It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2024 5:50 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1229 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 41  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
IMU wrote:
Nardi wrote:
The wage issue. The owners kept proposing wage cuts despite a contract. There's this thing called collective bargaining. You don't get to renegotiate wages just because. The NLRB frowns upon that.

The MLB's latest offers included fully prorated player salaries and salary advancement forgiveness.

Players have asked for revenue sharing in past negotiations. Clearly players aren't averse to sharing the upside...they seemingly do not want to share the downside. There are many aspects to this that are once in a lifetime...owners were making the best decisions based on long term viability and honoring the bulk of the contracts over the life of them. How is Trout getting his $400M if MLB folds?

long term viability ship has sailed. baseball is a dying sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:47 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Douchebag wrote:
conns7901 wrote:

I saw this at a Kane County Cougars game last summer. This is by far the dumbest sports rule I have ever seen in my life. How about we just make the pitcher throw with his other hand?
They should let fans sign up before hand and be the runner for these innings. Mask and all.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92040
Location: To the left of my post
Nardi wrote:
The wage issue. The owners kept proposing wage cuts despite a contract. There's this thing called collective bargaining. You don't get to renegotiate wages just because. The NLRB frowns upon that.
This was all part of the collective bargaining because of the pandemic. The players stayed firm on only getting prorated salaries. The owners offered other solutions that kept the salaries the same on a per game basis.

If anything, the players argued in more bad faith than the owners. The owners made concessions. The only concession the players made was to play even more games.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92040
Location: To the left of my post
Nas wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I have no idea how you justify the players turning that deal down.


The owners and players had an agreement in March. The owners decided to renege on that agreement over the past couple of months by asking the players to take a pay cut and agree to other measures that favored the owners. The players declined. The owners then decided at the 11th hour to honor the pay language in their March agreement, BUT they wanted other measures that were favorable to them. The players countered by asking for a 15% increase in games. The owners refused to counter their proposal and told the players to take their final offer or leave it. The players left it.

Why should the players give the owners more than they agreed to in March without getting any new concessions for themselves?

Once again, the agreement in March assumed fans to be in the stands. This is an undeniable fact. The owners didn't go back on any agreement.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 24550
pizza_Place: It's gone
Passan reporting MLB will tell MLBPA to report to a 60 game season from July 1.

Lot of questions -

are they to report in Arizona/Florida or is it back to home stadiums?
what about the divisions? same divisions as usual or is it going to be organized by region like discussed before?
schedule ? will teams only play within their region or division? Like the cubs won't be going to play the dodgers in LA and vice versa?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92040
Location: To the left of my post
BigW72 wrote:
You address playoffs and DH at the next CBA. The owners were absolute morons through all of this. The players should have made this as simple as possible and said, "impose a season schedule starting july 4 with 3 weeks of spring training and we'll be there. Save your other changes for the next CBA".
This would have happened if the players had been willing to sign an agreement saying they won't file a grievance.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:19 pm
Posts: 31613
pizza_Place: What??
IMU wrote:
Nardi wrote:
The wage issue. The owners kept proposing wage cuts despite a contract. There's this thing called collective bargaining. You don't get to renegotiate wages just because. The NLRB frowns upon that.

The MLB's latest offers included fully prorated player salaries and salary advancement forgiveness.

Players have asked for revenue sharing in past negotiations. Clearly players aren't averse to sharing the upside...they seemingly do not want to share the downside. There are many aspects to this that are once in a lifetime...owners were making the best decisions based on long term viability and honoring the bulk of the contracts over the life of them. How is Trout getting his $400M if MLB folds?

Yes, their latest offer. How long did it take them to get to their contractual obligations? And why?

They knew all along how many games they wanted. So they bad faithed it all the way until the clock ran out. Now there will be a won grievance followed by a lawsuit and MLB will have to open up the books.

Personally, I love it. Can't wait for a deep forensic accounting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:19 pm
Posts: 31613
pizza_Place: What??
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Nardi wrote:
The wage issue. The owners kept proposing wage cuts despite a contract. There's this thing called collective bargaining. You don't get to renegotiate wages just because. The NLRB frowns upon that.
This was all part of the collective bargaining because of the pandemic. The players stayed firm on only getting prorated salaries. The owners offered other solutions that kept the salaries the same on a per game basis.

If anything, the players argued in more bad faith than the owners. The owners made concessions. The only concession the players made was to play even more games.

We shall see. First, we shall see if Players file, and if they do, we shall see the result.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92040
Location: To the left of my post
Nardi wrote:
Yes, their latest offer. How long did it take them to get to their contractual obligations? And why?
Once again, they had no contractual obligation to offer full salaries in the case that fans weren't in the stands. This is a fact. The union would have to agree to it though.

Nardi wrote:
They knew all along how many games they wanted. So they bad faithed it all the way until the clock ran out. Now there will be a won grievance followed by a lawsuit and MLB will have to open up the books.

Personally, I love it. Can't wait for a deep forensic accounting.
The players made their last counteroffer on June 9th. MLB followed up 3 days later and they were denied. MLB then offered full prorated salaries on June 17th. That means in 8 days from the last offer by the player the owners made two offers, the second one was actually pretty good.

Calling it "bad faith" is just being stubborn at this point.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92040
Location: To the left of my post
Nardi wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Nardi wrote:
The wage issue. The owners kept proposing wage cuts despite a contract. There's this thing called collective bargaining. You don't get to renegotiate wages just because. The NLRB frowns upon that.
This was all part of the collective bargaining because of the pandemic. The players stayed firm on only getting prorated salaries. The owners offered other solutions that kept the salaries the same on a per game basis.

If anything, the players argued in more bad faith than the owners. The owners made concessions. The only concession the players made was to play even more games.

We shall see. First, we shall see if Players file, and if they do, we shall see the result.
The players are the bad guys if they file a grievance here. They got what they wanted in full prorated salaries and spent days considering it before rejecting that anyways.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:13 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Nas wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I have no idea how you justify the players turning that deal down.


The owners and players had an agreement in March. The owners decided to renege on that agreement over the past couple of months by asking the players to take a pay cut and agree to other measures that favored the owners. The players declined. The owners then decided at the 11th hour to honor the pay language in their March agreement, BUT they wanted other measures that were favorable to them. The players countered by asking for a 15% increase in games. The owners refused to counter their proposal and told the players to take their final offer or leave it. The players left it.

Why should the players give the owners more than they agreed to in March without getting any new concessions for themselves?

Once again, the agreement in March assumed fans to be in the stands. This is an undeniable fact. The owners didn't go back on any agreement.


Then the owners should have considered that. It isn't the players responsibility to give the owners a mulligan because they and their lawyers didn't consider consider something.

The owners tried to force the players to give them a do over and additional items and they were only willing to give the players what had already been agreed to in March. There was no reason the players should have said yes.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33067
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Nardi wrote:
IMU wrote:
Nardi wrote:
The wage issue. The owners kept proposing wage cuts despite a contract. There's this thing called collective bargaining. You don't get to renegotiate wages just because. The NLRB frowns upon that.

The MLB's latest offers included fully prorated player salaries and salary advancement forgiveness.

Players have asked for revenue sharing in past negotiations. Clearly players aren't averse to sharing the upside...they seemingly do not want to share the downside. There are many aspects to this that are once in a lifetime...owners were making the best decisions based on long term viability and honoring the bulk of the contracts over the life of them. How is Trout getting his $400M if MLB folds?

Yes, their latest offer. How long did it take them to get to their contractual obligations? And why?

They knew all along how many games they wanted. So they bad faithed it all the way until the clock ran out. Now there will be a won grievance followed by a lawsuit and MLB will have to open up the books.

Personally, I love it. Can't wait for a deep forensic accounting.


I’ve seen the audited financials of several pro sports teams through the course of my employment. There is nothing in there of special note. They have a listing of contractual obligations (i.e. long term contracts), there are typical non cash charges for depreciation and amortization from fixed assets, and then a pretty standard income statement.

It will vary by team, but many of these guys have revenue streams outside the bounds of the club. However, as I listed earlier, the Braves are public and have extensive disclosure about their operations. It includes the stadium and surrounding retail. Nothing to salivate over. They don’t make the money you think. The gains on these teams are mostly capital when they sell, not recurring each year.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92040
Location: To the left of my post
Nas wrote:
Then the owners should have considered that. It isn't the players responsibility to give the owners a mulligan because they and their lawyers didn't consider consider something.
It was considered. That's why there was language in there about it.

Nas wrote:
The owners tried to force the players to give them a do over and additional items and they were only willing to give the players what had already been agreed to in March. There was no reason the players should have said yes.
It cost the players a lot of money to not say yes.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:27 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Nas wrote:
Then the owners should have considered that. It isn't the players responsibility to give the owners a mulligan because they and their lawyers didn't consider consider something.
It was considered. That's why there was language in there about it.

Nas wrote:
The owners tried to force the players to give them a do over and additional items and they were only willing to give the players what had already been agreed to in March. There was no reason the players should have said yes.
It cost the players a lot of money to not say yes.


There was no language that had the deal being void if there were no fans.

The owners weren't trying to do the players a favor otherwise a 15% increase in games wouldn't have pissed them off. The players will get somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 games now without giving the owners anything else. Why would they accept 60 games with no added concessions from the owners? It would have been dumb.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92040
Location: To the left of my post
Nas wrote:
There was no language that had the deal being void if there were no fans.
There seems to be.
https://www.amny.com/sports/here-are-the-terms-mlb-mlbpa-agreed-on-for-2020-return/
Quote:
Bans on mass gatherings and travel restrictions must be lifted — allowing games to be played in front of fans while offering profitable avenues for teams in the form of gate receipts and concessions. There is a chance, however, that teams in heavily affected areas would have to play their games on neutral sites.

Considering New York and Seattle has become the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, that could mean the Mets, Yankees, and Mariners could face the possibility of playing their home games elsewhere if baseball is ready to return sooner rather than later.

While playing in front of packed stadiums is the initial hope, part of the agreement lists that the commissioner and union would still be able to revisit the idea of playing in empty stadiums.


Nas wrote:
The owners weren't trying to do the players a favor otherwise a 15% increase in games wouldn't have pissed them off. The players will get somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 games now without giving the owners anything else. Why would they accept 60 games with no added concessions from the owners? It would have been dumb.
The owners gave other things with the 60 games. The owners were giving playoff money, salary advance forgiveness, and other player benefits.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:36 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
The only thing more annoying than no baseball is Rick continuing to lick the boots of owners and management every chance he gets. What a crock.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:44 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79548
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Don't know who this guy is but he seems upset.




Because he's a dope. The players are going to win big after they file their grievance.

On what grounds?


The owners arbitrarily limited the number of games played. It's not the players' problem that it may not be profitable for them to play the number of games they contracted to play.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92040
Location: To the left of my post
Frank Coztansa wrote:
The only thing more annoying than no baseball is Rick continuing to lick the boots of owners and management every chance he gets. What a crock.
Says the guy who spent months on here talking about how this pandemic was going to destroy the economy and yet business owners who are reliant on fans being in the stadium to pay the bills should just deal with losing huge money with no concessions from the millionaires on the other side.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:47 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79548
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
IMU wrote:
Players have asked for revenue sharing in past negotiations. Clearly players aren't averse to sharing the upside...they seemingly do not want to share the downside.


That's exactly backward. The owners have never shared revenue in good times and now they want the players to share the downside.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92040
Location: To the left of my post
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The owners arbitrarily limited the number of games played. It's not the players' problem that it may not be profitable for them to play the number of games they contracted to play.
The season is set to start around July 24th. I believe the plan was to do 60 games in 70 days. That ends the regular season on October 2nd.

Where is the arbitrary limit on the number of games? Should the playoffs start in December?

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:49 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79548
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
BigW72 wrote:
You address playoffs and DH at the next CBA. The owners were absolute morons through all of this. The players should have made this as simple as possible and said, "impose a season schedule starting july 4 with 3 weeks of spring training and we'll be there. Save your other changes for the next CBA".
This would have happened if the players had been willing to sign an agreement saying they won't file a grievance.



If you're so sure they won't win the grievance why worry about that?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:19 pm
Posts: 31613
pizza_Place: What??
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
The only thing more annoying than no baseball is Rick continuing to lick the boots of owners and management every chance he gets. What a crock.
Says the guy who spent months on here talking about how this pandemic was going to destroy the economy and yet business owners who are reliant on fans being in the stadium to pay the bills should just deal with losing huge money with no concessions from the millionaires on the other side.

Sell. Many takers. Every owner the Miami Marlins ever had have zero regrets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:51 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79548
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The owners arbitrarily limited the number of games played. It's not the players' problem that it may not be profitable for them to play the number of games they contracted to play.
The season is set to start around July 24th. I believe the plan was to do 60 games in 70 days. That ends the regular season on October 2nd.

Where is the arbitrary limit on the number of games? Should the playoffs start in December?



They could be playing right now. They owners want revenue sharing in this bad time when they have refused it in the good times.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:53 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Nas wrote:
There was no language that had the deal being void if there were no fans.
There seems to be.
https://www.amny.com/sports/here-are-the-terms-mlb-mlbpa-agreed-on-for-2020-return/
Quote:
Bans on mass gatherings and travel restrictions must be lifted — allowing games to be played in front of fans while offering profitable avenues for teams in the form of gate receipts and concessions. There is a chance, however, that teams in heavily affected areas would have to play their games on neutral sites.

Considering New York and Seattle has become the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, that could mean the Mets, Yankees, and Mariners could face the possibility of playing their home games elsewhere if baseball is ready to return sooner rather than later.

While playing in front of packed stadiums is the initial hope, part of the agreement lists that the commissioner and union would still be able to revisit the idea of playing in empty stadiums.


Nas wrote:
The owners weren't trying to do the players a favor otherwise a 15% increase in games wouldn't have pissed them off. The players will get somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 games now without giving the owners anything else. Why would they accept 60 games with no added concessions from the owners? It would have been dumb.
The owners gave other things with the 60 games. The owners were giving playoff money, salary advance forgiveness, and other player benefits.


That language clearly didn't void the deal or we wouldn't be where we are.

The owners offering the players things that weren't sufficient and telling them to take it or leave it isn't exactly making concessions or negotiating in good faith. The players had the leverage and they used it. Kudos to them!

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92040
Location: To the left of my post
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
BigW72 wrote:
You address playoffs and DH at the next CBA. The owners were absolute morons through all of this. The players should have made this as simple as possible and said, "impose a season schedule starting july 4 with 3 weeks of spring training and we'll be there. Save your other changes for the next CBA".
This would have happened if the players had been willing to sign an agreement saying they won't file a grievance.



If you're so sure they won't win the grievance why worry about that?
Are you asking why owners of a billion dollar business would want to avoid the potential of a publicly embarrassing billion dollar grievance in a sport that is already struggling even if it's only a small chance?

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92040
Location: To the left of my post
Nas wrote:
That language clearly didn't void the deal or we wouldn't be where we are.
I think it did, and that's why they were negotiating.

Nas wrote:
The owners offering the players things that weren't sufficient and telling them to take it or leave it isn't exactly making concessions or negotiating in good faith. The players had the leverage and they used it. Kudos to them!
The owners made multiple proposals, and even came to an unofficial agreement with the union head that was also rejected.

The 60 game proposal clearly was in good faith.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:56 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79548
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
BigW72 wrote:
You address playoffs and DH at the next CBA. The owners were absolute morons through all of this. The players should have made this as simple as possible and said, "impose a season schedule starting july 4 with 3 weeks of spring training and we'll be there. Save your other changes for the next CBA".
This would have happened if the players had been willing to sign an agreement saying they won't file a grievance.



If you're so sure they won't win the grievance why worry about that?
Are you asking why owners of a billion dollar business would want to avoid the potential of a publicly embarrassing billion dollar grievance in a sport that is already struggling even if it's only a small chance?


I'm saying the owners are well aware that there is a good chance they may lose.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:58 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Nas wrote:
That language clearly didn't void the deal or we wouldn't be where we are.
I think it did, and that's why they were negotiating.

Nas wrote:
The owners offering the players things that weren't sufficient and telling them to take it or leave it isn't exactly making concessions or negotiating in good faith. The players had the leverage and they used it. Kudos to them!
The owners made multiple proposals, and even came to an unofficial agreement with the union head that was also rejected.

The 60 game proposal clearly was in good faith.


If it was the owners would have said as much.

If 60 games was in good faith then 65 shouldn't have been too much of an ask. The players will essentially get 60 games and their prorated salary now. They're giving up nothing additional for that.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92040
Location: To the left of my post
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I'm saying the owners are well aware that there is a good chance they may lose.
Businesses settle all the time.

Look at your logic this way. You are arguing that MLB, by negotiating with the MLBPA, is actually worried that they will lose a grievance about not negotiating fairly with the MLBPA. You are holding it against MLB that they tried to come to a mutually acceptable agreement with the union.

Not to mention that there is already talk about the players refusing to report.

It would have been great for owners, players, and fans if there was an agreement rather than where they are now.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92040
Location: To the left of my post
Nas wrote:
If 60 games was in good faith then 65 shouldn't have been too much of an ask. The players will essentially get 60 games and their prorated salary now. They're giving up nothing additional for that.
They are giving up more playoff money, forgiveness on part of the salary advance they already got, and things about qualifying offers.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1229 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 41  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group