Reasons to not believe owners about “lost money”?

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Number5 said:

We aren't discussing tax shelters.  If the owners profited by playing before empty stands, they would not be against doing it.  Simple as that.  Whether they showed a profit for tax purposes or not.  This really is a simple and obvious situation that for some reason people are trying to make complicated.  If they make money by playing the games, they do it.  If they don't, they don't.

 

 

If they can cry poor and give up a bit of money now for increased leverage to use in future negotiations why wouldn't they?

 

[Number5]

Losing money during a pandemic provides leverage in future negotiations exactly how?  I think you and SG are venturing pretty far afield here. 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Number5 said:

Losing money during a pandemic provides leverage in future negotiations exactly how?  I think you and SG are venturing pretty far afield here. 

They have a new CBA to negotiate in 2022.  If they can successfully claim that they have lost money it can certainly have an impact on those discussions.  It could also theoretically add in negotiations with cities or the various outlets that show their games.

Think of how much money is at stake over the life of a CBA and compare it to making a mild profit over 30 games.

[Number5]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

They have a new CBA to negotiate in 2022.  If they can successfully claim that they have lost money it can certainly have an impact on those discussions.  It could also theoretically add in negotiations with cities or the various outlets that show their games.

Think of how much money is at stake over the life of a CBA and compare it to making a mild profit over 30 games.

Yeah, I'm not buying into that at all.  I don't think there's much doubt that there were losses.  Creating more losses by forcing owners to schedule more games before empty stands would positively impact the owners' position in negotiations by your own reckoning.  You really do seem to be arguing both ends against the middle.  Think about it.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Yeah, I'm not buying into that at all.  I don't think there's much doubt that there were losses.  Creating more losses by forcing owners to schedule more games before empty stands would positively impact the owners' position in negotiations by your own reckoning.  You really do seem to be arguing both ends against the middle.  Think about it.

I'm not saying that no real losses occurred.  I'm saying that I don't think all teams lost money (in the red) and the amount of money lost is being exaggerated.

I'm suggesting that it is possible that they might forgo some now revenue to secure substantially more future revenue.

[owknows]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not saying that no real losses occurred.  I'm saying that I don't think all teams lost money (in the red) and the amount of money lost is being exaggerated.

I'm suggesting that it is possible that they might forgo some now revenue to secure substantially more future revenue.

They MLB? or They Angelos Family?

Certainly perennial playoff teams are probably feeling less of the sting from last season than small market and rebuilding teams are... But I think all teams felt the pain of it.

I thought we were talking about the Orioles. Did we switch gears to all of MLB?

[Number5]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not saying that no real losses occurred.  I'm saying that I don't think all teams lost money (in the red) and the amount of money lost is being exaggerated.

I'm suggesting that it is possible that they might forgo some now revenue to secure substantially more future revenue.

Again, if your theory that they are claiming the losses in games played before empty stands to somehow improve their negotiating position, then obviously playing more games for losses before empty stands would further help the owners in negotiations.  If your theory held any water, it would be the owners that would want to play the games at a loss, and the players who would be against it.  Frankly, I think your theory is far-fetched, but if it were true, you are arguing against yourself.

[Frobby]

5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

But how do you define a loss?

Lets say they made 100M in 2019 and only made 20M in 2020 (totally making up those numbers).  Those numbers are interpreted 2 ways.

1) they lost 80 million

2) they made 20 million

How you choose to look at it is the question.

The owners want to make you believe they lost money...IE, their expenses are 100 million and they only brought in 80M, so they actually lost 20 million dollars in 2020.

I don’t buy that for a second.

I think most teams probably operated at a loss in 2020.   There was a good article about the Braves in Fangraphs.   They are part of a publicly traded company now so their books are public.   Fangraphs estimated that the Braves had a net loss of $65 mm this year, compared to a $150 mm profit last year.    They made the point that even though the Braves took a pretty substantial loss, all you’d have to do is go back one year and they’d be profitable over a two year period.  https://blogs.fangraphs.com/what-the-braves-can-tell-us-about-mlb-financial-losses-in-2020/

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Again, if your theory that they are claiming the losses in games played before empty stands to somehow improve their negotiating position, then obviously playing more games for losses before empty stands would further help the owners in negotiations.  If your theory held any water, it would be the owners that would want to play the games at a loss, and the players who would be against it.  Frankly, I think your theory is far-fetched, but if it were true, you are arguing against yourself.

That isn't obvious at all.  There is a limit to how much capital is to be gained.  The best situation for them is to not actually lose money while being able to plausibly claim that they are.

I think they lose less/make more by not playing games then they do playing in empty stadiums.

 

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

That isn't obvious at all.  There is a limit to how much capital is to be gained.  The best situation for them is to not actually lose money while being able to plausibly claim that they are.

I think they lose less/make more by not playing games then they do playing in empty stadiums.

 

Please insert three term "whether real or not" in front of the word losses in my post.  Lets say you are right with your supposition that they are making money, while claiming they are not.  Making even more money, while claiming they are losing even more money would not only further line their pockets, but also, under your scenario, allow them an even stronger negotiating stance due to their claims of losses.  If your theory were true, it would be in the owners' interest to schedule the games before empty crowds.  I'm not sure how you are not seeing this point.  I'm evidently not being clear, but I need to know what about what I'm saying is causing the disconnect.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Please insert three term "whether real or not" in front of the word losses in my post.  Lets say you are right with your supposition that they are making money, while claiming they are not.  Making even more money, while claiming they are losing even more money would not only further line their pockets, but also, under your scenario, allow them an even stronger negotiating stance due to their claims of losses.  If your theory were true, it would be in the owners' interest to schedule the games before empty crowds.  I'm not sure how you are not seeing this point.  I'm evidently not being clear, but I need to know what about what I'm saying is causing the disconnect.

I am not saying that every team turned a profit last year.

I'm not even saying most teams turned a profit last year.

My guess is that not playing games while not paying players is a better model for owners than playing games without fans.

I don't agree with your hypothesis that no diminishing returns exist when it comes to claiming losses.  I think to a certain degree it would be useful and that they have a pretty good idea of where that point is.

 

 

[Number5]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I am not saying that every team turned a profit last year.

I'm not even saying most teams turned a profit last year.

My guess is that not playing games while not paying players is a better model for owners than playing games without fans.

I don't agree with your hypothesis that no diminishing returns exist when it comes to claiming losses.  I think to a certain degree it would be useful and that they have a pretty good idea of where that point is.

 

 

We agree on the first three points.  As to the fourth, I have no hypothesis.  I was addressing yours, which seemed counter to the first three points.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Number5 said:

We agree on the first three points.  As to the fourth, I have no hypothesis.  I was addressing yours, which seemed counter to the first three points.

 

You are working under the idea that owner's think that an increase in losses (or claimed losses) would lead to an equal advantage in future negotiations.

I have not stated that and don't agree with that idea. 

I think there is a finite amount of advantage to be gained.

[Number5]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

You are working under the idea that owner's think that an increase in losses (or claimed losses) would lead to an equal advantage in future negotiations.

I have not stated that and don't agree with that idea. 

I think there is a finite amount of advantage to be gained.

Again, I am not working under any idea concerning the negotiations, as I believe the negotiations to be unrelated to the question of whether the players are right to demand that the owners lose money by scheduling games before empty stands just so the players could make more money.  You brought up the negotiations with your theory that the losses were false for the purpose of improving the owners' negotiating position.  I simply addressed your theory, which seems to now be changing by the minute.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Number5 said:

Again, I am not working under any idea concerning the negotiations, as I believe the negotiations to be unrelated to the question of whether the players are right to demand that the owners lose money by scheduling games before empty stands just so the players could make more money.  You brought up the negotiations with your theory that the losses were false for the purpose of improving the owners' negotiating position.  I simply addressed your theory, which seems to now be changing by the minute.

It isn't changing at all.  Not sure why you keep making me repeat myself.

You said " obviously playing more games for losses before empty stands would further help the owners in negotiations. ".

I do not think that is at all obvious.  You think it is obvious.  That is the idea you are working under concerning the negotiations.