lockout boycott

lockout boycott

Post by sc.. » Sat, 03 Mar 1990 20:21:04


Quote:

> 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?????

I'm not a legal type.  I heard that some fans in KC are getting
a civil suit ready, it is basically like you said, failure to
provide a product.
--

(uucp: ...!rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!scott)  615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-4041    Manhattan, KS 66502, USA
 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by STEVEN EST » Sun, 04 Mar 1990 02:53:52

In an interview with the Yankee owner he was asked to confirm these numbers.

INTAKE                                       OUTPUT
Cable contract     $60 Million               Players      $35 Million
Network TV         $14 Million               Operations   $10 Million
Gate               $17 Million               Other        $17 Million
MLB Products       $08 Million
Other              $10 Million

George of course wanted to know where Costas found the sources, and
Costas gave george a chance to point out what exactly was wrong with
the numbers. George had no comment other than they were way out of wack.

I think they are close to the truth. Bob Costas does his homework.
There was also a graph showing the rest of the major leagues. The
graph showed ALL teams will make a profit. The above projections
come from what I can remember...they may not be 100% correct.
 1/3 of the people will always buy                |        REBELS #1

 2/3 of the people need help making up their minds|
                            -->    Advertising 101| GO CUBS,49ERS,and CELTICS  

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by Paul_Andres » Sun, 04 Mar 1990 03:52:04


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.

    [specifics deleted]

I'm all for this. From things I have seen in the newspapers and on the net,
there is certainly plenty of sentiment in favor. If it comes to this, I am
hopeful that fandom in general will have enough backbone to make a meaningful
effort. I don't think that it is realistic to have an effective season-long
boycott, but two proposals that I do like are 1)boycott for however many
games are lost and/or 2) pick a specific day of the week (say Wednesday) for
a season long boycott.

More importantly, it is critical to write and call and let everyone possible
in the baseball establishment know your feelings. Let's go for it.

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

   "First, grab a bat and smack 'em upside the head to get their attention"
                          "Lets Play Ball!"


home: 3006 NW McKinley    Corvallis, OR 97330         (503)-752-8424
                        A SABR member since 1979                

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by Kent Ostby 1-691-34 » Sun, 04 Mar 1990 08:42:46

I would like to point out a few things about Donald Fehr's current
negotiating/PR stunts.

Two issues that I would like to address:

#1) Fehr said that last year MLB made $154 million dollars so they should
give more to the players.  Let's look at that shall we.  $154 million
dollars/26 teams = ~ 6 million per team.  That is not that much money.

I mean the average major leaguer makes ~600K (from USA TODAY last week)
and each team averages 24 players that's $14.4 million compared to the
owner's $6 million.  So what is Fehr's point ? That the players get more
than the owners.  I know the point he THINKS he is making is that the
owners need to give the player's more money, but I don't see how he
can expect the average owner to be making less than $6 mill a year on
a $150 mill  buy in (or at least value).

#2) Fehr keeps saying "when are the OWNERS going to offer a compomise on
the current issues."  What about Fehr ?  Why doesn't he offer a
compromise instead of running away from negotiating sessions?

Oh well.

Oh yeah #3) Several players were interviewed yesterday and said "well after
all it's the OWNERS who have locked us out so don't blame us."  Well that's
pucky.  If the players would offer a no-strike clause then the owner's would
probably offer a NO-LOCKOUT clause.

Oz

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by Dave Ti » Wed, 07 Mar 1990 04:29:00

Quote:

>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.

Why should he?  So far, all the owners have agreed to do is return
things to the way they were last season before bargaining started.
If the players accepted the owners' current offer, the owners would
get to keep all the extra television revenue.

To put it another way:  suppose that the company you work for has
recently reported a record increase in earnings.  Furthermore, similar
companies have been sold for astronomical sums.  Suppose further
that the record increase in earnings was *directly due* to your efforts.

Now suppose that you and your boss are negotiating your
salary for the next working year, and suppose that your boss decided to open
"negotiations" by suggesting your salary be cut in half.  After you
reject this offer, then suppose that your boss "compromises" by offering you
the same salary you earned last year.  Would you be inclined to accept it?

This is the situation that the players are in at the moment.

Quote:
>I think he's doing a disservice to the players
>at this point, because they will lose the fans now.

Which is exactly what the owners were hoping would happen.  Owners,
as a group, are devious; their whole bargaining strategy was designed
with precisely this in mind.

Quote:
>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.

I agree:  after all, most of us will make only a small fraction of
what a major-league baseball player makes.

But, as I've said before, there's one basic fact to be considered:
there's a *lot* of money to be made from baseball, because people
such as you and I are willing to pay to see it.  This money will
go to either the baseball players or the baseball owners; no other
options exist.  Baseball players deserve the money more than
baseball owners do, and that is why I am on the side of the players when
it comes to negotiations.
--
--Dave Till, Mortice Kern Systems Inc., 35 King Street N., Waterloo, Ont.

"'In the spring, Jeeves, a livelier iris gleams upon the burnished dove.'
 'So I have been informed, sir.'" -- P.G. Wodehouse, "The Inimitable Jeeves"

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by a.. » Wed, 07 Mar 1990 06:54:34

Quote:

>To put it another way:  suppose that the company you work for has
>recently reported a record increase in earnings.  Furthermore, similar
>companies have been sold for astronomical sums.  Suppose further
>that the record increase in earnings was *directly due* to your efforts.

>Now suppose that you and your boss are negotiating your
>salary for the next working year, and suppose that your boss decided to open
>"negotiations" by suggesting your salary be cut in half.  After you
>reject this offer, then suppose that your boss "compromises" by offering you
>the same salary you earned last year.  Would you be inclined to accept it?

>This is the situation that the players are in at the moment.

I hardly call raises to $3 and $4 million that many players have enjoyed
in the off-season the equivalent of a boss cutting an employees salary in
half.

True, the owners now want to retain the same *method* for determining
salaries, but that method has produced record salaries for players, so I'm not
about to shed any tears for the players.

--
David W. Ash

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

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by Dave Ti » Thu, 08 Mar 1990 04:08:21

Quote:


>>Now suppose that you and your boss are negotiating your
>>salary for the next working year, and suppose that your boss decided to open
>>"negotiations" by suggesting your salary be cut in half.  After you
>>reject this offer, then suppose that your boss "compromises" by offering you
>>the same salary you earned last year.  Would you be inclined to accept it?

>>This is the situation that the players are in at the moment.

>I hardly call raises to $3 and $4 million that many players have enjoyed
>in the off-season the equivalent of a boss cutting an employees salary in
>half.

It's only the stars that are making $3-plus million.  The negotiations
affect the "rank and file" players (if you can call someone making half
a million dollars a "rank and file" anything).

Quote:
>True, the owners now want to retain the same *method* for determining
>salaries, but that method has produced record salaries for players, so I'm not
>about to shed any tears for the players.

The owners are *now* retaining the same method.  The original
proposals (pay-for-performance, revenue sharing) were attempts to roll
back salaries.  (Had the owners managed to impose revenue sharing,
they would have tried to tear up the $3-million contracts as well.)

I'm not shedding any tears for the players; they are fabulously well-paid.
However, they deserve to be even more fabulously well-paid.  They're
bringing in the bucks; the owners aren't.
--
--Dave Till, Mortice Kern Systems Inc., 35 King Street N., Waterloo, Ont.

"'In the spring, Jeeves, a livelier iris gleams upon the burnished dove.'
 'So I have been informed, sir.'" -- P.G. Wodehouse, "The Inimitable Jeeves"

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by Goldbe » Thu, 08 Mar 1990 09:28:56

[ Stuff about Fehr not being willing to budge ]

Quote:
>Why should he?  So far, all the owners have agreed to do is return
>things to the way they were last season before bargaining started.
>If the players accepted the owners' current offer, the owners would
>get to keep all the extra television revenue.
>To put it another way:  suppose that the company you work for has
>recently reported a record increase in earnings.  Furthermore, similar
>companies have been sold for astronomical sums.  Suppose further
>that the record increase in earnings was *directly due* to your efforts.

Good point - I guess that with MITRE being a not for profit, I didn't
think of it that way :-) But I wasn't saying that he should give in
completely and just accept the status quo altogether.  Just the
arbitration issue - there are several others, which effect more
current players than arbitration does, such as the pension fund and
the minimum salary.  I should have made that clear before.

Quote:
>>I think he's doing a disservice to the players
>>at this point, because they will lose the fans now.
>Which is exactly what the owners were hoping would happen.  Owners,
>as a group, are devious; their whole bargaining strategy was designed
>with precisely this in mind.

Actually, that's the point I was really trying to make.  The word
disservice was a poor choice.  I guess what I'm saying is that Fehr is
not doing anything (or at least nothing I can see, I hope I'm wrong)
to try to get rid of the image the owners have painted him with - that
of the bitter man holding a grudge because he thinks (whether right or
wrong - doesn't matter to the press) that they pulled the wool over
his eyes last time, and is therefore a poor choice as a negotiator.
Note that I'm not agreeing with this, but at least two sports writers
in Boston have written editorials with just that point of view.

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

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by Steve Simr » Sat, 10 Mar 1990 03:58:14

Quote:

>I'm not a legal type.  I heard that some fans in KC are getting
>a civil suit ready, it is basically like you said, failure to
>provide a product.

I'm not a legal type either, but let's get real. What sort of damages do
you have in mind? You'll get you $ back for unplayed games.

Maybe you're think you are entitled to payment for emotional distress?
Sounds like something Don Fehr would think up.

*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************

 
 
 

lockout boycott

Post by Steve Simr » Thu, 15 Mar 1990 07:31:38

Quote:

>I'm not shedding any tears for the players; they are fabulously well-paid.
>However, they deserve to be even more fabulously well-paid.  They're
>bringing in the bucks; the owners aren't.

                            ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^  

This last statement is simply not true. Many studies have shown that the
most important determination of a team's attendance is its won\loss
record. Most knowledgable baseball types would agree that things like a
team's scouting system and its minor league system contribute
significantly to the w\l record. Owner's who are willing to put extra
money into these areas do make a difference in a team's attendance.