The players know they get more than 50% of overall revenue. That's why they won't even consider revenue sharing.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

They think no such thing

If they think they make less than 50% of overall revenue then why not offer a 51-49 split where they get 51% and make a lot more money then?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

When they get a proper accounting of owners revenues, that's fine.

They would. That's a standard part of revenue sharing.

There is a reason that the players don't think revenue sharing would make them more money. What do you think it is?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Again, there's a history here. There will be strings attached to revenue sharing, I assure you. Just like there is in the NFL.

This seems to be an acknowledgement that the players would make less money in any revenue sharing model that splits the revenue up pretty evenly.

Also, there are strings attached now to the current model.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

That's stupid. No one has any idea what owners' full and complete revenues are. And by going from the past, Court orders are the only way to get them .

The way to know the full and complete revenue is to have a revenue sharing agreement.

Maybe the owners are only paying 40% of revenue. Maybe they are paying 60% of revenue. It doesn't matter because the players don't want to have a revenue sharing agreement. Logically, the reason they would not want one is because they feel it would make them less money.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Logically, they need to see an audit. There's a history of bad faith from the owners.

They get an audit when they agree to revenue sharing. That's the whole point of an audit and having revenue sharing.

How much the owners make doesn't matter if it isn't tied to player compensation.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

BRick....sit this one out. You're embarrassing yourself and Purdue University here.

_________________

If the players are to be put in a box of agreeing to revenue sharing, there is still a negotiation of the parameters. And their parameters, without having the option of seeing an audit, would be to ask 54%(your totally unbiased figure from wherever) of all revenues, right down to the paid wedding proposal on the scoreboard in the 5th inning. You know damn well the owners won't agree to that. So the only way for a good faith negotiation is to give the players a full accounting and THEN negotiate the parameters. They are not going to get fucked up the ass like the NFLPA.

What you are describing is simply the negotiation aspect of it. They would negotiate the percentage and what is and isn't included in the revenue figure.

The players are not interested in revenue sharing of ANY kind. There is a reason for that. To me, it's fairly obvious they know that they make more money without it.

Now go ahead and just say audit a few more times even though it makes no sense to do one prior to the revenue sharing negotiation since the entire negotiation would be about how the audit is handled then.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I've described how the negotiating aspect would go. Its a nonstarter because there's a history. All this has been talked about for decades. You come flitting in like "pfft, I knew it, players would makes less on revenue sharing." You don't know squat.

I guess it's possible that the players think they would make more on revenue sharing but are choosing to make less money by fighting it. That would make sense.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I guess it's possible that the owners will start hammering the revenue sharing option but they are choosing to make less money by not making it a centerpiece of a new contract.

The owners do want a revenue sharing model. The players say no. I do think the owners would make more money on a revenue sharing model. That's the whole point I'm making.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

It's unimpressive what you think.

If you can't start with the premise that the MLB owners are hiding their overall revenue....you're too delusional to have this discussion. They don't even hide the fact that the books are protected and hidden better than the JFK files.

_________________

The players association has a general idea of the total revenue of MLB. However, the owners rightfully have no reason to share that information without it being part of a revenue sharing plan.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Negotiating session lasted 20 minutes today.

_________________

Like a current day starting pitcher.

_________________

Purdue Business School 101 = you only need a "general idea" of the most important aspect of a negotiation before you start to stake our your position.

I mean come on Rick, you're better than this and I'm saying this honestly.

Interesting or uninteresting story, a company that was doing a bunch of financial services work for me about 10 years ago, and they also audited the Angels. They sent me a thumb drive that had all of the Angels audited financial information including supporting documents like the Pujols contract, etc.

How much MLB teams make is meaningless unless you are doing revenue sharing. MLB is free to spend 1% or 90% of revenue on players if they want unless you bargain the percentage.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Not when you get anti trust protection, tax breaks and sweetheart public deals.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

Or an uncontested divorce proceeding…

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

those take at least 6 months

_________________

Reports over the wire say they are close to a deal. Only Luxury tax is the only open item.