 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » If it wasn't for free agency...
ironhorse2ko
If it wasn't for free agency...
December 19, 2009 at 05:43PM View BBCode
The A's intact from their three-peat dynasty would have kept winning until...1980.
Jon
December 20, 2009 at 03:33AM View BBCode
Yes, because God forbid employees/athletes should have a choice as to which company/team they want to work/play for.
vurbil
December 20, 2009 at 11:11AM View BBCode
Free agency is fine, but there should be a salary cap or revenue sharing.
tworoosters
Sort of like this ?
Summary of MLBPA-Major League Baseball Labor Agreement
Revenue Sharing
1. Net transfer of revenue sharing plan will be the same as the current plan ($326 million in 2006). Net transfer amounts will continue to grow with revenue and changes in disparity.
2. Marginal tax rates for all recipients are reduced significantly through the use of a new central fund redistribution mechanism. Rates reduced to 31% from 40% (high revenue Clubs) and 48% (low revenue Clubs) under old agreement.
3. All Clubs face the same marginal rate for first time.
4. Commissioner's Discretionary Fund will continue at $10 million per year, with cap of $3 million per Club per year.
5. Provision requiring revenue sharing recipients to spend receipts to improve on-field performance retained with modifications.
MLB has had revenue sharing since 1997, the current model, described above and in play until the CBA expires after 2011 distributes roughly $400 million annually from large payroll to small payroll teams.
In addition each team receives, currently, $35 million annually from the league's "central fund" which is derived from revenue from licensing, properties, national TV and advanced media.
As an example in 2009 Pittsburgh received $40 million in transfers from luxury tax teams and an additional $35 million from the central fund.
The Pirates had a 2009 payroll of $49 million dollars, yet had revenues given to them by MLB of $75 million before they sold one ticket in their stadium built entirely with taxpayer money.
December 20, 2009 at 10:33PM View BBCode
Originally posted by vurbil
Free agency is fine, but there should be a salary cap or revenue sharing.
Sort of like this ?
Summary of MLBPA-Major League Baseball Labor Agreement
Revenue Sharing
1. Net transfer of revenue sharing plan will be the same as the current plan ($326 million in 2006). Net transfer amounts will continue to grow with revenue and changes in disparity.
2. Marginal tax rates for all recipients are reduced significantly through the use of a new central fund redistribution mechanism. Rates reduced to 31% from 40% (high revenue Clubs) and 48% (low revenue Clubs) under old agreement.
3. All Clubs face the same marginal rate for first time.
4. Commissioner's Discretionary Fund will continue at $10 million per year, with cap of $3 million per Club per year.
5. Provision requiring revenue sharing recipients to spend receipts to improve on-field performance retained with modifications.
MLB has had revenue sharing since 1997, the current model, described above and in play until the CBA expires after 2011 distributes roughly $400 million annually from large payroll to small payroll teams.
In addition each team receives, currently, $35 million annually from the league's "central fund" which is derived from revenue from licensing, properties, national TV and advanced media.
As an example in 2009 Pittsburgh received $40 million in transfers from luxury tax teams and an additional $35 million from the central fund.
The Pirates had a 2009 payroll of $49 million dollars, yet had revenues given to them by MLB of $75 million before they sold one ticket in their stadium built entirely with taxpayer money.
vurbil
(Are you a Yankees fan? Because if so we might as well just stop now because this conversation is going to be based not on logic but self-interest.)
December 24, 2009 at 12:20PM View BBCode
If you look at MLB payrolls, clearly the current system isn't working. They need to go to something closer to the NFL system.(Are you a Yankees fan? Because if so we might as well just stop now because this conversation is going to be based not on logic but self-interest.)
barterer2002
December 24, 2009 at 12:24PM View BBCode
There is a difference between the system not working and not existing. Your first comment was that MLB needed to add revenue sharing and Roosters was merely pointing out that revenue sharing exists. Teams like Kansas City earn 100 million from the TV contracts and revenue sharing before they even sell a seat, ad, or hot dog. The fact that they claim poverty and maintain 20-40 million payrolls is a disgrace.
shep1582
December 24, 2009 at 12:46PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
fancy a game of chess?
vurbil
Yep. I agree. I don't think the system works either.
December 24, 2009 at 02:22PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
There is a difference between the system not working and not existing. Your first comment was that MLB needed to add revenue sharing and Roosters was merely pointing out that revenue sharing exists. Teams like Kansas City earn 100 million from the TV contracts and revenue sharing before they even sell a seat, ad, or hot dog. The fact that they claim poverty and maintain 20-40 million payrolls is a disgrace.
Yep. I agree. I don't think the system works either.
Pages: 1