Comments on: Red Sox owner John Henry was fined half a million bucks for slamming revenue sharing

By: bigjeter

bigjeter — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 07:17:25 +0000

They won’t get it. You act like the big market owners are the masters and the small market owners are their servants. It is not anyone’s business how an owner spends his money. This is America. Are you going to insist that if the Yankees make more of a profit than the Royals, they be forced to spend it?
You also act like the big market owners are doing the small market owners a favor with revenue sharing. They are not. It was a negotiated business deal.
Unfortunately, we have this ridiculous system with no salary cap, which allows the Yankees to crush the small market teams by spending them to death. To whine about the injustice done to the poor big market owners is just stupid.

By: cur68

cur68 — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 16:24:25 +0000

Now that’s a legitimate argument. Does rev sharing increase profits? Should be easy to compare pre v post treatment. I believe we have a t-test here. Anyone have the numbers?

By: cur68

cur68 — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 16:20:52 +0000

I don’t see this a plea to ‘shut up’ so much as legitimately calling a whiner a whiner. We’ve all got that right.

By: 8man

8man — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 15:44:42 +0000

I guess the real question for me is do those “seven” teams make the overall pie bigger. In other words, are television contracts larger because there are more teams? Or is this an issue of total subsidization and the leagues would be better off by contracting? I don’t care what you do, but if you are in business and something you are doing is costing you revenue as opposed to adding revenue and has little hope to improve, I think you have to stop doing it.

By: belichickrulz

belichickrulz — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:55:10 +0000

Honestly, MLB needs to contract. What benefit does the league derive from the Padres or the Rays, for example? Their own “fans” don’t support them, so why should the Yankees and the Red Sox?

By: belichickrulz

belichickrulz — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:52:15 +0000

Henry made that exact point when asked. He said “Did you know that I’d been fined?”. When the host said that he hadn’t, Henry then asked how they knew whether or not the Yankees had. It seems like MLB keeps such things in-house, so unless Hal or Hank talks, no one on the outside will know.

By: mrznyc

mrznyc — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:25:19 +0000

Minor league cities with major league teams.

By: Professor Longnose

Professor Longnose — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:14:33 +0000

As yo do, I doubt that they’re complaining about how the money is spent. Having to give the money, they probably happier that the teams they give it to don’t use it to be competitive.

But I don’t understand why you keep saying they should be quiet. I can understand you saying they’re wrong, and sneering at them, but I don’t understand insisting on them shutting up. They probably are hurting the other owners by showing cracks in the owners’ facade vs labor. But Bud Selig’s job (literally) is to keep the owners unified (and he’s done it brilliantly). If the contracts he’s worked out are really so bad for a subgroup of owners that they are in serious doubt of causing real problems (I don’t think that’s the case here, but I’m just illustrating), then he needs to rethink the alliance and add some glue, either in the workings of the contract, or behind the scenes with some schmoozing. In the long run, fining owners isn’t really going to keep them together.

In this case I just think John Henry and Hank Steinbrenner are loudmouths who aren’t really a serious problem. But in any case, whether it’s a problem for the owners or not, I don’t see why you think they should be forced to shut up. If nothing else, it gives you posts to write.

By: PanchoHerreraFanClub

PanchoHerreraFanClub — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:24:50 +0000

You missed the point. Revenue sharing is simply an agreement between partner on how to split up the revenue pie. There could have been strings attached last time to certain parts of the revenue, but the partners decided not to. Perhaps, they will, perhaps they won’t, time will tell. But, I kind of think that owners complaining about what other owners to with their share of the pie is very self-serving to say the least. Now, of course, the fans of the low revenue teams have every right to complain, after all it is they buy the end product.

By: Kave Krew

Kave Krew — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:15:51 +0000

The bottom line is that the Red Sox and Yankees are passionate about winning. They have all the advantages of a big market, have tremendous cash, are profitable franchises, but they pour money and passion back into the franchise and field a very competitive team.

The Royals of the league have all the disadvantages, but they do not place the same percentage of passion into their franchises. They give the impression of ‘mailing it in’ every year and pocket the free revenue stream.

I would bet that the Red Sox and Yanks ownership would love nothing more than have these low feeding teams field a respectably competitive team so they too can enjoy better gates when these teams coming slouching into their ballparks. Nobody wants to go to these games and if they do, it secondary to anything else going on their lives.

A minimum salary cap is needed to at least force some teams to demonstrate minimum passion towards the sport.

By: marinersnate

marinersnate — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 07:47:06 +0000

Exactly. It is amazing how Yankee & Red Sox fans think that all teams are playing equally.

2010:

Yankees 214M
Red Sox 168M
Philly 138M
Pirates 39M

If the Pittsburgh owners had DOUBLED their payroll, money that they absolutely do NOT have while attempting to pay down stadium debt, but if they had, gives them a 78M payroll against the rest? And that is competitive? Even doubling their payroll barely puts them at a third of the NYY payroll. And that would make all the difference? (Yes, Texas won at 68M, but you see my point).

The “big market” fans have absolutely no idea what a competitive advantage they enjoy. Some years a really well run small market team may make it to the playoffs, and in a seven game series actually have a chance to win. But over a 162 game season, those big spending teams have far more of a chance to make the playoffs (year in and year out). NYY has been in the playoffs 15 of the last 16 years. And won five world series during that span. (And played in seven world series during that time. Nearly half). But if those “cheap” small market owners would just spend their “welfare” checks on players, they would be in the playoffs every year too? Yeah. Right. (It is easy to see why the Yankees are the most ‘loved” team in MLB. You can root for them from anywhere and be pretty certain that they will be in post-season every year. It is also very easy to understand why they are also, by far, the most hated team. And no. It is not envy.)

Perhaps I have no room to complain. My team spent close to 100M last season (about the upper medium) and still lost over 100 games. They are not a well run team.

But the bottom line is that small market owners should not be forced to spend more (they may make a profit but will never have “Yankee money” even if they spent every penny of their “profit”) but the big spenders should be forced to spend less. I wonder why the NFL, NBA, and NHL have done this? Go figure.

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 03:57:55 +0000

Henry is the asshole whose abdication saddled us with Scrooge McLoria. You could make that an eight figure fine and it wouldn’t be enough for me.

By: cur68

cur68 — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 03:42:04 +0000

Gonna cut into his PI budget if that keeps happening though.

By: thebrettman

thebrettman — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 03:21:44 +0000

Now that’s a fine. I think people start to listen when fines hit six digits.

By: clydeserra

clydeserra — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 02:35:50 +0000

So they should sign Bonderman for $10 Mil per year, would that make you happy or them better?

By: clydeserra

clydeserra — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 02:33:58 +0000

What do you mean “line the pockets of.” The Royals owner shouldn’t make a profit? What incentive do they have to own a team then.

I might agree with you if the A’s could pick up and move to Cambridge or Hoboken without the Yankees or Red Sox saying boo. But they can’t because o the agreement they entered into with MLB and the Red Sox and Yankees.

Besides, the Pirates and Royals and Tampa spend more and make their teams better, the Yankees and Red Sox will lose more games that the rightfully deserve to win because they are so awesomely awesome at being awesome baseball teams with awesome owners and fans.

By: Lukehart80

Lukehart80 — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 02:11:36 +0000

While the revenue sharing should be used to make the team better, forcing them to increase player payroll by the previous year’s figure is NOT the way to do it. Players and owners have already agreed that would not be a good system.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 02:01:44 +0000

“but wrong is wrong. If you are taking revenue sharing funds then you should be forced to spend that money on the organization, not pocket it.”

But the complaints coming from Steinbrenner and Levine at least — and a little from Henry — have not been the legitimate complaints of owners not using revenue sharing for its intended purpose. It’s been based on the very existence of the revenue sharing program. “It’s welfare,” they’ve charged. Fine, but it’s welfare you agreed to pay as part of the CBA. I

It may be that their anger is really based on the pocketing-the-money thing. If so, I feel for them. But that hasn’t been what they’ve been moaning about. They’ve been moaning about simply cutting the checks. Not how it was spent.

By: xmatt0926x

xmatt0926x — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 01:57:35 +0000

I get Craig’s argument about the big market owners benefitting in general so why complain, but wrong is wrong. If you are taking revenue sharing funds then you should be forced to spend that money on the organization, not pocket it. It may seem logical to argue that the system has benefitted the complaining big market owners but there is also logic in making sure the money given to the Pirates owner is used somehow on his team. I just don’t understand why this hasn’t been worked out yet. Yeah, it will still end up being abused in some way but at least put some rules in. Why should teams like Pittsburgh have a high profit margin when they won’t spend on payroll and the stadium is 3/4′s empty for evey game? Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Kansas City have drawn in the past when they had competitive teams. Force these owners to use that money to put a better product on the field and the people will come and the revenues will rise accordingly.

By: ditto65

ditto65 — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 01:48:32 +0000

Perhaps they were and haen’t said anything yet.

By: ditto65

ditto65 — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 01:47:28 +0000

The team would certainly be better if he spent the handout on talent.

By: ditto65

ditto65 — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 01:46:07 +0000

The revenue sharing was meant to make the small market teams more competitive, not line the pockets of the owners. I am sure they will push for the “strings attached” this time around.

By: nesuperfan

nesuperfan — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 01:42:54 +0000

So why was he fined, but not the owners of the Yankees for doing the same exact thing?

By: Professor Longnose

Professor Longnose — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 01:23:34 +0000

Have the franchises increased exponentially since the revenue-sharing system was instigated in 2001? Offhand, I think they haven’t increased as much as they did in the 80s and 90s before the revenue-sharing system was implemented.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 01:14:14 +0000

Will Henry be fined for saying that he was fined?

By: PanchoHerreraFanClub

PanchoHerreraFanClub — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:55:16 +0000

And if the Pirates owner just worked a little harder, he could have the same kind of money that Boston and New York get for their cable rights. Yeah, sure.

By: markfrednubble

markfrednubble — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:41:02 +0000

If the teams receiving all the revenue sharing money are among the most profitable, that is a disgrace. John Henry’s Red Sox are not just lucky beneficiaries of a big market. They have made many investments to improve the fan experience and raise revenue, from investing tens of millions in the ballpark and the areas around it, to good marketing with partners and other things that the so-called small market teams don’t even try. If the fans in the cities like Pittsburgh knew their owners were pocketing the revenue sharing dollars instead of investing in more talent on the field, they would and should be horrified. I don’t think it’s greed that causes Steinbrenner or Henry to complain about the system. It is their inherent bitterness toward working hard to make money and handing it over to owners who don’t invest it in being more competitive.

By: PanchoHerreraFanClub

PanchoHerreraFanClub — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:54:27 +0000

No one is robbing anyone. All the owners agreed to a CBA with the players union. I do not remember reading that any owner had a gun held to his head either by the union or another owner. Yankees and Red Sox need Tampa Bay and all the other low revenue teams because they need someone to play. The fact the some of the paying owners don’t like paying is natural. That the low revenue owners can do whatever they want with the money shouldn’t be an issue (I mean should my boss tell me what to do with my paycheck).

If the high revenue owners thinks there should be some strings attached to the money given to the low revenue then CBA is the place to do that in conjection with all their business partners, the players and all the owners.

By: elmaquino

elmaquino — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:48:51 +0000

COMMIES!

By: cur68

cur68 — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:41:09 +0000

That’s how I read it. I think the rap music in question might be ODB. Someone’s a wee bit cranky today.