lockout boycott

lockout boycott

Post by David A » Fri, 02 Mar 1990 08:13:09


I would like to propose a boycott of the 1990 baseball season as a protest
against the inability of labor and management to come to an honorable agreement
despite the current success of MLB.  Specifically, I propose that we

(1) If *any* disruption of the regular season because of lockout/strike or
    other labor-related cause occurs, we will not
    (a) attend any MLB games for the remainder of the 1990 season.
    (b) purchase any MLB-related products.
    (c) watch any MLB games on television.
(2) Should the owners play any regular season games using "replacement players"
    our boycott will extend through the 1991 season.  The use of replacement
    players by the NFL a couple of years ago was the biggest disgrace in sports
    this decade, dwarfing Ben Johnson and Pete Rose put together.
(3) We notify the commissioner's office ASAP of our plans to implement (1) and
    (2).

Many posters have commented that fans are too ***ed to carry out these
threats.  Well, that's a problem, since unless MLB receives significant
negative reinforcement *after* the dispute is over, we can expect serious
disruptions to occur every 3-4 years.  We fans have been too quick to forgive
and forget after past disputes, and so we have (at present) little power to
insist that MLB provide a quality product.  Split seasons, players out of shape
because of an abbreviated spring training, even the threat of a strike
occupying player's and fan's minds in mid-season do not add up to a quality
product.

Admittedly baseball is a business, but unlike most business it has 4-month
off-season in which to settle its business disputes.  Putting up with this
nonsense during the regular season, or even spring training, is something the
fans have done for altogether too long.

--
David W. Ash

HOME: (415) 857-1084
WORK: (415) 725-3859

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by cs22.. » Fri, 02 Mar 1990 09:34:00

Quote:
>(2) Should the owners play any regular season games using "replacement players
>    our boycott will extend through the 1991 season.  The use of replacement
>    players by the NFL a couple of years ago was the biggest disgrace in sport
>    this decade, dwarfing Ben Johnson and Pete Rose put together.

I don't think you'll have to worry about scabs in this action, unless the minor
leagues buck the player's union (granted, it is the MLbpa, but I still think
they'd toe the line); there just won't be enough talent out there to fill
the rosters.  Say what you want about football (I'm neither attacking or
condoning the replacement action), but I'm sure that practically every team
in the NFL kept at least one scab post-strike just because he was good
enough to make the team.  In baseball, without the minors, that won't be the
case.
                                                Joe Sterbenc
                                                U of Deon Thomas

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by Randy Paler » Fri, 02 Mar 1990 09:58:14

Quote:

>I would like to propose a boycott of the 1990 baseball season as a protest
>against the inability of labor and management to come to an honorable agreement
>despite the current success of MLB.  Specifically, I propose that we

>(1) If *any* disruption of the regular season because of lockout/strike or
>    other labor-related cause occurs, we will not
>    (a) attend any MLB games for the remainder of the 1990 season.
>    (b) purchase any MLB-related products.
>    (c) watch any MLB games on television.

It would seem to me that the best way to handle (c) is send letters to the
commisioner and to the networks stating that you plan to watch as many games
as they are willing to broadcast, however, you intend to boycott all of the
products that they advertise. If the networks start to ask for some of their
money back or better yet, sue them for breach of contract, they might be
inclined to get this thing settled.

BTW, some of you legal types out there. What would be the ramifications of
an all inclusive fan suit against the owners for failure to provide a product
that has been paid for. As in season tickets. After all, because of their
lockout actions they are withholding the product from people who have paid
for it. Wouldn't that be nice?????

luigi

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by Dylan Steinbe » Fri, 02 Mar 1990 12:19:52

Quote:

> I would like to propose a boycott of the 1990 baseball season as a protest
> against the inability of labor and management to come to an honorable agreement
> despite the current success of MLB.  Specifically, I propose that we

> (1) If *any* disruption of the regular season because of lockout/strike or
>     other labor-related cause occurs, we will not
>     (a) attend any MLB games for the remainder of the 1990 season.
>     (b) purchase any MLB-related products.
>     (c) watch any MLB games on television.
> (2) Should the owners play any regular season games using "replacement players"
>     our boycott will extend through the 1991 season.  The use of replacement
>     players by the NFL a couple of years ago was the biggest disgrace in sports
>     this decade, dwarfing Ben Johnson and Pete Rose put together.
> (3) We notify the commissioner's office ASAP of our plans to implement (1) and
>     (2).

Alright...one of the reasons owners feel a need to go through all this
bullshit, is that despite all appearances to the contrary, for the most
part baseball is not a money making proposition.  I believe it was
something like 20 of 28 teams actually lost money last year.  Between
players getting $4,000,000/year (nobody is worth that much) and stadium
rental (how may teams actually own the stadium they're playing in) the
owners stand to lose money.

I think our anger is directed in the wrong direction when we start going
after owners.  The real problem is players who want to be payed
$3,000,000 a year.  Owners have to pay it because without players like
that teams are a) not competitive and b) not big draws.  Who's really at
fault here, and who do we hurt with a boycott?

Respectfully submitted and prepared for flames...

--
! Dylan Steinberg            ! "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best



 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by Chuq Von Rospa » Fri, 02 Mar 1990 13:53:50

Quote:

>Alright...one of the reasons owners feel a need to go through all this
>bullshit, is that despite all appearances to the contrary, for the most
>part baseball is not a money making proposition.  I believe it was
>something like 20 of 28 teams actually lost money last year.

Well, the immediate questions I have are:

o Who's numbers are these? Is this what the owners are saying? Or are they
  validated and audited numbers?
o Does losing money last year really mean much in context of the new TV
  contract?
o Does 'losing money' include or exclude the appreciation of the franchise?
  I'd really LOVE losing money on a project that I bought for $30 million,
  paid out $2 or $3million in losse for five or six years, then sold for
  $150 million to some other person (like the Astros are trying to do).

It's not that I don't believe you. There are teams with bad leases and bad
attendance and terrible owners -- all of which can contribute to losses.
There are also teams that are essentially run as tax-losses for their owners
(the Cubs were famous for this for a long time). And, right now, the owners
have some very good reasons to cry poor right now, even in the face of a new
trillion dollar TV contract. So I'd really like to see numbers from some
source other than the owners, in some form where some independent party has
verified them. Otherwise, I'll take the handwringing and moaning with a
grain of salt. Any team that loses more money than the owner wants to lose
gets sold (ask the Mariners).

Quote:
>I think our anger is directed in the wrong direction when we start going
>after owners.  The real problem is players who want to be payed
>$3,000,000 a year.  Owners have to pay it because without players like
>that teams are a) not competitive and b) not big draws.

Owners ARE at fault. No player put a gun to their head and forced them to
sign an unrealistic contract. Owners got into this situation by trying to
get around the bargaining agreement by colluding against free agency and got
caught. Now they're over-reacting by throwing money at free agents in
complete disregard for things like financial responsibility and whether or
not the free agent is still alive. The owners are acting like four year olds
that are complaining because they threw their allowance up into the air and
had the wind blow it down a storm sewer. It's their own fault.

The players are also at fault, though, for being selfish and greedy. To some
degree I can understand how hard it is to say 'no' when someone's shovelling
money at them, but their side of the negotiations hasn't been exactly
pristine, either. Both sides are screwing it up, when one or the other could
win over public opinion by compromising and continuing negotiation during
the season.

Quote:
>Who's really at
>fault here, and who do we hurt with a boycott?

Everyone. Who loses? Everyone involved that isn't an owner or a player. Like
fans.

--


All spirits are enslaved which serve things evil -- Shelley

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by Samuel N Kame » Fri, 02 Mar 1990 14:13:29

Quote:

>Alright...one of the reasons owners feel a need to go through all this
>bullshit, is that despite all appearances to the contrary, for the most
>part baseball is not a money making proposition.  I believe it was
>something like 20 of 28 teams actually lost money last year.  Between
>players getting $4,000,000/year (nobody is worth that much) and stadium
>rental (how may teams actually own the stadium they're playing in) the
>owners stand to lose money.

>I think our anger is directed in the wrong direction when we start going
>after owners.  The real problem is players who want to be payed
>$3,000,000 a year.  Owners have to pay it because without players like
>that teams are a) not competitive and b) not big draws.  Who's really at
>fault here, and who do we hurt with a boycott?

>Respectfully submitted and prepared for flames...

>--
>! Dylan Steinberg            ! "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best




I heartily disagree with this.  First of all, the owners got themselves
into the big salary mess by taking their $1 billion TV money and giving
the high salaries immediately, before the labor negotiations.  They didn't
exactly strengthen their bargaining position as poor owners by spending all
that money.

Second, I read somewhere (somebody help me out on this) that the big name
players actually bring in more money for their teams than they are being
paid, between ticket sales, endor***ts, etc.  How many people go to see
a Mets game just because Gooden is pitching?  I know I try to go when I know
a big name will be there.

Third, baseball isn't a game that is built to make money.  That's why most
owners do not use their team as their sole moneymaking enterprise.  I think
that for most owners, a baseball team is just an interesting diversion.  Also,
I think some of the owners have learned the art of "creative financing"
popularized by the US Congress to make it seem like they made less money than
they did -- remember, who tells us who loses money, anyway?

Just my 2 (or more) cents.....

--
Sam Kamens                   |  "What is the air speed velocity of an unladen

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by David A » Sat, 03 Mar 1990 02:15:16

Quote:

>It would seem to me that the best way to handle (c) is send letters to the
>commisioner and to the networks stating that you plan to watch as many games
>as they are willing to broadcast, however, you intend to boycott all of the
>products that they advertise. If the networks start to ask for some of their

This requires that you actually pay attention to the ads to find out what is
being advertised.  Otherwise, how will you know what is being advertised so
you can boycott it.  If you don't pay attention you may still subconsciously
make a mental note of it and buy the product.  Do you really want to be
bothered recording all the products being advertised during every MLB game
on TV.

A second problem with this is that the more direct way to hurt MLB in this
situation is by causing their RATINGS to go down.  If you still watch the game
the ratings will remain high, and it will be a long time before the advertiser
learns that their (slight) reduction in sales is due to the boycott.

Finally, I don't agree with trying to hurt the advertisers.  They like fans
are paying the bills for MLB and so should be viewed as our allies, not our
enemies, in this dispute.  By boycotting a product advertised on a MLB program
you may be boycotting a perfectly legitimate company which has been screwed
just like the fans.

--
David W. Ash

HOME: (415) 857-1084
WORK: (415) 725-3859

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by Deron McAndr » Sat, 03 Mar 1990 03:34:43

Quote:
David Ash writes:

> (1) If *any* disruption of the regular season because of lockout/strike or
>     other labor-related cause occurs, we will not
>     (a) attend any MLB games for the remainder of the 1990 season.
>     (b) purchase any MLB-related products.
>     (c) watch any MLB games on television.
> (2) Should the owners play any regular season games using "replacement players"
>     our boycott will extend through the 1991 season.  The use of replacement
>     players by the NFL a couple of years ago was the biggest disgrace in sports
>     this decade, dwarfing Ben Johnson and Pete Rose put together.
> (3) We notify the commissioner's office ASAP of our plans to implement (1) and
>     (2).

I will comply with 1(b), but as for (a) and (c), you're a better man than I.
The players and owners are ripping my heart out right now, but I know that
once the lock-out is over I'll come crawling back, bereft of dignity but
basking in every available moment of the sport we love.

Weak willed, yes, but happy as a pig in mud once the season starts.
Try as you might to save me from myself, it's futile. I am lost.

DMM

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by Randy Paler » Sat, 03 Mar 1990 03:41:18

Quote:


>>It would seem to me that the best way to handle (c) is send letters to the
>>commisioner and to the networks stating that you plan to watch as many games
>>as they are willing to broadcast, however, you intend to boycott all of the
>>products that they advertise. If the networks start to ask for some of their

>This requires that you actually pay attention to the ads to find out what is
>being advertised.  Otherwise, how will you know what is being advertised so
>you can boycott it.  If you don't pay attention you may still subconsciously
>make a mental note of it and buy the product.  Do you really want to be
>bothered recording all the products being advertised during every MLB game
>on TV.

A good point, however, the idea is to get the TV people putting pressure on
them to settle this thing. TV is a very large part of MLB revenue and any-
thing that jeopardizes that puts their bottom line at risk. If even a small
percentage of the fans watching games pick out several products being hawked
and consciously boycott them, it will make an impact. It's not much different
than boycotting MLB products except that the huge amounts of money being
thrown around by the networks and the advertisers has a lot of clout behind
it. Just a thought!!

luigi

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by Goldbe » Sat, 03 Mar 1990 08:53:25


Quote:
> Second, I read somewhere (somebody help me out on this) that the big name
> players actually bring in more money for their teams than they are being
> paid, between ticket sales, endor***ts, etc.  How many people go to see
> a Mets game just because Gooden is pitching?  I know I try to go when I know
> a big name will be there.

I believe that was one of the side articles (or graphs or whatever) in
a recent Sports Illustrated.

I mostly agree with everything Sam wrote, except that the players are
not exactly innocent either.  I believe that the owners made their
(ridiculous) demands for one reason.  They figured if they made those
demands, and then gave up on them as part of a compromise, the players
would compromise and keep the status quo as far as arbitration goes
(ie the 3 years).  I really doubt the owners expected to get more than
that.  The owners have now pretty much given up all their demands, but
Fehr refuses to budge.  I think he's doing a disservice to the players
at this point, because they will lose the fans now.  It's difficult to
feel sorry for a player who's making $300K because he has to wait a
whole nother year before he gets into the millions.  This is baseball,
not football.  Careers tend to last long enough for the wait to make
very little difference (and no, I'm not denying career ending injuries
existence - but they just aren't that common in baseball).

Let's face it - they are all just plain greedy and they can get away
with it.  The old line about the phone company applies to major league
baseball too.  "We don't care; We don't have to; We're the Major
Leagues" :-(

--
Dave Goldberg                     UNIX Systems Programmer/Administrator
The Mitre Corporation   MS B020   Bedford, MA 01730        617-271-2460

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by Taegan D. Godda » Sat, 03 Mar 1990 18:12:12

]   Alright...one of the reasons owners feel a need to go through all this
]   bullshit, is that despite all appearances to the contrary, for the most
]   part baseball is not a money making proposition.  
]
]   I think our anger is directed in the wrong direction when we start going
]   after owners.  The real problem is players who want to be payed
]   $3,000,000 a year.  
]

Check out the new book from the University of Chicago press: "The Business of
Baseball"

Baseball teams make a lot of money.  Owners pay players $3 million because they
can afford it.  No one - no one - made the owners escalate salaries this
year.  The owners bid up the salaries because collusion is now too risky. They
have to compete now.  That's America...

If Wade Boggs demands $10 million a year - no one will pay him.  But the
market has determined a fair wage for ball players, and for some it's
$3 million per year.

This whole lockout thing is a battle of the millionaires.  We just sit and
watch like good little serfs.

Taegan Goddard