Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. If you become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Rosenthal: Angels aggressively furloughing employees, "raising eyebrows throughout industry"


mmc

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Franklin Bluth said:

I posted this in another thread, but furloughing employees does give them the option to collect unemployment and retain their job security. My older brother is in a senior management position at an entertainment company. His whole company was furloughed, and he's been able to collect 90% of his pay through unemployment. He said that the employees who work for him are actually collecting more than their salary because of the increased unemployment.

Hopefully I'm not just being biased, and the Angels do treat these employees fairly when the time comes for reactivating their jobs. But furloughs are better than layoffs.

The State of California is paying Arte’s employees via our tax money. It’s a clever trick on his part, but I won’t pretend like it’s a good thing overall.

Though, I am glad that the employees are, allegedly, getting some source of income at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

And they did for three months.  

I was trying to bait Claude, not you. But I’m still pleased.

Anyways, the Dodgers, Padres, and Angels are all furloughing their employees. I loathe how much the media loves to trash and demonize this organization. It’s almost like there’s an agenda

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, failos said:

I was trying to bait Claude, not you. But I’m still pleased.

Anyways, the Dodgers, Padres, and Angels are all furloughing their employees. I loathe how much the media loves to trash and demonize this organization. It’s almost like there’s an agenda

 

Lol. Truth be told, I could care less if MLB furloughed the entire 2020 season. I’d prefer to wait and watch real baseball being played with no restrictions, fully paid players and fans in the seats. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stradling said:

@Inside Pitch what are area scouts doing right now when no baseball is being played?  Are they the scouts that would watch private work outs?  Or are private workouts attended by guys higher up the food chain?  Could they be the ones counted on to create relationships with the players in order to entice them to sign for the $20k, or is that ground work already laid?  

Eating chips like the rest of us... 

I honestly don't have the first clue how anyone has handled it.  The people I have access to that would know wouldn't really divulge much were I to ask, at least not about their own teams.  But if I had to guess,  its probably up to individual teams how they set up workouts -- but the typical HS guy doesnt pull that sort of attention a top three rounder maybe..    Whatever teams did put in the most work with travel ball prior to the shut down's is porbably way ahead.   The other thing that may have seen a spike is all those baseball academies.  Makes sense that teams would maybe reach out and try to get a look at guys in some sort of controlled atmosphere.

As far as close relationships and area scouts, it happens and it's a real deal.   You gotta wonder how much of that has actually been able to happen THIS year, you gotta think for a lot of HS players that was something that started last year....  and that's the real issue, so long as there is no organized ball being played there is absolutely nothing for these guys to do... In essence it's like their seasons and contracts are over ..

The NCAA and HS seasons have already been canceled, so again being furloughed might end up making them more money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

I've seen a few posts like this, and something just doesn't seem right to me regarding the math of it all.  Unless I'm mistaken, the most you can get in CA (and probably anywhere) on a weekly basis from unemployment is about $450.  Then you can also potentially get the $600/week extra payment for some period of time.  So we're looking at a max of about $1,050/week for a number of weeks.   Annualized, that's about $55K.  What "senior management" or other executive job (especially in the entertainment industry, which is my field, as well) pays $60K a year ($55K is about 90% of $60K)?

Am I missing something regarding how much people are able to collect on unemployment?  I'm not saying people are making up things (though who knows, maybe some are?)--I'm just trying to understand.  Thanks in advance.

EDIT:  Looks like CA is actually middle-of-the-pack in terms of maximum UE weekly payout.  Massachusetts lets you get up to $1220/week in some cases. 

My brother works for a smaller company, and it's not in California.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mpcincal said:

And then here's this genius replying to Rosenthal's original tweet and solidifying the Trumpster stereotype. The Twitter universe is sufficiently taking him out behind the woodshed (BTW, Moreno's birthplace: Tucson, Arizona) :

 

He's a big dodgers fan 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mpcincal said:

And then here's this genius replying to Rosenthal's original tweet and solidifying the Trumpster stereotype. The Twitter universe is sufficiently taking him out behind the woodshed (BTW, Moreno's birthplace: Tucson, Arizona) :

 

I love how prominent white supremacists can get the "official" checkmarks next to their name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Arte has a bad reputation around the league and with the media for a lot of reasons and this is just another one on the list and an opportunity to hammer on him and the organization further.

I don't have a huge problem with it. It doesn't change much for the team. It's not the best PR move probably, though. I'm not sure why someone with over a billion dollars of equity in his team would be doing this. But it isn't as bad as these clowns make it. Unemployment exists, and these people that are being furloughed will almost certainly qualify for it,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, happybat4 said:
Quote

More to the point: As potential expenses pile up, it's worth trying to understand the sort of money MLB has made. In its financial disclosure to the union a week and a half ago, the league said that since 2010, it had not had a collective EBITDA -- earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization or, pretty much, how much money you make -- of more than $250 million in a single year since 2010.

The closest facsimile to an independent audit of MLB's finances comes in the form of the annual Forbes valuations. Now, these numbers are far from the be-all, end-all. They are not sacrosanct. They are the best we've got to check against MLB.

Forbes pegged the industry's earnings in 2019 at $10.5 billion. The league's figures were closer to $10 billion. Forbes said ticket revenue and other game-related expenses account for about $4.1 billion of that -- around 39.3%. MLB says it's at 40%. Pretty spot on.

 

To see Forbes' EBITDA numbers -- or operating income, as it says -- are staggering. Last year, Forbes said, 29 of 30 teams made a profit. (The Miami Marlins, for the fourth straight year, were in the red.) The aforementioned Angels: $61 million, after years of $19 million, $25 million, $68 million and $42 million. As an industry, Forbes said, MLB teams' combined operating income exceeded $1.5 billion last season. In 2018, it was $1.19 billion. The year before that, $858 million. And $988 million. And $662 million. The past five years together: More than $5 billion in profit, according to Forbes.

Now, the league has long disputed these numbers, and maybe they are high. But 400% high? At MLB's no-EBITDA-over-$250 million claim that would mean the maximum number for the past five years was $1.25 billion. The gap there is simply too large to believe that Forbes is overshooting when it's so spot on with so much of its other math, including its team valuations that have, if anything, undervalued franchises.

This is what people have been saying about Arte being 'cheap' in recent years... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...