How you gonna baseball?

[jup]

Why reject it outright? Why not counter with an offer of their own?

Clearly that is what has already happened.

The agreement between players and owners was proration. Players are proposing to stick to that.

And you reject it outright because even taking a defined pay cut on the games played is better than accepting any revenue sharing plan. Because an owners revenue sharing plan is a wolf in sheep's clothing

[JFLegal]

I'm sure the initial agreement was rushed but I think it was a mistake of the owners to allow the players to say that they've already agreed to a pay cut. The owners should have written the agreement to say that the players forfeit any pay for games not played due to the C19 and that actual pay for remaining games would be negotiated at a later date, particularly if fans cannot attend.

I think it's disingenuous for players to claim that they've already agreed to a pay cut. No, actually they haven't. They've only agreed to not be paid for games which aren't played. That's a difference.

I've heard that the highest paid player in MLB this year is Prince Fielder. He's not on any 40 man roster so he's not bound by any players association agreement. His contract is fully guaranteed. He'll get $24 mill this year.

exactly. it is such a disingenuous stance by the players. who do they think they are fooling? they have not agreed to take a paycut. they have agreed to not be paid for games that did not happen. that's not the same thing and they know it.

[jup]

exactly. it is such a disingenuous stance by the players. who do they think they are fooling? they have not agreed to take a paycut. they have agreed to not be paid for games that did not happen. that's not the same thing and they know it.

Probably should read some contract law, given the players are under contract.

[jup]

I see where the MLB health proposals are up

Highlights of the 67 pages

https://theathletic.com/1818308/2020...page-document/

[Rdirtypirates]

Probably should read some contract law, given the players are under contract.

As should you. It is called the act of god clause.

[jup]

As should you. It is called the act of god clause.

This is true - force majeure - and no one has tried to use that to get the negotiations done. I have read plenty of contract law, whether you believe it or not. That clause may be in the background, but whether it would hold up in court is a whole other thing. And the owners have not tried to push that as of yet, because that can be its own can of worms.

[JFLegal]

Probably should read some contract law, given the players are under contract.

oh i'm quite familiar with it. good luck to them in unprecentented times. this situation cannot be compared to any other. what the owners will do is say, fine, you want to stick with a contract we all know should be null and void given the circumstances, guess what? we're 30 billionaires. we can withstand missing out on the season a lot more than you guys can. then the players will eventually fold most likely. and if guys like snell, bauer and harper don't want to play because they don't want to take a paycut, they can stay home and get nothing. no one would be forcing them to play.

[JFLegal]

Clearly that is what has already happened.

The agreement between players and owners was proration. Players are proposing to stick to that.

And you reject it outright because even taking a defined pay cut on the games played is better than accepting any revenue sharing plan. Because an owners revenue sharing plan is a wolf in sheep's clothing

go back and read the contract the players agreed to in march. there is wording in there that protects major league baseball if there is a "national emergency." i would say the worst crisis in america since the great depression qualifies, counselor.

from paragraph 11 of the contract:

"(It is the) right of the Commissioner to suspend the operation of this contract during any national emergency during which Major League Baseball is not played.”

the players have no legal ground to stand on here.

[jup]

go back and read the contract the players agreed to in march. there is wording in there that protects major league baseball if there is a "national emergency." i would say the worst crisis in america since the great depression qualifies, counselor.

from paragraph 11 of the contract:

"(It is the) right of the Commissioner to suspend the operation of this contract during any national emergency during which Major League Baseball is not played.”

the players have no legal ground to stand on here.

You are correct that there is a clause that the commissioner can invoke. And that there was a clause in the CBA - but the reality is - he hasn't and he won't.

And that is what I have said all along. There is "force majeure" ad nauseam, but no one has gone there and it is clear they don't intend to, because that will just string the thing out in the courts to their own detriment. The players would be fools to be scared of that. They already agreed to prorated salaries and so what are the owners going to do by "force majeure" => cancel the season ???? OK cancel it - the players already know if it is canceled they get zero $$$'s

And if the players decide they won't play for less money - they get nothing. So why would they go to court. They already agreed to no money if the season is canceled.

So all of that is just noise. The fact is the season won't happen if they can't negotiate some kind of settlement or stick to the one they already did. Both sides know that, "force majeure" or not. This isn't about the ability of the owners to cancel contracts, never has been. It is about public perception, and the need the owners have to get some sort of regular season played so they can have a post season or face the SUBSTANTIAL risk of claw backs from TV networks because they did not provide the post season games they have contracted to. And the owners don't want to deal with the loss of that revenue.

Say what you want Mr. JF Legal - this is about negotiating not enforcing or canceling contracts and the players would be stupid to let the owners have any type of salary cap (revenue sharing) for any reason. Because in the court of public opinion, where the next CBA will play out, any little clause written now will mean NOTHING. And once they agree to a cap (revenue sharing) without ALL REVENUE STREAMS on the table, the narrative will be => Whats the big deal, you agreed to it before. And I am sure waving your clause around will change hundreds of millions of peoples opinions.

[757690]

A logical way to view this, is to ask if the players would have agreed to this 50/50 revenue sharing plan, if it was offered at the same time as the reduction in pay was negotiated.

I think the clear answer is no. The owners knew this, which is why the first made the easy ask for reduction in pay, and now after they achieved that, are asking for the 50/50 revenue sharing plan.

[Rdirtypirates]

A logical way to view this, is to ask if the players would have agreed to this 50/50 revenue sharing plan, if it was offered at the same time as the reduction in pay was negotiated.

I think the clear answer is no. The owners knew this, which is why the first made the easy ask for reduction in pay, and now after they achieved that, are asking for the 50/50 revenue sharing plan.

The thing you are missing is they were getting prorated salaries no matter what. If they didn't agree to it they would of invoked the clause as a lot of other companies did. Legally it would hold up in court because as was said this is the worst thing to happen in 100 years.

[757690]

The thing you are missing is they were getting prorated salaries no matter what. If they didn't agree to it they would of invoked the clause as a lot of other companies did. Legally it would hold up in court because as was said this is the worst thing to happen in 100 years.

I don't think I missed it. I said that was the easy ask, but it was an ask nonetheless. The players could have said no, and forced the owners to invoke that clause, which would have been messy for everyone. It would have held up in court, but also resulted in the cancellation of the season, due to how long the case would have taken.

The point is that this revenue sharing plan is a tough ask, not one that the players can easily agree to. Which is why it wasn't presented at the same time as the pay cut.

[JFLegal]

You are correct that there is a clause that the commissioner can invoke. And that there was a clause in the CBA - but the reality is - he hasn't and he won't.

And that is what I have said all along. There is "force majeure" ad nauseam, but no one has gone there and it is clear they don't intend to, because that will just string the thing out in the courts to their own detriment. The players would be fools to be scared of that. They already agreed to prorated salaries and so what are the owners going to do by "force majeure" => cancel the season ???? OK cancel it - the players already know if it is canceled they get zero $$$'s

And if the players decide they won't play for less money - they get nothing. So why would they go to court. They already agreed to no money if the season is canceled.

So all of that is just noise. The fact is the season won't happen if they can't negotiate some kind of settlement or stick to the one they already did. Both sides know that, "force majeure" or not. This isn't about the ability of the owners to cancel contracts, never has been. It is about public perception, and the need the owners have to get some sort of regular season played so they can have a post season or face the SUBSTANTIAL risk of claw backs from TV networks because they did not provide the post season games they have contracted to. And the owners don't want to deal with the loss of that revenue.

Say what you want Mr. JF Legal - this is about negotiating not enforcing or canceling contracts and the players would be stupid to let the owners have any type of salary cap (revenue sharing) for any reason. Because in the court of public opinion, where the next CBA will play out, any little clause written now will mean NOTHING. And once they agree to a cap (revenue sharing) without ALL REVENUE STREAMS on the table, the narrative will be => Whats the big deal, you agreed to it before. And I am sure waving your clause around will change hundreds of millions of peoples opinions.

revenue sharing does not = a salary cap. no matter how many times you say it, or tony clark says it or anyone else says it, that is a fallacy. it's called a one-year exception in unprecedented times. and regardless of the times, a salary cap is a salary cap. having 50/50 revenue sharing is not even close to the same thing as a "salary cap." need to go back to finance 101 if you don't understand that.

[757690]

revenue sharing does not = a salary cap. no matter how many times you say it, or tony clark says it or anyone else says it, that is a fallacy. it's called a one-year exception in unprecedented times. and regardless of the times, a salary cap is a salary cap. having 50/50 revenue sharing is not even close to the same thing as a "salary cap." need to go back to finance 101 if you don't understand that.

Revenue sharing always equals a salary cap. Salaries can only go as high as the revenue. That's the very definition of a salary cap. It doesn't matter if its a one year salary cap or long lasting one. It's a salary cap.

[jup]

Revenue sharing always equals a salary cap. Salaries can only go as high as the revenue. That's the very definition of a salary cap. It doesn't matter if its a one year salary cap or long lasting one. It's a salary cap.

Spoken like a champ 757690.

And all the legal ease that anyone wants to come up with isn't going to change the pragmatic effect of agreeing to revenue sharing. Especially when the owners are throwing attendance at the park on the table for that sharing, which we all know has been shrinking, and not all the TV money where their real money is.