PDA

View Full Version : CBA negotiations update



Strikes Out Looking
07-30-2006, 08:53 PM
In case anyone wondered. This looks like good news as I don't think anyone except George Steinbrenner wants to relive 1973, 1981, 1994-5 or 2002.


MLB, union continue CBA talks
By Barry M. Bloom / MLB.com

COOPERSTOWN, N.Y. -- With ongoing talks already underway for collectively bargaining a new Basic Agreement with the players association, Commissioner Bud Selig has canceled the summer owners' meetings originally scheduled to be held in Toronto from Aug. 8-10.
"We felt that the details of the new television agreements reached with Fox and TNT earlier this month could be handled on the telephone," said Bob DuPuy, Major League Baseball's president and chief operating officer, here this weekend for Sunday's induction of Bruce Sutter and 17 former Negro Leaguers into the Hall of Fame. "We're deep in collective bargaining at this point and that's going well. So the Commissioner thought there was no reason to pull the owners away for two days from some tight pennant races."

Collectively bargaining with representatives of the players association has been ongoing every day for the past two weeks. The current agreement expires on Dec. 19, but DuPuy said that he still believes there's plenty of time to get a deal done before that deadline.

"I still think we may be able to get this done by the end of the season," DuPuy said.

He added that there will be the usual ownership committee meetings around the country during the course of the summer, but the group won't get together as a whole again until November.

The 2002 talks in New York went right to the edge of a Aug. 31 deadline. The contract included a competitive balance tax, increased revenue sharing and MLB's first random testing for performance-enhancing drugs.

That agreement was groundbreaking, DuPuy said, and enhanced the chance of more amicable talks this time around. Since then MLB's annual revenue has risen to $4.7 billion while the average player salary reached a record $2.8 million in 2006. Cumulative attendance records continue to be broken, and with more than 45 million having passed through the gates of Major Leagues ballparks a new mark this season is again possible.

"The negotiations in 2002 broke ground in a number of key areas," DuPuy said. "We really believe that that signifies there are no issues this time that would appear to be deal breakers."

Since then, the owners and the union renegotiated the Major League's drug policy twice and in the process lowered the incidence of positive tests among big-league players from 5-to-7 percent in 2003 to below one percent in 2005. This past winter's new policy, which extends to 2008 and was separated from the Basic Agreement, includes the harshest penalties ever for the use of performance-enhancing drugs and amphetamines. Thus far this season, no player on the 25-man roster of any big league club has tested positive.

Both sides would like to bring the expiration of the drug policy and a Basic Agreement back into line. And there are also some technical concerns regarding revenue sharing and how the money is spent, debt service and the renewal of the competitive balance tax.

Major League clubs now share 34 percent of local revenue, a figure that will top off at over $300 million distributed this season. Two teams over the course of the current agreement have consistently exceeded the competitive balance tax threshold: the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, who are annually involved in a struggle to win the American League East.

For his part, DuPuy sounded more optimistic about the process than at any time in the past this late into negotiations.

"While there are some areas of the CBA that are matters for concern, there's no single issue that will mean taking the game off the field," he said.

Joseph
07-30-2006, 08:58 PM
I'd like to see total revenue sharing. It doesn't have to mean a cap, but it'd help the balance overall.

KronoRed
07-30-2006, 09:07 PM
Nothing will change, the players dictate and the players love the current agreement

Col_ IN Reds fan
07-30-2006, 09:17 PM
I would think you would need a salary cap for any kind of total revenue sharing. A maximum and minimum cap. Things will stay as is in the new agreement. The TV contract was the big thing. As long as people are going to the games and baseball is making money then baseball sees it as not a problem.

The bigger problem with baseball is there are too many teams and not enough good talent. So teams like the Mets , Yankees or Red Sox can buy the better players or trade for them and not feel the pinch of taking on a huge contract.

Red Heeler
07-30-2006, 09:18 PM
I'd like to see total revenue sharing. It doesn't have to mean a cap, but it'd help the balance overall.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. I would like to see the league take charge of negotiating ALL media contracts for ALL the teams. Media money would be shared equally. Ditto merchandise sales. Stadium revenue should be the only area where the home team gets to keep the bulk of the money. I would also radically realign the league along geographic boundries to encourage regional rivalries and drive up attendence. With true revenue sharing in place, there would be no need for a salary cap. If King George wants to spend his own fortune to build a team, it's his money, more power to him.

OTOH, I would like to see a spending floor. A team should have to spend all of their revenue sharing plus a certain percentage of its own revenue on baseball operations. That has been Steinbrenners beef all along is that certain owners are making big money off of revenue sharing.

IslandRed
07-30-2006, 09:32 PM
Here's the problem that has to be solved before revenue sharing can ever be expanded beyond a certain point: John Henry paid 2.5 times more to buy the Red Sox than Castellini had to pay to buy the Reds. He did that because the Red Sox pull in more money than the Reds. How are you going to get him to sign off on a deal that puts them on equal revenue footing? Answer: You probably can't. Not unless there's a huge accounting dustup at MLB where the small-market owners write checks to the big-market owners compensating them for devaluing their franchises, and good luck with that.

Red Heeler
07-30-2006, 09:47 PM
Here's the problem that has to be solved before revenue sharing can ever be expanded beyond a certain point: John Henry paid 2.5 times more to buy the Red Sox than Castellini had to pay to buy the Reds. He did that because the Red Sox pull in more money than the Reds. How are you going to get him to sign off on a deal that puts them on equal revenue footing? Answer: You probably can't. Not unless there's a huge accounting dustup at MLB where the small-market owners write checks to the big-market owners compensating them for devaluing their franchises, and good luck with that.

You bring up a very interesting point. However, I question whether or not the Red Sox actually return 2.5 times the return on investment that the Reds do. I suspect that they actually have returns that are about the same on a percentage basis.

Even if the large market owners do see a dip in their return on investment in the short term, the long term gains would be worth it. Greater competetive balance means more fans in all cities. More fans means bigger media contracts which is where the biggest bucks are.

Col_ IN Reds fan
07-30-2006, 09:53 PM
Do teams get to keep their merchandising revenue or not? This is a big thing in football. If they do get to keep it, it may answer why the Reds Sox may be more valuable than the Reds.

Chip R
07-30-2006, 10:09 PM
Do teams get to keep their merchandising revenue or not? This is a big thing in football. If they do get to keep it, it may answer why the Reds Sox may be more valuable than the Reds.

No. I believe all merchandise revenue is shared equally.

IslandRed
07-30-2006, 10:19 PM
You bring up a very interesting point. However, I question whether or not the Red Sox actually return 2.5 times the return on investment that the Reds do. I suspect that they actually have returns that are about the same on a percentage basis.

I didn't say the Red Sox had a 2.5 times better return on investment, just that they had higher revenue, which meant Henry could spend more money to buy them and still get a similar ROI to other owners, whatever that might be.


Even if the large market owners do see a dip in their return on investment in the short term, the long term gains would be worth it. Greater competetive balance means more fans in all cities. More fans means bigger media contracts which is where the biggest bucks are.

Unfortunately, no. For big-market teams, local media contracts are far more lucrative than their cut of the MLB deals, and those contracts are far more sensitive to the fortunes of the local nine than anything happening anywhere else.

corkedbat
07-30-2006, 10:20 PM
'd like to see alittle ore revenue sharing - I've given up any thoughts of ever seeing a cap. Not positive if its covered by these negotiations (I think it is), but if there's one thing I'd like to see it would be for them to include international players in the draft.