Players and Owners far apart

[Stradling]

5 hours ago, Randy Gradishar said:

Are the NBA and NHL reducing per-game salaries? I honestly don't know. But from a quick search, it looks like the NBA is basically just prorating.

Those leagues played 75-80% of their season already.  They’ve gotten most of the revenue.  Most tv revenue in sports is for playoff rights.  There’s a MUCH better chance the NBA of NHL will play playoff games thus generating playoff tv revenue.  

[Claude]

All of this fuss for a piece of metal money.

[Stradling]

Vegas has it at 5-1 that there will be a season. So I’m guessing they’ll play. 

[DMVol]

18 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Vegas has it at 5-1 that there will be a season. So I’m guessing they’ll play. 

I would still bet that way but I am not as sure as I have been.  You would think there is too much to lose not to have a season but the old battle lines have been re-drawn and now I'm not as sure....

[eligrba]

21 hours ago, Stradling said:

Of course it is about money, at the same time it is about what is right.  No one is playing this game for free.  Once again, forget the zeros and ask yourself if you were really good at your job if you would be willing to do it for 25% of what your value is?  The answer is going to be no, nor should you.  

Many people spend their entire life this way. Particularly for businesses who consider their employees as human capital. 

[eligrba]

The owners and players should simply agree on some acceptable numbers for both parties.   Any revenue exceeding those numbers should be donated to coronavirus relief efforts.

[Blarg]

20 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

Going to be interesting if this gets Rosenthal'ed into something bigger.

Muckraker comes to mind. 

[Turd Ferguson]

A contract is a contract. If the players  and owners can agree on a middle ground that is great, but as much as I want to see baseball, the players are perfectly within their rights to demand full payment or a future benefit.

[Lou]

39 minutes ago, Turd Ferguson said:

A contract is a contract. If the players  and owners can agree on a middle ground that is great, but as much as I want to see baseball, the players are perfectly within their rights to demand full payment or a future benefit.

And the owners are perfectly within their rights to not pay players a full year's salary for a partial season. 

[Turd Ferguson]

Based on what? 

[Angel Oracle]

What I still don’t get is the owners now only wanting to pay the top players 25% for 50% of a full season, when there was an agreement supposedly back in late March to pay the players based on how many games were played.

[Lou]

9 minutes ago, Turd Ferguson said:

Based on what? 

The fact that the players aren't going to be paid their full salaries this year 

 

[Turd Ferguson]

7 minutes ago, Lou said:

The fact that the players aren't going to be paid their full salaries this year 

 

Nice straw man

[Lou]

5 minutes ago, Turd Ferguson said:

Nice straw man

Are you saying the owners have no right to pay them less than their full salaries?

[Turd Ferguson]

5 minutes ago, Lou said:

Are you saying the owners have no right to pay them less than their full salaries?

I’m saying how could you possibly know that unless you’ve seen the contract? 

[Lou]

2 minutes ago, Turd Ferguson said:

I’m saying how could you possibly know that unless you’ve seen the contract? 

Have you seen the contract? 

[Turd Ferguson]

No, we are both making assumptions. Which makes both of us asses. 

Agree?

[Lou]

Just now, Turd Ferguson said:

No, we are both making assumptions. Which makes both of us asses. 

Agree?

No.

ha! You're the ass. 

[Turd Ferguson]

1 minute ago, Lou said:

No.

ha! You're the ass. 

Coming from the guy advocating for “The Man,” I’ll take it!

[Lou]

5 minutes ago, Turd Ferguson said:

Coming from the guy advocating for “The Man,” I’ll take it!

Ok, you're the ass.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

[Claude]

2 hours ago, Turd Ferguson said:

A contract is a contract. If the players  and owners can agree on a middle ground that is great, but as much as I want to see baseball, the players are perfectly within their rights to demand full payment or a future benefit.

 

https://www.nj.com/yankees/2020/05/yankees-michael-kay-torches-max-scherzer-you-have-not-taken-a-pay-cut-you-have-not-worked.html?outputType=amp

[Turd Ferguson]

23 minutes ago, RendZone said:

 

https://www.nj.com/yankees/2020/05/yankees-michael-kay-torches-max-scherzer-you-have-not-taken-a-pay-cut-you-have-not-worked.html?outputType=amp

Well, if Michael Kay says so...

What, was wikipedia down?

[Pancake Bear]

6 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

What I still don’t get is the owners now only wanting to pay the top players 25% for 50% of a full season, when there was an agreement supposedly back in late March to pay the players based on how many games were played.

Per the owners, that deal was contingent on fans being in attendance. No fans = significantly less money. The owners said the deal was never intended to stick if the games are played without fans. The black and white to my understanding could be read either way, but the owners apparently have an email that (although meaningless in a legal sense) shows the union was aware that the owners did not consider that deal final if fans were not allowed to attend.

I don't really think it matters, personally. Based on the system agreed to in the CBA, the players have a right to their full (prorated) salaries. If the owners can prove - which, so far, they've been playing the 'Take my word for it' card - that they are in serious financial distress, I think the higher paid players should accept some deferrals and possibly a small cut, but otherwise it seems to me that the owners are breaking the deal they agreed to because they've decided it no longer works for them. That isn't how contracts work.

[Lou]

Does someone have a link to the actual details in the CBA?