|
|
Post by Saint on May 14, 2020 7:50:05 GMT -6
We may not like what Marshall says on this matter, but he’s right. Contracts are there for a reason. The contract isn't intended to be for not working.... It's not like a player a got hurt and can't play (which then the team gets some money back from insurance). They're not playing at all. No work; no money. That's a job. The players can't say "well this is a business...this is my job..." when they're talking about salaries and deals, etc. and then expect to get paid when there is no job to do. I don't believe the players should have to deal with this revenue sharing and all that, but if they play a half of a season they only deserve half of their pay. They're only fulfilling half of their contract obligations if there is only half a season. |
|
|
|
Post by unionstation82 on May 14, 2020 8:06:19 GMT -6
We may not like what Marshall says on this matter, but he’s right. Contracts are there for a reason. The contract isn't intended to be for not working.... It's not like a player a got hurt and can't play (which then the team gets some money back from insurance). They're not playing at all. No work; no money. That's a job. The players can't say "well this is a business...this is my job..." when they're talking about salaries and deals, etc. and then expect to get paid when there is no job to do. I don't believe the players should have to deal with this revenue sharing and all that, but if they play a half of a season they only deserve half of their pay. They're only fulfilling half of their contract obligations if there is only half a season. I mean I agree with you, but like I said contracts are there for a reason and breaking them sets a bad precedent. |
|
marshall
Veteran
21st Century Luddite
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
Posts: 4,358 
Likes: 446
|
Post by marshall on May 14, 2020 8:13:54 GMT -6
Get back to me when the litigation is over. We'll see who has a handle on the legal system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 14, 2020 9:25:31 GMT -6
The contract isn't intended to be for not working.... It's not like a player a got hurt and can't play (which then the team gets some money back from insurance). They're not playing at all. No work; no money. That's a job. The players can't say "well this is a business...this is my job..." when they're talking about salaries and deals, etc. and then expect to get paid when there is no job to do. I don't believe the players should have to deal with this revenue sharing and all that, but if they play a half of a season they only deserve half of their pay. They're only fulfilling half of their contract obligations if there is only half a season. I mean I agree with you, but like I said contracts are there for a reason and breaking them sets a bad precedent. I think a once in a generation type global disaster warrants breaking a precedent for a season. |
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on May 14, 2020 10:34:06 GMT -6
Get back to me when the litigation is over. We'll see who has a handle on the legal system. Why wait? We already know it's not you. Like I said, I don't expect the players to take any pay cut. Newsflash, Mr Legal Expert ... The players already agreed to a huge cut in pay. A mere 4% of their salary, if the season is cancelled. www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-03-26/mlb-players-agree-accept-4-percent-of-2020-salaries-if-season-canceledHow can you not know this? Are you living in a cave? Is there no television reception or newspaper delivery in that cave?
|
|
|
|
Post by sempersmom on May 14, 2020 12:43:03 GMT -6
Only a small fraction of employees work under an employment contract. They work under employment at will. Either party can walk away without consequence. A change of terms allows either party to request/demand a change the situation. Your wife could have demanded a 20% raise and the employers could only say yes, no or counter. But neither is obligated to continue the association because there is no contract.
Professional Athletes are different. A contract is hammered out and the details of who absorbs risk is spelled out. Injury is a frequent concern, but the player doesn't usually bear the consequences during the term of the contract. The team often obtains insurance against significant injury to mitigate the risk. They may even have a more comprehensive policy for such significant situations such as this or a strike. But I don't see a judge declaring this unforeseen situation as sufficient to justify abrogating the contract.
But as flexible as judges are with explicit law and Constitutionally protected rights these days, who knows. I wouldn't have believed a local Judge would threaten a church with permanent closure for following an article of faith to assemble. But that's been done. We're in a Brave New 1984 World right now.
Marshall, if you are my boss and I am supposed to work 40 hours per week and only work 10, are you still going to pay me my 40? I guess I'm one of the lucky ones. My employer pays me for a full day even if I just work 1 or 2 hours. |
|
|
|
Post by unionstation82 on May 14, 2020 15:45:04 GMT -6
I mean I agree with you, but like I said contracts are there for a reason and breaking them sets a bad precedent. I think a once in a generation type global disaster warrants breaking a precedent for a season. Hopefully so. |
|
|
|
Post by unionstation82 on May 14, 2020 15:45:18 GMT -6
Marshall, if you are my boss and I am supposed to work 40 hours per week and only work 10, are you still going to pay me my 40? I guess I'm one of the lucky ones. My employer pays me for a full day even if I just work 1 or 2 hours. Scammer! |
|
|
|
Post by sempersmom on May 18, 2020 10:20:42 GMT -6
I guess I'm one of the lucky ones. My employer pays me for a full day even if I just work 1 or 2 hours. Scammer! LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on May 27, 2020 7:09:25 GMT -6
So the early reports are that the revised proposal from the owners did not go over well with the players union. No bueno...
|
|
|
|
Post by olpapa on May 27, 2020 18:32:09 GMT -6
I am beginning to be concerned about the prospect of billionaires losing billions and millionaires losing millions.
|
|
|
|
Post by unionstation82 on May 27, 2020 20:05:57 GMT -6
So the early reports are that the revised proposal from the owners did not go over well with the players union. No bueno... I’m already looking to 2021. |
|
marshall
Veteran
21st Century Luddite
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
Posts: 4,358
Likes: 446
|
Post by marshall on May 28, 2020 4:54:22 GMT -6
I am beginning to be concerned about the prospect of billionaires losing billions and millionaires losing millions. LOL! |
|
marshall
Veteran
21st Century Luddite
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
Posts: 4,358
Likes: 446
|
Post by marshall on May 28, 2020 4:55:50 GMT -6
I am beginning to be concerned about the prospect of billionaires losing billions and millionaires losing millions. SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE!
Just call me a debbie downer. Or maybe just realistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on May 29, 2020 11:18:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by unionstation82 on May 29, 2020 19:42:47 GMT -6
I’ve got no problem with prorated salaries. |
|
|
|
Post by m240 on May 31, 2020 18:26:46 GMT -6
Every MLB contract has force majeure language in it. Both sides agree to it or there is no contract. So right now anybody who was healthy when operations ended do not have a contract for 2020. Everything is on the table.
Now as to what is fair And equitable is a matter that is up for discussion. My guess is they will come to some sort of agreement because there’s too much money that will be lost if they don’t. And it will be lost by all parties.
|
|
|
|
Post by ɮօʀȶǟʐ on May 31, 2020 22:01:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on Jun 1, 2020 8:03:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by unionstation82 on Jun 1, 2020 9:15:10 GMT -6
It’s a quarter of a century later and owners and players team up to try to find more holes in the fans to stick it in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jun 1, 2020 11:14:04 GMT -6
Is there a particular reason why they can't just use some type of intermediary service to provide proposals?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on Jun 1, 2020 12:10:35 GMT -6
Is there a particular reason why they can't just use some type of intermediary service to provide proposals? Proposals are just that. Both sides would need to agree with a proposal that was presented. If one side agrees, the other would simply refuse to agree and present a counteroffer with terms that are more beneficial to their side. Having a third party involved wouldn't speed up the process. It would just add more noise. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jun 2, 2020 9:49:43 GMT -6
Is there a particular reason why they can't just use some type of intermediary service to provide proposals? Proposals are just that. Both sides would need to agree with a proposal that was presented. If one side agrees, the other would simply refuse to agree and present a counteroffer with terms that are more beneficial to their side. Having a third party involved wouldn't speed up the process. It would just add more noise. No but the 3rd party could actually put out proposals that are clearly more in the middle than what each side is currently proposing. Rather than these ridiculously lopsided proposals by each side that get no where, start off more in the middle so that, ideally, there would be less to get agreed upon by each side. For example, instead of 100 games played at no additional pay cut proposed by one side, and 50 games with additional pay cuts proposed by the other... You'd have somebody in the middle, say how about 75 games at just some minor additional pay cuts. |
|
|
|
Post by Hunter McCormick on Jun 2, 2020 11:19:44 GMT -6
Proposals are just that. Both sides would need to agree with a proposal that was presented. If one side agrees, the other would simply refuse to agree and present a counteroffer with terms that are more beneficial to their side. Having a third party involved wouldn't speed up the process. It would just add more noise. No but the 3rd party could actually put out proposals that are clearly more in the middle than what each side is currently proposing. Rather than these ridiculously lopsided proposals by each side that get no where, start off more in the middle so that, ideally, there would be less to get agreed upon by each side. For example, instead of 100 games played at no additional pay cut proposed by one side, and 50 games with additional pay cuts proposed by the other... You'd have somebody in the middle, say how about 75 games at just some minor additional pay cuts. Your example is an oversimplification of the problem. The original proposal of 82 games was based on keeping the postseason on a 'normal' schedule in October. The 'sliding-scale' pro-rated salaries were based on the expected loss of revenue due to there being no fans in the stands. Having the postseason in October is important to MLB since the longer the season goes into the fall, the more likely they are to be shutdown (if there is a 'second wave' of the pandemic) and have no postseason at all, which would result in a HUGE loss of television revenue. The MLBPA wants more games and FULL pro-rated salaries. They want more games to justify a larger percentage of their original salary and they want it guaranteed regardless of if/when the government pulls the plug. Just pulling numbers out of thin air for the number of games of the season isn't any sort of answer. You need to first understand the risks and liabilities associated with a modified season. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jun 3, 2020 9:08:40 GMT -6
No but the 3rd party could actually put out proposals that are clearly more in the middle than what each side is currently proposing. Rather than these ridiculously lopsided proposals by each side that get no where, start off more in the middle so that, ideally, there would be less to get agreed upon by each side. For example, instead of 100 games played at no additional pay cut proposed by one side, and 50 games with additional pay cuts proposed by the other... You'd have somebody in the middle, say how about 75 games at just some minor additional pay cuts. Your example is an oversimplification of the problem. The original proposal of 82 games was based on keeping the postseason on a 'normal' schedule in October. The 'sliding-scale' pro-rated salaries were based on the expected loss of revenue due to there being no fans in the stands. Having the postseason in October is important to MLB since the longer the season goes into the fall, the more likely they are to be shutdown (if there is a 'second wave' of the pandemic) and have no postseason at all, which would result in a HUGE loss of television revenue. The MLBPA wants more games and FULL pro-rated salaries. They want more games to justify a larger percentage of their original salary and they want it guaranteed regardless of if/when the government pulls the plug. Just pulling numbers out of thin air for the number of games of the season isn't any sort of answer. You need to first understand the risks and liabilities associated with a modified season. I was just using that as an example... Obviously there is a large number of issues. I'm just making the point that I think some type of intermediary would have made this process faster. Instead of each side starting at opposite extreme ends, we could have started closer to somewhere in the middle. |
|
|
|
Post by ɮօʀȶǟʐ on Jun 4, 2020 13:35:13 GMT -6
Article I saw yesterday said that MLB rejected the union's last offer, and does not plan to counteroffer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jun 5, 2020 7:29:08 GMT -6
Article I saw yesterday said that MLB rejected the union's last offer, and does not plan to counteroffer. I can't take you seriously with your name like that. You are gross, sir. |
|
|
|
Post by ɮօʀȶǟʐ on Jun 5, 2020 16:20:37 GMT -6
Article I saw yesterday said that MLB rejected the union's last offer, and does not plan to counteroffer. I can't take you seriously with your name like that. You are gross, sir.  |
|
marshall
Veteran
21st Century Luddite
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
Posts: 4,358
Likes: 446
|
Post by marshall on Jun 6, 2020 1:17:26 GMT -6
Baseball would just be a distraction from all the end of world hysteria. I wonder what will kill us all next month?
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jun 9, 2020 13:58:46 GMT -6
It's looking more and more that the league will just force both sides into a shorter 50-ish game season and pay the players their full prorated salaries.
Can Altuve hit .400+ for 2020? Haha
|
|
