Alarming news!

Alarming news!

Post by Joe Rhineha » Wed, 06 Jul 1994 12:48:54


I heard a GREAT one during the first game of the Cubs double header
today. Apparently, the White Sox GM said that if the players go on
strike for the rest of the year, and deny the owners the TV revenue from
the extra round of playoffs, that the owners would get even by
cancelling the '95 season, and resuming play im '96! Supposedly, this is
so the owners won't have to pay the players their '95 salaries, and thus
would make back the money they lost from not having the playoffs.

Steve Stone was talking about this on the broadcast. He said it was in
the July 4th edition of the Chicago papers - didn't say which one. Can
anyone in Chicagoland confirm this? Stoney called this "alarming news"
and I'd have to agree with him. I wasn't aware that any clause existed
in the current MLB agreements that would let the owners get out of
paying the players a year's salary.

Plus, the possibility of missing a whole 1 1/2 seasons of baseball
doesn't thrill me either. What are they trying to do, make football the
national pastime? Its almost there already, at least in Ohio. This is
starting to get really nuts. I hope that the statement in the paper is
just a lot of guff to keep the players from striking. I think if the
owners were actually fool enough to do it, they would damage baseball
beyond repair, and it would cease to exist.

Comments??

--------------------------------
Joe Rhinehart      Columbus, Oh

--------------------------------

 
 
 

Alarming news!

Post by T. Spencer Medvi » Wed, 06 Jul 1994 16:25:28

: I heard a GREAT one during the first game of the Cubs double header
: today. Apparently, the White Sox GM said that if the players go on
: strike for the rest of the year, and deny the owners the TV revenue from
: the extra round of playoffs, that the owners would get even by
: cancelling the '95 season, and resuming play im '96! Supposedly, this is
: so the owners won't have to pay the players their '95 salaries, and thus
: would make back the money they lost from not having the playoffs.

: Steve Stone was talking about this on the broadcast. He said it was in
: the July 4th edition of the Chicago papers - didn't say which one. Can
: anyone in Chicagoland confirm this? Stoney called this "alarming news"
: and I'd have to agree with him. I wasn't aware that any clause existed
: in the current MLB agreements that would let the owners get out of
: paying the players a year's salary.

        If the players strike they forfeit their pay as long as the
strike lasts. A side effect of this fact is high-paid, unproductive
veterans have been kept rather than released. (Candy Maldanodo)
If the teams hold them through the strike they pay less than by releasing
them and paying them for the year.

: Plus, the possibility of missing a whole 1 1/2 seasons of baseball
: doesn't thrill me either. What are they trying to do, make football the
: national pastime? Its almost there already, at least in Ohio. This is
: starting to get really nuts. I hope that the statement in the paper is
: just a lot of guff to keep the players from striking. I think if the
: owners were actually fool enough to do it, they would damage baseball
: beyond repair, and it would cease to exist.

: Comments??

: --------------------------------
: Joe Rhinehart      Columbus, Oh

: --------------------------------

 
 
 

Alarming news!

Post by David Humphr » Wed, 06 Jul 1994 23:52:26

|> the July 4th edition of the Chicago papers - didn't say which one. Can

|> I heard a GREAT one during the first game of the Cubs double header
|> today. Apparently, the White Sox GM said that if the players go on
|> strike for the rest of the year, and deny the owners the TV revenue from
|> the extra round of playoffs, that the owners would get even by
|> cancelling the '95 season, and resuming play im '96! Supposedly, this is
|> so the owners won't have to pay the players their '95 salaries, and thus
|> would make back the money they lost from not having the playoffs.
|>
          < snip snip >
|>
|> --------------------------------
|> Joe Rhinehart      Columbus, Oh

|> --------------------------------

Joe,

I've heard this mentioned frequently.  Since the early discussions
of the potential '94 Strike, I've heard many references to the
possibility of a '95 Non-Season *if* there is a player's strike
during the '94 season.  (The owners would just say: "If they won't
play, we won't let them!")

It is certainly the next logical rhetorical step that the owners
would take, but I don't know if anybody *really* believes that the
owners and/or players would be tough enough to stand firm and let
the whole '95 season go by the wayside.

DavidH

 
 
 

Alarming news!

Post by Randy Peppl » Thu, 07 Jul 1994 02:37:15

Quote:

>|> the July 4th edition of the Chicago papers - didn't say which one. Can

>|> I heard a GREAT one during the first game of the Cubs double header
>|> today. Apparently, the White Sox GM said that if the players go on
>|> strike for the rest of the year, and deny the owners the TV revenue from
>|> the extra round of playoffs, that the owners would get even by
>|> cancelling the '95 season, and resuming play im '96! Supposedly, this is
>|> so the owners won't have to pay the players their '95 salaries, and thus
>|> would make back the money they lost from not having the playoffs.

This came right out of Reinsdorf's mouth on either Saturday or Sunday,
so you must mean him instead of Ron Schueler.  Stone was probably ***
on his cigar as he said this...  "But Harry, what are we going to do without
the games?  Huh Harry???"

I wouldn't be one bit surprised if this happens.  These are two very
selfish, vindictive groups we are dealing with here.  Let 'em.  We're
all big enough that we can live without this for a while, aren't we?

And, I think there needs to be a major fan revolt at some point to
get the message across to these greedy bastards that we're not going
to take it anymore.  Cleveland fans excused, of course...

Randy
--
                                  - Randy

 
 
 

Alarming news!

Post by ken eme » Thu, 07 Jul 1994 03:36:31


Quote:


>>|> the July 4th edition of the Chicago papers - didn't say which one. Can

>>|> I heard a GREAT one during the first game of the Cubs double header
>>|> today. Apparently, the White Sox GM said that if the players go on
>>|> strike for the rest of the year, and deny the owners the TV revenue from
>>|> the extra round of playoffs, that the owners would get even by
>>|> cancelling the '95 season, and resuming play im '96! Supposedly, this is
>>|> so the owners won't have to pay the players their '95 salaries, and thus
>>|> would make back the money they lost from not having the playoffs.

How are they going to make back the money?  What will be their revenue
stream?  If they are expecting licensing to keep up at its current pace
I think they have their heads stuck somewhere.  Also the new owners
probably would not go for this kind of thing.  They need income to
make payments on the loans which they used to purchase their
teams (houston, san diego, san francisco, seattle, florida, colorado, ...
that's the only ones I can think of which have started/sold in the past few
years).  The prices of franchises currently for sale would also plumet
as owners sure as heck are not going to be able to sell for top dollar if
there is no baseball.  Also baseballs popularity is bound to go down
after a layoff of this long (1.5 years).  Also I don't know about not having
to pay salaries if the owners lock out the players.  Do the players under
contract (i.e. Barry Bonds) get paid in the event of a lockout?

Quote:
>This came right out of Reinsdorf's mouth on either Saturday or Sunday,
>so you must mean him instead of Ron Schueler.  Stone was probably ***
>on his cigar as he said this...  "But Harry, what are we going to do without
>the games?  Huh Harry???"

This sounds like something which Reinsdork would say.

Quote:
>I wouldn't be one bit surprised if this happens.  These are two very
>selfish, vindictive groups we are dealing with here.  Let 'em.  We're
>all big enough that we can live without this for a while, aren't we?

Yep.

Quote:
>And, I think there needs to be a major fan revolt at some point to
>get the message across to these greedy bastards that we're not going
>to take it anymore.  Cleveland fans excused, of course...

It is going to be real tough to organize something like this but if
baseball goes away for 1.5 years perhaps something could be organized.

bye,
ken emery

 
 
 

Alarming news!

Post by Jon Hamki » Thu, 07 Jul 1994 04:28:06

Quote:

>I heard a GREAT one during the first game of the Cubs double header
>today. Apparently, the White Sox GM said that if the players go on
>strike for the rest of the year, and deny the owners the TV revenue from
>the extra round of playoffs, that the owners would get even by
>cancelling the '95 season, and resuming play im '96! Supposedly, this is
>so the owners won't have to pay the players their '95 salaries, and thus
>would make back the money they lost from not having the playoffs.
>Steve Stone was talking about this on the broadcast. He said it was in
>the July 4th edition of the Chicago papers - didn't say which one. Can
>anyone in Chicagoland confirm this?

No, no one can confirm that, because that wasn't what was said.  Jerry
Reinsdork was the one people are talking about.  He just said a bunch
of reasonable things, taken in context.  I heard him complaining in a
WMAQ talk show about being taken out of context.  Jerry says that he
was asked by a reporter what the outside date is on a strike, meaning
the worst-case scenario.  He replied that in the worst case he felt we
wouldn't have baseball in 1995, and miss some of 1996.  He said he felt
that was the worst case, and couldn't imagine one side or the other not
giving in by May 1996.  He also warned the reporters not to go and
write that he was "predicting" that a strike would last until 1996.  Of
course, that's apparently exactly what they did.  Now by the time it
gets to the net, it has him saying the owners would cancel MLB in 1995
to "get even".


         University of Illinois

 
 
 

Alarming news!

Post by Bret Penningt » Thu, 07 Jul 1994 04:23:34

If they strike this year and close down next year
then let us get a grass roots fan movement to boycott
in 96.

Whose game is it anyway???

 
 
 

Alarming news!

Post by Tonia Lore » Thu, 07 Jul 1994 21:41:49

Here is the article that started all the speculation about no baseball in
1995.  BTW, I am a friend of the woman who wrote it, and she is a very
non-sensationalistic writer -- one who would rather err of the side of
caution than print something big and splashy that may not be 100%
accurate.  So, although Reinsdorf is making noises about being misquoted
or having his words taken out of context, I believe the article....

BASEBALL DOWN TILL '96?

Reinsdorf Warns of Lengthy Strike

By Toni Ginnetti, Staff Writer

Chicago Sun-Times, July 4, 1994, page 96.

A strike by major league players could shut down baseball until 1996,
White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf warned Sunday.

Though his vested interest is with the owners, Reinsdorf insisted the
threat of a yearlong work stoppage is real, adding owners have polled
themselves on their financial ability to survive a year without play.

"Please don't say I think there will be a strike," said Reinsdorf, one of
the game's most influential owners. "But I think the worst-case scenario
is a strike could go to May of 1996. I don't think it could go beyond that
because someone [owners or players] will break.

"The players are competitors. That's why they're major leaguers and
they'll follow their union. But I'm determined that our guys [owners] are
willing to fight it out.

"If there is a strike, there's no reason to think it will be resolved this
year, and I think it has the potential to go into 1996."

The owners have proposed a new basic agreement calling for revenue
sharing; a salary cap freezing current salary levels and ostensibly
guaranteeing no lowering of 1994 salary levels; elimination of arbitration
and a reduction in the six-year wait time for free agency.

The players association, which has rebuffed suggestions of a salary cap,
is to present its counter-proposal this week.

Setting of a strike date, expected to have taken place at a players'
meeting at next week's All-Star Game in Pittsburgh, has been put off by
union executive director Donald Fehr to give owners time to review the
impending union counter offer.

But a strike date could come at any time after that if the two sides
remain far apart.

Reinsdorf said the likelihood of a strike depends on what the players
present to the owners this week.

"If they [the players] make a proposal that's responsive [to the owners],
then you'll have some parameters set," Reinsdorf said. "But if they don't,
I'll be reasonably pessimistic.

"Reasonable to me would be they accept the concept [of a salary cap and
revenue sharing] and only want to change the numbers. If they reject the
concept, we're in trouble. We're no place. Then it's crisis negotiations."

Reinsdorf labeled himself "a dove" for now on contract talks, but said a
strike would turn him into "a hawk."

"I could live under the current system because of what we're [the Sox]
making. The best thing for us would be to stay in the current system. I
would vote for almost any reasonable settlement.

"But I can't live with a half-strike. By that I mean a strike of a month
and then come back for the postseason. We'd lose $10 million."

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Life's essential joys -- receiving love, returning it and reading
baseball box scores."                                      -- George Will

 
 
 

Alarming news!

Post by Steve Geswein, IB » Fri, 08 Jul 1994 00:35:37

Quote:

> [reprinted from] Chicago Sun-Times, July 4, 1994, page 96.
> A strike by major league players could shut down baseball until 1996,
> White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf warned Sunday.
> [...]
> "If there is a strike, there's no reason to think it will be resolved this
> year, and I think it has the potential to go into 1996."

Rob Dibble, the Reds' player representative, has stated on Reds
telecasts that the players strike fund would last through 1995 if
necessary.  This could actually happen...

Personally, I think a Dibble/Reinsdorf bout to "arbitrate" the
differences would work nicely.  Dibs will spot Jerry a rotator cuff...


anxiously awaiting the union's counterproposal

 
 
 

Alarming news!

Post by Doug P00 » Fri, 08 Jul 1994 07:16:03


Quote:
(Tonia Lorenz) writes:
>Though his vested interest is with the owners, Reinsdorf insisted the
>threat of a yearlong work stoppage is real, adding owners have polled
>themselves on their financial ability to survive a year without play.

He didn't mention the RESULTS of that poll, did he?  The GMs and coaches
still have to be paid; stadium leases have to be honored.  Interest
payments on the mountains of debt used to finance many recent team
acquisitions don't go away.   Reinsdorf's either more deluded than I
thought, or he's lying through his teeth, if he says the owners will close
up shop for a season.

Moreover, what's to stop the players from regrouping as the "United States
Baseball League" and playing ball for an entirely different organization
outside MLB?  If they're the only major-league game in town, they'll get
at least some of the local and national media $$ otherwise committed to
MLB.  How many of the owners can afford to see their entire investment in
a franchise vanish into thin air?

 
 
 

Alarming news!

Post by Scott R. Sus » Fri, 08 Jul 1994 22:03:18


Quote:
|> (Tonia Lorenz) writes:

|>
|>
|> >Though his vested interest is with the owners, Reinsdorf insisted the
|> >threat of a yearlong work stoppage is real, adding owners have polled
|> >themselves on their financial ability to survive a year without play.
|>
|> He didn't mention the RESULTS of that poll, did he?  The GMs and coaches
|> still have to be paid; stadium leases have to be honored.  Interest
|> payments on the mountains of debt used to finance many recent team
|> acquisitions don't go away.   Reinsdorf's either more deluded than I
|> thought, or he's lying through his teeth, if he says the owners will close
|> up shop for a season.
|>
|> Moreover, what's to stop the players from regrouping as the "United States
|> Baseball League" and playing ball for an entirely different organization
|> outside MLB?  If they're the only major-league game in town, they'll get
|> at least some of the local and national media $$ otherwise committed to
|> MLB.  How many of the owners can afford to see their entire investment in
|> a franchise vanish into thin air?

We've been over this ground before and I'll once again point out that a
baseball league is not simply formed from the waving of a magic wand --
especially on a national level with players as handsomely paid as the
current crop of crybabies known as major league baseball players.  There
are about a million things that require FINANCING and unless the players
themselves are willing to put the required capital on the table (and I
doubt they could aford it), then the idea of a "players league" is nothing
more than a pipe dream.  Yes, the MLB owners may be idiots and shysters,
but they bring an important and absolutely necessary ingredient to the
recipe for major league baseball -- capital.

So, what's to stop the players from regrouping as the "United States
Baseball League" or whatever ???  Money, plain and simple.  Those guys
may be rich but from that perspective, they're not rich enough.  Unless
of course, they want to play for free.  I wonder how many would?

SRS
--
Scott Susor *** Houston Texas
"Its good to be the King ..."

 
 
 

Alarming news!

Post by <KPER.. » Fri, 08 Jul 1994 13:35:57


Peppler) says:

Quote:
>>|> the extra round of playoffs, that the owners would get even by
>>|> cancelling the '95 season, and resuming play im '96! Supposedly, this is
>>|> so the owners won't have to pay the players their '95 salaries, and thus
>>|> would make back the money they lost from not having the playoffs.

>This came right out of Reinsdorf's mouth on either Saturday or Sunday,
>so you must mean him instead of Ron Schueler.  Stone was probably ***
>on his cigar as he said this...  "But Harry, what are we going to do without
>the games?  Huh Harry???"

>I wouldn't be one bit surprised if this happens.  These are two very
>selfish, vindictive groups we are dealing with here.  Let 'em.  We're

      I think this statement is a bit unfair to the players, who are
being selfish I guess, but only in their determination to keep things
that they already have and are entitled to (such as the right to have
their salaries determined by the free market, and not by an owner-
imposed cap).  The owners are a bunch of selfish, vindictive,
extraordinarily wealthy (very wealthy even compared to their
highest-payed players) a**holes who are determined to take a
hard line to ***off the free market so that they can reap profits
even larger than most are currently reaping.

      I really cannot blame the players for anything they have
done; if the owners were to offer them an extension of the current
agreement for four more years-- an agreement under which both most
owners and most players are doing quite well-- the players would
gladly accept.  This strike is being caused mainly by owners who
are not satisfied with mega-profits and need to have mega-mega-
mega-profits in order to be happy.  The players are no saints,
but let's not go writing about this as if the two sides were
*equally* greedy....

Quote:
>And, I think there needs to be a major fan revolt at some point to
>get the message across to these greedy bastards that we're not going
>to take it anymore.  Cleveland fans excused, of course...

      I agree that there should be, but am pretty cretain there
will not be.  Whenever baseball restarts after the strike/lockout
is over we will all be so happy we will watch, go to, etc. games
all over again.  We won't be able to help ourselves.
 
 
 

Alarming news!

Post by Doug Huff » Sun, 10 Jul 1994 03:37:29

Quote:


>(Tonia Lorenz) writes:

>>Though his vested interest is with the owners, Reinsdorf insisted the
>>threat of a yearlong work stoppage is real, adding owners have polled
>>themselves on their financial ability to survive a year without play.

>He didn't mention the RESULTS of that poll, did he?  The GMs and coaches
>still have to be paid; stadium leases have to be honored.  Interest
>payments on the mountains of debt used to finance many recent team
>acquisitions don't go away.   Reinsdorf's either more deluded than I
>thought, or he's lying through his teeth, if he says the owners will close
>up shop for a season.

I believe the White Sox rent is based upon a tax of ticket sales.  Thus
if there were no games, they wouldn't have to pay rent.  Does MLB have to
refund the networks for untelevised games?  Without player contracts
to pay, there will not be a many expenses.  Of course, no income either.  

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



AL West Champs 76,77,78,80,84,85       AL Champs 80,85      WS Champs 85
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
 
 

Alarming news!

Post by Doug P00 » Sun, 10 Jul 1994 10:58:02


Quote:

>I believe the White Sox rent is based upon a tax of ticket sales.  Thus
>if there were no games, they wouldn't have to pay rent.  Does MLB have to
>refund the networks for untelevised games?  Without player contracts
>to pay, there will not be a many expenses.  Of course, no income either.

Under the current MLB contract with ABC and NBC, MLB gets *no* upfront
money, instead receiving a percentage of advertising revenues.  No games,
no bucks.  I'm sure the ESPN deal, and all the local deals not negotiated
by utter morons, have clauses making rights payments contingent on having
product to broadcast.

George Steinbrenner's local broadcast contract pays the Yankees $42
million/year -- that's about $260,000 for each of 162 games.  Ted Turner
and the Tribune Company own ballclubs in large part to assure them a large
supply of top-quality programming.  The Indians have a new stadium and
their best team in 35 years; the Rangers have a new stadium and their best
chance ever of winning a division.  The Rockies, Orioles and Bluejays sell
40,000+ tickets every time the doors open; the Dodgers own their stadium
outright and draw at least 35,000/night.  The owners of these teams have
entirely different incentives than those facing the Pirates or Padres.