gains, thank you. Any owner who doesn't
find the operating profits of his team acceptable over the past 20
years has been able to sell his team for a nice profit. And, again,
you have the very basic misconception that sucess implies that the
owners should get "the greater share" of the profits. Profits, by
definition, go to the owners. Revenues are divided up among the costs
of doing business (including labor costs); what's left over is profit.
The owners have no special claim to revenues. This is true IN ANY
BUSINESS. Many businesses go bankrupt with great-looking revenue
streams because they don't manage costs adequately.
>> Capitalism, remember? Free market,
>> remember? If the players don't like the financial prospects of being
>> baseball players, they can decide to enter another line of work. If
>> the owners don't like the financial prospects of owning baseball
>> teams, they can sell them and invest in Microsoft or something. But
>> labor negotiations is one of the larger factors in determining those
>> prospects *for both sides*. We no longer believe in the divine right
>> of either kings or capital.
>Agreed, just one more reason for the players to start their own league
>and keep the owners out. If the players can make more money, or be
>better satisfied, without the owners they can keep going forever.
>If they players find that running a league without the owners is not
>as good then they will go back to the owners and take what is being
>offered.
There's a third option: force the owners to give them a reasonable
deal. It's entirely possible that a deal from the owners would be
better than a deal they'd get from operating a players' league *minus
the startup costs of such a league*. The owners do have something to
offer the players: infrastructure. The players have something to offer
the owners: without them, the owners have no (or vastly inferior)
product. This is the basis for negotiation. Each side has something
the other wants.
>Since the players claim that the owners offers are "not fair" I would
>expect them to give a league of their own a try. The only reason, that
>I can think, why the players don't start a league is that they "know"
>that the owners offer is a better deal.
Think harder. The startup costs for a players' league would be
nontrivial. Also, there's a matter of prestige. MLB, if it can get its
act together, has a prestige that would take a rival league some years
to put together. Don't commit the fallacy of the excluded middle:
there are options other than "take what the owners offer" and "start
your own league". I seriously doubt you take that approach with IBM;
do you demand exactly the salary you deserve or decide to go start
your own company?
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
If you've seen one Grand Canyon, you've seen them all.
- a member of the Monkey Wrench Gang
Sagy P. Mintz
In article <1994Dec31.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <D1n1x...@austin.ibm.com> sa...@vnet.ibm.com writes:
> >In article <3e1d8g$q...@usenet.rpi.edu> (Mike Jones) writes:
> >> sa...@austin.ibm.com (Sagy P. Mintz) writes:
> >> >If the owners are needed, then the they are the one that are taking the
> >> >financial risk. Since this is not a communist or a socialist country,
> >> >the people that take the financial risk are the ones that should get the
> >> >most financial gains.
> >>
> >> Here's your second misconception. Since this is not a communist or
> >> socialist country, there's no guarantee that taking a financial risk
> >> will lead to financial gains.
> >
> >True, but there is an implied guarantee that taking the financial risk
> >will lead to a financial gain if the business is successful. By the
> >way, there is also an implied guarantee that if the business fails the
> >person that took the financial risk will loss his/her money. If baseball
> >is a successful business that one would expect the owners to get the
> >greater share of the profits.
>
> Non sequitur. Players don't get profits; players are expenses. Owners
> currently get 100% of the profits.
Since the question on the table is about the players starting their own league,
it is fair to include the players salaries in the profits. Most of us will agree
that in todays setup the owner's salary (if he pays him self) is part of his
profits.
>
> You have a very curious notion of what capitalism is.
>
> >Agreed, just one more reason for the players to start their own league
> >and keep the owners out. If the players can make more money, or be
> >better satisfied, without the owners they can keep going forever.
>
> Well, let's repeal the antitrust exemption and see what happens.
Why do the players need to repeal the AT in order to start a new league?
>
> >Since the players claim that the owners offers are "not fair" I would
> >expect them to give a league of their own a try. The only reason, that
> >I can think, why the players don't start a league is that they "know"
> >that the owners offer is a better deal.
>
> No, the owners have a monopoly on baseball stadiums and, because of the
> antitrust exemption, can engage in anticompetitive and retaliatory
> behavior against players and other leagues.
> --
> ted frank "The mood outside of rsbb is anti-player." "If that is
> so, that's another testament to the intellectual skills
> of the target audience for Keystone beer ads."
> - Mark Anderson & Victor Yodaiken in r.s.bb
Sagy P. Mintz
I'm sorry to say, but you are wrong! There are MANY "not for profit" businesses,
one example is UL, another will be most hospitals. These business are successful,
but that success does not show up as financial gain. They are successful becouse
they serve their purpose.
Any way, successful/unsuccessful businesses was not the subject of my original
post. My basic question is still unanswered:
"Why don't the players start a league of their own?"
>
> Reede
>
> --
> Reede Stockton
> Will Riley Software Works
> re...@nbn.com
Sagy P. Mintz
In article <ZK86QCp....@delphi.com>, David M. Nieporent <niep...@delphi.com> writes:
> Sagy P. Mintz <sa...@austin.ibm.com> writes:
>
> >Let's get to the bottom line. If the players are right in their claims that
> >the owners are making "too much" then why don't the players start a league
> >by themselves. They can:
>
> The bottom line is you're, to be kind, ignorant.
Thanks you for being so kind.
Please explain an ignorant person by ansering the following question:
Why dont the players start their own league?
>
> The players made no such claims.
>
> >If the owners are needed, then the they are the one that are taking the
> >financial risk. Since this is not a communist or a socialist country,
> >the people that take the financial risk are the ones that should get the
> >most financial gains.
>
> No. Since this is not a communist or a socialist country, the people whom
> the MARKET rewards the most are the ones that should get the most financial
> gains.
Then the real question is what is the MARKET?
The owners - since they hire the playersr.
The GMs - since they are the ones that go after the FA.
The scouts - since they pick/recommand the players.
The funs - since they end up paying for it all.
The TV networks - since they pay the owners.
The cities - since they give the clubs financial breaks.
An ignorant still looking for answers.
> --
> David M. Nieporent
> Niep...@delphi.com OR DNiep...@aol.com
> Send Email to DNiep...@aol.com if you want me to see it
> Orioles 1995: MVP - Palmeiro, RotY - Benitez, Cy - Mussina
Sagy P. Mintz
From the fact that there is a baseball strike, and the both side are NOT
even talking to each other. I think that is it safe to say that the owners
are unwilling to give the players "a reasonable deal" (as the players view
"reasonable"). I think that the two sides have basis for negotiation, the
only problem is that the owners and the players don't think so.
>
> >Since the players claim that the owners offers are "not fair" I would
> >expect them to give a league of their own a try. The only reason, that
> >I can think, why the players don't start a league is that they "know"
> >that the owners offer is a better deal.
>
> Think harder. The startup costs for a players' league would be
> nontrivial. Also, there's a matter of prestige. MLB, if it can get its
> act together, has a prestige that would take a rival league some years
> to put together. Don't commit the fallacy of the excluded middle:
> there are options other than "take what the owners offer" and "start
> your own league". I seriously doubt you take that approach with IBM;
> do you demand exactly the salary you deserve or decide to go start
> your own company?
>
> Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
>
> If you've seen one Grand Canyon, you've seen them all.
> - a member of the Monkey Wrench Gang
You are making some very good points. I think that the two major diffrences are
1) I did not go on strike while making 6-7 digits salary.
2) Both the players and the owners stated that they can NOT reach an agreement.
The owners declared an "impass (sp?)", and both side filed "un-fair" labor
practices. I don't think that it is I that excluded the middle ground.
Scott R. Susor
The short, sweet, simple answer to this is -- Because they don't have
the gonads to put their money where their mouth is.
SRS
--
Scott Susor *** Houston Texas
"Its good to be the King ..."
Mike Jones
>In article <3e49dt$f...@usenet.rpi.edu>, jon...@alum01.its.rpi.edu (Mike Jones) writes:
>> sa...@austin.ibm.com (Sagy P. Mintz) writes:
>> >In article <3e1d8g$q...@usenet.rpi.edu> (Mike Jones) writes:
>> >> sa...@austin.ibm.com (Sagy P. Mintz) writes:
>> >Agreed, just one more reason for the players to start their own league
>> >and keep the owners out. If the players can make more money, or be
>> >better satisfied, without the owners they can keep going forever.
>> >If they players find that running a league without the owners is not
>> >as good then they will go back to the owners and take what is being
>> >offered.
>> There's a third option: force the owners to give them a reasonable
>> deal. It's entirely possible that a deal from the owners would be
>> better than a deal they'd get from operating a players' league *minus
>> the startup costs of such a league*. The owners do have something to
>> offer the players: infrastructure. The players have something to offer
>> the owners: without them, the owners have no (or vastly inferior)
>> product. This is the basis for negotiation. Each side has something
>> the other wants.
>From the fact that there is a baseball strike, and the both side are NOT
>even talking to each other. I think that is it safe to say that the owners
>are unwilling to give the players "a reasonable deal" (as the players view
>"reasonable"). I think that the two sides have basis for negotiation, the
>only problem is that the owners and the players don't think so.
The owners are, as yet, unwilling to make "a reasonable deal". Both
sides are clearly still hoping that they can outlast the other. I
would take some issue with your last sentence. The players' offers
indicate that they were at least searching for a basis for
negotiations.
>> >Since the players claim that the owners offers are "not fair" I would
>> >expect them to give a league of their own a try. The only reason, that
>> >I can think, why the players don't start a league is that they "know"
>> >that the owners offer is a better deal.
>> Think harder. The startup costs for a players' league would be
>> nontrivial. Also, there's a matter of prestige. MLB, if it can get its
>> act together, has a prestige that would take a rival league some years
>> to put together. Don't commit the fallacy of the excluded middle:
>> there are options other than "take what the owners offer" and "start
>> your own league". I seriously doubt you take that approach with IBM;
>> do you demand exactly the salary you deserve or decide to go start
>> your own company?
>You are making some very good points. I think that the two major diffrences are
> 1) I did not go on strike while making 6-7 digits salary.
What difference does this make? Is there some salary level at which
you lose the right to go on strike? Remember, we're not talking about
people taking money from widows and orphans; even Barry Bonds' salary
doesn't look terribly big compared to the Giants' revenue. The
question is whether the (large) revenue stream going into, say, the
Red Sox is going to go to Roger Clemens or John Harrington.
> 2) Both the players and the owners stated that they can NOT reach an agreement.
> The owners declared an "impass (sp?)", and both side filed "un-fair" labor
> practices. I don't think that it is I that excluded the middle ground.
The players have not stated that they cannot reach an agreement. They
filed the unfair negotiating charge in response to the owners'
declaration. The players are still hoping to get an injunction to
continue operating under the terms of the old CBA until a new one can
be negotiated. If they get that, they would be willing to return to
play. Of course, the owners have refused to rule out the possibility
that they would lock the players out in those circumstances.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
Success is a rare paint, hides all the ugliness.
- John Suckling (1609-1642)
Ira K. Blum
|>
|> In article <1994Dec31.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> > >way, there is also an implied guarantee that if the business fails the
|> > >person that took the financial risk will loss his/her money. If baseball
|> > >is a successful business that one would expect the owners to get the
|> > >greater share of the profits.
|> >
|> > Non sequitur. Players don't get profits; players are expenses. Owners
|> > currently get 100% of the profits.
|>
|> Since the question on the table is about the players starting their own league,
|> it is fair to include the players salaries in the profits. Most of us will agree
|> that in todays setup the owner's salary (if he pays him self) is part of his
|> profits.
|>
There is a problem here. What do you do with the profits of a Players
League? That is why a team which is owned by its own players would be a
bad thing. How do you trade a player who has part ownership of the team.
But, if the League as a whole was owned by the MLBPA, then they could
split the overall profits equally among the players, in addition to hired
GM's competing for players between teams. So Barry Bonds and Jose Lind
get different salaries, but still get the same percentage of the profits
of the entire league. Seems like a decent proposition.
|> >
|> > You have a very curious notion of what capitalism is.
|> >
|> > >Agreed, just one more reason for the players to start their own league
|> > >and keep the owners out. If the players can make more money, or be
|> > >better satisfied, without the owners they can keep going forever.
|> >
|> > Well, let's repeal the antitrust exemption and see what happens.
|>
|> Why do the players need to repeal the AT in order to start a new league?
|>
Because the AT allows MLB to blackball players, obstruct advertising
deals, sabotage TV and radio deals, and disallow the use of Major League
facilities. It can even allow teams to blackball the suppliers of Major
League Teams, and to outbid these teams for Talent. For example. 1996,
The United League San Antonio Spurs offer Barry Bonds $8 million, but he
instead signs a $10 million dollar one year contract with MLB guarenteeing
exclusive rights to his services. (hell, MLB could probably sue any
player who signed a contract with a rival league but was still nominally
under contract with a MLB team, even though that contract should be void
without a CBA.)
|> >
|> --
|> Sagy P. Mintz
|> sa...@bonzo.austin.ibm.com
|> *** All opinions herein expressed are exclusively my own! ***
--
Ira
ib...@utdallas.edu
Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
"Some people derive stats from sport. But predicive stats are not
a part of sport." - Roger Maynard
Please direct all flames to /dev/null
Mike Jones
There's a fine university in Austin. I suggest you take an economics
course or two. Those "not for profit" businesses are *not* successful
if they don't make money. They must make enough money to (at least)
cover their cost of operation *INCLUDING PERSONNEL EXPENSES*, and the
very successful ones make more than that so they can improve and
expand their services. "Not for profit" does *not* mean you can just
forget about making money.
>Any way, successful/unsuccessful businesses was not the subject of my original
>post. My basic question is still unanswered:
> "Why don't the players start a league of their own?"
OK, here's a short answer. Several, in fact.
1. *IF* they can get a reasonable settlement with the owners, there
are a number of advantages to continuing with MLB:
- established infrastructure
- established marketing
- established tradition
2. It would take some amount of time for a Players' League to become
as profitable as MLB, largely due to startup (and potentially legal)
costs.
3. There is risk involved in starting a new league.
4. The players want to play, not to run teams.
Those all have parts of the answer, I think.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
Liberals are willing to forgive Jane Fonda for being in Hanoi. They
are, however, unwilling to forgive her for being in "Barbarella".
Ira K. Blum
5. I would also like to reiterate my last statement. With an Anti Trust
exemption in place, owners can attempt to break the new Player's League
by using trust like methods. The can include, but are not limited to,
extortion, hoarding, blacklisting, and smear advertizing. The owners may
even resort to violence.
|> Those all have parts of the answer, I think.
|>
|> Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
|>
|> Liberals are willing to forgive Jane Fonda for being in Hanoi. They
|> are, however, unwilling to forgive her for being in "Barbarella".
Ouch!
Sagy P. Mintz
Then you agree that the statement "The financial gain is the one and only
definition of success for the business" is false. The fact that you can not
forhet about making money does NOT mean that making money is the "one and only
definition of success".
>
> >Any way, successful/unsuccessful businesses was not the subject of my original
> >post. My basic question is still unanswered:
> > "Why don't the players start a league of their own?"
>
> OK, here's a short answer. Several, in fact.
> 1. *IF* they can get a reasonable settlement with the owners, there
> are a number of advantages to continuing with MLB:
> - established infrastructure
> - established marketing
> - established tradition
But they they can NOT get a "reasonable settlement" therefore the rest of your
statement is doesn't make any diffrence.
> 2. It would take some amount of time for a Players' League to become
> as profitable as MLB, largely due to startup (and potentially legal)
> costs.
Ture, but right now they are making zero.
> 3. There is risk involved in starting a new league.
There is also a risk in going on strike, crossing the street, getting out of bad...
> 4. The players want to play, not to run teams.
Then they should either:
Start a new league (someone can run the teams for them).
Or
Go back to playing baseball (stop the strike).
>
> Those all have parts of the answer, I think.
>
> Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
>
> Liberals are willing to forgive Jane Fonda for being in Hanoi. They
> are, however, unwilling to forgive her for being in "Barbarella".
Reede Stockton
> In article <3eee77$2...@usenet.rpi.edu>, jon...@alum01.its.rpi.edu (Mike
Jones) writes:
> > There's a fine university in Austin. I suggest you take an economics
> > course or two. Those "not for profit" businesses are *not* successful
> > if they don't make money. They must make enough money to (at least)
> > cover their cost of operation *INCLUDING PERSONNEL EXPENSES*, and the
> > very successful ones make more than that so they can improve and
> > expand their services. "Not for profit" does *not* mean you can just
> > forget about making money.
>
> Then you agree that the statement "The financial gain is the one and only
> definition of success for the business" is false. The fact that you can not
> forhet about making money does NOT mean that making money is the "one and only
> definition of success".
I am happy to stipulate that the measure of success for "not for profit"
businesses is not financial gain.
Now, can we get back to the subject please. We were discussing major
league baseball. And unless your argument is that MLB is a "not for
profit" enterprise, this tangent is irrelevant and obfuscatory.
