PFSIKH Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Not his exact words.....I am just paraphrasing....in fact he did not say that at all. Sox owner wants to overhaul MLB's revenue sharing system Red Sox principal owner John Henry is calling for Major League Baseball's revenue sharing system to be overhauled and replaced with a "competitive balanced payroll tax" in an effort to create competitive balance in baseball. Henry's comments via e-mail came after he was asked to respond to agent Scott Boras' comments to the Globe two weeks ago in which the super agent said teams aren't spending their revenue sharing money and central funds on player salaries, which is what revenue sharing was intended to do for small market teams. Boras received backlash for his comments from MLB executive vice president Ron Manfred, who said Boras' figures of teams receiving $80-$90 million from revenue sharing and the central fund "not based in reality" and "fantasy land." But Henry is certainly going his own way on this very sensitive subject and is certainly not in lockstep with some of his fellow owners on the revenue sharing plan that was adopted in 1997 and distributes the wealth from large market teams to small market teams. "Change is needed and that is reflected by the fact that over a billion dollars have been paid to seven chronically uncompetitive teams, five of whom have had baseball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Sounds more like he thinks the Royals and Brewers are ruining baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted December 4, 2009 Author Share Posted December 4, 2009 Sounds more like he thinks the Royals and Brewers are ruining baseball. The system is Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I am all for change. Slot the amateurs. Put in a salary cap. Bring it on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyHector Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I am all for change. Slot the amateurs. Put in a salary cap. Bring it on.... This and an requiring all international players to enter via the draft should be the first steps and would go a long way to introducing some balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn306 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Sounds to me like Henry is pissed that these uncompetitive teams are receiving are pocketing their revenue sharing. Me thinks I have heard that somewhere before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Here's how Henry's system would work: "It Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I love how he tries to just slip it in there all like 'Further, blablabla.' Who does he think he's dealing with, Upshaw? Do you a problem in what he said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 This and an requiring all international players to enter via the draft should be the first steps and would go a long way to introducing some balance. I like this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I like this idea. As do I. Henry has an excellent point when he says they should "tax" payroll instead of revenues. MLB won't do that as it makes sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Do you a problem in what he said? No. If I had a problem with John Henry saying stupid crap with no basis in reality I'd be pretty screwed. I would, however, have a problem with the strike that would immediately ensue if they ever tried to implement it. It is the well-established position of the union that tying revenue sharing to the payroll tax is tantamount to a salary cap, and if he thinks he's fooling anybody with this crap about a percentage floor he's even further gone than I could have imagined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uart Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Henry added, "While the Red Sox are in the 16th largest media market we Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGHT STALKER Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 The system is Bob. Damn, isn't this the same system that was in place in 2004 and 2007? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted December 5, 2009 Author Share Posted December 5, 2009 Damn, isn't this the same system that was in place in 2004 and 2007? Typical Yankee Nation missing the forest for the trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 you guys only like that idea because you had to pay 56 million for Dice K lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyHector Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 [quote name='Blackout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGHT STALKER Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Typical Yankee Nation missing the forest for the trees. Typical Red Sox fan not even close to seeing a tree...article should have been written in 2004. Funny how this jerk owner comes out with this article after the 27 World Champion Yankees win...oh well, business as usual. Hey PFSIKH, how you doing man? Still in the military or are you out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisaynon Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 As do I. Henry has an excellent point when he says they should "tax" payroll instead of revenues. MLB won't do that as it makes sense :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Way for you geniuses in New England to miss the point. I'm pretty sure the Yanks paid $27 million in luxury taxes last year , you kn:rolleyes:w, the "tax" on payr:rolleyes:ll instead of revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted December 6, 2009 Author Share Posted December 6, 2009 Way for you geniuses in New England to miss the point. I'm pretty sure the Yanks paid $27 million in luxury taxes last year , you kn:rolleyes:w, the "tax" on payr:rolleyes:ll instead of revenue. That is your argument? Seriously? The richest team in America has to pay a pittance in luxury tax. Obviously, you do not understand Henry's proposal. The Yankees were taxed for payroll. They are also additionally taxed, like all teams, for local revenue generated (total local revenue minus expenses) at 31%. This is where Henry wants it tweaked. Tax payrolls and funnel and I quote, "directly to the clubs that need revenues in order to meet minimum payrolls that should be imposed on each club receiving revenue.". Do you understand that? It is the Skank Nation long whine about the owners of the Royals, Pirates, etc. only pocketing the money and not putting it into the team much less salary. It would go to boost salary and in theory allow them to put a better product on the field. Additionally, teams would not be taxed on their local revenue. That is huge. Now, I seriously doubt the Yankees generate less then 100 million given the amount of money generated from ticket sales, merchandise and local TV revenue (especially given the new stadium) is the best in the leaguue. Let' say conservatively they generate 300 million. Probably double this. They are allowed by the CBA to deduct operating expenses of the stadium, which is currentluy at 51 million. So instead of sending the league an additional $42 million on top of the luxury tax, they would get to pocket that. If they choose to spend it on more salary. That means they in turn kick in more to the 'luxury tax'. Which means more revenue is thrown towards a small market's team salary. If they do not, Georgie or his pin head sons can pocket it or improve something in the stadium like bigger HD TVs for all the obstructed views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barton Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 STOP BITCHIN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Like I said I am all for change. But if it wasn't for this system, the Red Sox would be going on 85 years or so for their drought. Ironic that he is bitching about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted December 6, 2009 Author Share Posted December 6, 2009 Like I said I am all for change. But if it wasn't for this system, the Red Sox would be going on 85 years or so for their drought. Ironic that he is bitching about this. Max you are better then this. He makes the argument for the Yankees to be tax'd (and other big market teams) less. And the money to actually goto salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Max you are better then this. He makes the argument for the Yankees to be tax'd (and other big market teams) less. And the money to actually goto salary. Once again I am all for change. Regardless of what happens in this future if the Red Sox didn't have a huge financial advantage over other teams, they wouldn't have won any World Series in the last 80 years. They bought their titles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisaynon Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 That is your argument? Seriously? The richest team in America has to pay a pittance in luxury tax. Obviously, you do not understand Henry's proposal. The Yankees were taxed for payroll. They are also additionally taxed, like all teams, for local revenue generated (total local revenue minus expenses) at 31%. This is where Henry wants it tweaked. Tax payrolls and funnel and I quote, "directly to the clubs that need revenues in order to meet minimum payrolls that should be imposed on each club receiving revenue.". Do you understand that? It is the Skank Nation long whine about the owners of the Royals, Pirates, etc. only pocketing the money and not putting it into the team much less salary. It would go to boost salary and in theory allow them to put a better product on the field. Additionally, teams would not be taxed on their local revenue. That is huge. Now, I seriously doubt the Yankees generate less then 100 million given the amount of money generated from ticket sales, merchandise and local TV revenue (especially given the new stadium) is the best in the leaguue. Let' say conservatively they generate 300 million. Probably double this. They are allowed by the CBA to deduct operating expenses of the stadium, which is currentluy at 51 million. So instead of sending the league an additional $42 million on top of the luxury tax, they would get to pocket that. If they choose to spend it on more salary. That means they in turn kick in more to the 'luxury tax'. Which means more revenue is thrown towards a small market's team salary. If they do not, Georgie or his pin head sons can pocket it or improve something in the stadium like bigger HD TVs for all the obstructed views. You done preaching from a soapbox? You make it seem like "revenue" and "profits" are such difficult concepts to understand "Mr. let me ignore all the statistics that say Fenway is a bigger bandbox than YsIII." I wasn't arguing against anything Curse of MT said. I wanted to merely point out that there is a payroll tax in place which is called the "luxury tax" It seems to be that there will be less funneling of money to smaller teams should the revenue tax be imposed in baseball. I realize a lot of teams are de-incentivized to spend money on their team because they'd receive less subsidies as a result. It seems to me the answer is a salary floor without cutting revenue sharing. Unless you send me some literature that does projections between revenue/payroll taxing and its effects on team's payrolls, then I'm going to go ahead and assume Curse of MT is just butthurt at the fact the Yanks can go perpetually over 200 mil without batting an eyelash. But I agree with him on a worldwide draft and a slotting system. And a salary floor. Not with a change in revenue sharing. Does it hurt you that I understand basic english AND math? D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 Once again I am all for change. Regardless of what happens in this future if the Red Sox didn't have a huge financial advantage over other teams, they wouldn't have won any World Series in the last 80 years. They bought their titles. Just like every other team. You done preaching from a soapbox? You make it seem like "revenue" and "profits" are such difficult concepts to understand "Mr. let me ignore all the statistics that say Fenway is a bigger bandbox than YsIII." I wasn't arguing against anything Curse of MT said. I wanted to merely point out that there is a payroll tax in place which is called the "luxury tax" It seems to be that there will be less funneling of money to smaller teams should the revenue tax be imposed in baseball. I realize a lot of teams are de-incentivized to spend money on their team because they'd receive less subsidies as a result. It seems to me the answer is a salary floor without cutting revenue sharing. Unless you send me some literature that does projections between revenue/payroll taxing and its effects on team's payrolls, then I'm going to go ahead and assume Curse of MT is just butthurt at the fact the Yanks can go perpetually over 200 mil without batting an eyelash. But I agree with him on a worldwide draft and a slotting system. And a salary floor. Not with a change in revenue sharing. Does it hurt you that I understand basic english AND math? Are you sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barton Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Monzino Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 CONTRACTION is the answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Once again I am all for change. Regardless of what happens in this future if the Red Sox didn't have a huge financial advantage over other teams, they wouldn't have won any World Series in the last 80 years. They bought their titles. The roids didn't cost that much did they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 The roids didn't cost that much did they? :rl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.