Yanks/Mets - Page 4

devlinboy · 09-18-2006, 01:53 PM

yeah there is a cap, and the ryals could be competitive its just that they pocket the money that they receive in revenue sharing. instead of using it to sign more talent. if you want to hate on mlb teams, you should hate the royals for not giving their fans the best team they can. remember damon and beltran were royals, but they let them walk instead of paying them money. the small market teams make a huge profit, they just dont reinvest in their teams. you cant hate on the yanks, mets, redsox for using their money to have a competitive team

devlinboy · 09-18-2006, 01:54 PM

mlb has a revenue sharing plan.

bat_collector · 09-18-2006, 02:15 PM

mlb's revenue sharing plan are jokes

Sniper · 09-18-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirthew

The Yankees are what is wrong with Baseball.. and the reason I am not a fan... If there is ever a salary cap like football.. I might come back.. but Major Market Cities that are able to spend out the wazoo to make championships happen... does not excite me...

Every year is the same... I would like to see the Royals be competitive... or the Pirates make a Penate run.

Every single sport should look at the NFL and their pay structure... it is the most exciting sports league... because they have a salary cap... every team has a cap number to get under... This is accomplished via a fair Revenue sharing plan... Something that MLB does not have...

there is a luxary cap, you go over you have to pay. THis in turn is used for revenue sharing so smaller market teams can compete.

The resason the Royals and the pirates are not competitive is becasue the owners want to pocket the money they get from revenue sharing instead of spending it on their teams....

Sniper · 09-18-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bat_collector

mlb's revenue sharing plan are jokes

it's a joke because the owners that get these millions can just keep the money and that is just what they do. They rather hoad the millions than re-invest in their teams. stupid if they upgrade their teams they would see a better return, more fans coming to the park, more interest in the teams, which in turn gets them more money from ticket sales !

devlinboy · 09-18-2006, 03:09 PM

yeah i agree snipe and bc, that is why when people ***** about the yanks and mets spending money they are wrong. the other teams just pocket the money and dont reinvest. its ruining the game

kirthew · 09-18-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bat_collector

mlb's revenue sharing plan are jokes

I agree with this statement... MLB's revenue sharing is a joke... when you have one team brining in 277 Million... and one team bring in 116 million... there is something wrong (The top team - Yankees, and the bottom team Devil Rays)

How is a team suppose to try and out spend the Yankees when they are only pulling in half their payroll...

Yankees payroll - 200 Million

So small market teams have to field a less than steller product because they can't afford not to...

Oakland is the one exception and the only reason they are the one exception is because they have a hell of a farm system... and all their pitchers are young... Once they get out of their first contract... they bolt for the richer fields of New York...

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/Value_1.html

Interesting finacial values of the teams... I was amazed that New York claims it looses 50 million a year... I really find this very hard to believe...

devlinboy · 09-18-2006, 03:19 PM

As implemented for the 2001 season, MLB's revenue-sharing formula required each club to pay 20% of its local receipts, net of stadium expenses, into a common pool. Three-quarters of the money in the pool was divided equally among all 30 clubs. The remaining 25% was shared only by clubs with below-average local revenues, distributed so that the lowest-revenue teams received the most.

As an extreme example, in 2000 the Minnesota Twins received $21 million from the revenue-sharing pool--$5 million more than the salaries paid to their entire 25-man roster. Not surprisingly, they turned a profit... and not surprisingly, their brethren eventually concluded it would be cheaper to contract the Twins than to continue subsidizing their parasitic billionaire owner. If revenue sharing is ever to serve its intended purpose of making small-market clubs more competitive, recipients must be required to reinvest the proceeds in their team.

from the baseball prospectus

so you cant blame the yankees blame the cheap and greedy royals owners

and as far as the yankees and their loss of 50 mil. i dont think they are the only ones

Commissioner Selig told Congress that MLB lost $519 million in 2001.

kirthew · 09-18-2006, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devlinboy

As implemented for the 2001 season, MLB's revenue-sharing formula required each club to pay 20% of its local receipts, net of stadium expenses, into a common pool. Three-quarters of the money in the pool was divided equally among all 30 clubs. The remaining 25% was shared only by clubs with below-average local revenues, distributed so that the lowest-revenue teams received the most.

As an extreme example, in 2000 the Minnesota Twins received $21 million from the revenue-sharing pool--$5 million more than the salaries paid to their entire 25-man roster. Not surprisingly, they turned a profit... and not surprisingly, their brethren eventually concluded it would be cheaper to contract the Twins than to continue subsidizing their parasitic billionaire owner. If revenue sharing is ever to serve its intended purpose of making small-market clubs more competitive, recipients must be required to reinvest the proceeds in their team.

from the baseball prospectus

so you cant blame the yankees blame the cheap and greedy royals owners

and as far as the yankees and their loss of 50 mil. i dont think they are the only ones

Commissioner Selig told Congress that MLB lost $519 million in 2001.

Alright... from an article in 2004... This is your revenue plan at its finest... and why the Yankees are what is wrong with baseball:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=3293

Edit:

Just another website to throw more fire onto the flames... More revenue sharing fun from George, From 2002:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/023...e,37424,3.html

devlinboy · 09-18-2006, 04:09 PM

ok, so steinbrenner is more intelligent than the other owners..if you could get your neighborhod to pay for your new house through a loophole would you do it?. the other owners would do the same, its just that they (yanks) thought of it first. you cant blame him for mlb writing up a spotty cba. he has a great fanbase and because his team is successful mlb wants him to share his wealth, so he has to find ways to hide his money. that makes sense to me . if i was making a bunch of money, and i had to give this money to other teams, who then put it in their pockets i would also look for ways to keep my cash. steinbrenner at least spends his money to put the best team on the field. even if they are the best team money can buy, he is at least using his money. the other owners are just as wealthy but they would rather disorient their fans by not reinvesting in the franchise.