2021-22 CBA Negotiation/Lockout Thread (DEAL IS AGREED TO)

[UndertheHalo]

1 minute ago, Lazorko Saves said:

How much is "incredible"?  Is that a lot?  Can you put a number on it?  A number that we could compare to other asset classes, say, maybe against the largest asset class on the entire planet that has a deterministic and easily identifiable valuation?  Ah, but you already told me that was "dishonest".

If you can't put a number on it, then it's just a prosaic faith-based assertion.

I think buying something for 400 million using it to your benefit for some time and then selling it for more then double while carrying almost no risk is a great privilege for the hyper wealthy.  To me that’s an incredible amount of money.  Again.  It’s an idealogical disagreement.  Agree, disagree who cares.  And don’t whine about the dishonest comment.  You’re in here basically calling these other guys dumb assholes. 

[Dtwncbad]

12 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Alright man.  You’re a person who has an idealogical position that owners / capitalists should have no obstruction to unlimited wealth accumulation.  It’s a fundamental disagreement.  I’m just saying.  The 4% figure is silly.  Disagree or agree I don’t care. 

I assume by your own words above that you think there should be obstacles to building wealth and/or limits to individual wealth.

Why?  I am genuinely interested.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[UndertheHalo]

Just now, Lazorko Saves said:

This is a moronic strawman.

You're putting words into his mouth.  Don't do that.

I’m not.  That’s his position.  And that’s fine. 

[UndertheHalo]

24 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Why do you disagree with people becoming really wealthy?  I am genuinely interested.

I don’t have any issue with people being wealthy.  I think that the labor that substantially creates the wealth should be equitably compensated.  
 

and also, I don’t believe that any person can justifiably lay claim to many billions of dollars.    While so many more people have next to nothing.  For professional ball players that isn’t an issue.  Which is fortunate for them.  But that’s neither here nor there.  You can disagree with me.  I don’t care about arguing with you about it.  

Edited February 25, 2022 by UndertheHalo

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I don’t have any issue with people being wealthy.  I think that the labor that substantially creates the wealth should be equitably compensated.  
 

and also, I don’t believe that any person can justifiably lay claim to many billions of dollars.    While so many more people have next to nothing.  You can disagree with me.  I don’t care about arguing with you about it.  

It doesn’t have to be an argument.  You should be able to discuss it.

I am interested in your justification for not wanting people to have billions “while so many more have next to nothing.”

Do you believe the super wealthy having billions is causing others to have less, like splitting a pizza where if one person has 90% of the pizza then that only leaves 10% for others?

If this is not it, then what is it?

Edited February 25, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[Lazorko Saves]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I am interested in your justification for not wanting people to have billions “while so many more have next to nothing.”

Yep.  But, ugh, the root cause is there are many who are really astonishingly bad at math.

There are many Brian-Williams-watching-people who really thought that Mike Bloomberg could give every man, woman, and child in the US a million dollars for the same amount he spent on a campaign.  Or believe the Oxfam nonsense about 90 of wealth being owned by a handful of people.  All gigantically, ignorantly wrong, but won't do 2 minutes of math to see why it's wrong.  Even when somebody else does the two minutes of math for them, it's then "well, we just disagree".

I give up trying to persuade the un-persuade-able, at least for today.  And of course, they are the same people who do this...

[Angel Oracle]

Back to the main stumbling block, the tax threshold

Owners basically aren’t budging from $214 million in 2022?

Players basically aren’t budging from $245 million in 2022?

Chances of full season being played?

Two: None and forget about it 

[Angels 1961]

2 hours ago, Lazorko Saves said:

I love how proud some of ya'll are about your ignorance.

Thank you, best way to catch a fish is put a hook out there. Fish are smart because they swim in schools

[Angel Oracle]

Three days to deadline to play full 162 game schedule 

[Docwaukee]

5 hours ago, Lazorko Saves said:

Don't know who first brought it up, but let's try from scratch.

2021 FY profit: $104m per Pasan tweet.

Source: go back a page in this thread.

2021 franchise valuation per Forbes estimate: $1.875b

Source: https://www.forbes.com/teams/atlanta-braves/?sh=36c8a903f2d7

Annualized return on equity for 2021 based on P&L from operations: 104 divided by 1875 = 5.5%

Source: 7th grade finance math

Now let the claims that "oh well, see 5.5% is really good, much better than 4% begin".  LOL, 21% negative alpha versus the S&P 500.  And this team won the World Series.  You may want to consider what these numbers might look like for Kansas City, Pittsburgh, etc.

Do you see why now we say that rich guys aren't buying MLB franchises for the purposes or getting (more) rich?

correct me if I'm wrong and I might be (because you just thrashed me for something I thought I was agreeing with you about), but doesn't the increase in equity have to be factored into the equation?   

So correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the anticipated or actual increase in equity on a yearly matter?  It's the denominator in the equation so if equity goes up substantially over a year then doesn't that decrease the ROE? 

In the case of a sports franchise owner, that's why I chose to use ROI and not ROE.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

I’m not even sure what the argument is… Do people disagree that major league teams are doing well financially?

[Docwaukee]

7 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I’m not even sure what the argument is… Do people disagree that major league teams are doing well financially?

some think the owners are printing money and others (I think) would content that buying a sports franchise is a mediocre invest at best.  

[Taylor]

13 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I’m not even sure what the argument is… Do people disagree that major league teams are doing well financially?

Some people feel an unexplainable compulsion to defend billionaires by downplaying their obscene wealth. It's weird. 

[Lou]

Just now, Taylor said:

Some people feel an unexplainable compulsion to defend billionaires by downplaying their obscene wealth. It's weird. 

No, some people don't think owners are obligated to concede on every issue just because they have a lot of money. 

[Taylor]

44 minutes ago, Lou said:

No, some people don't think owners are obligated to concede on every issue just because they have a lot of money. 

I don't think they should concede on every issue either. Does anyone (except for the players) think that?

[Docwaukee]

49 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Some people feel an unexplainable compulsion to defend billionaires by downplaying their obscene wealth. It's weird. 

defend them in terms of what?  wanting to keep their money?  

[Stradling]

49 minutes ago, Lou said:

No, some people don't think owners are obligated to concede on every issue just because they have a lot of money. 

Ok how bout some issues? My understanding is the owners are basically saying, “here’s $100” and they give them five $20’s.  Then the next offer they say, “here’s four $20’s and two $10’s”, then next it’s, “here’s twenty $5’s”.  So it’s all the same, presented differently. 

[Lou]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Ok how bout some issues?

They do.

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Lou said:

They do.

I edited it. 

[Lou]

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

So it’s all the same, presented differently. 

Not true. 

[ukyah]

3 hours ago, Dochalo said:

some think the owners are printing money and others (I think) would content that buying a sports franchise is a mediocre invest at best.  

being that the absolute uber wealthiest men in america are the ones buying the franchises, i'm going to assume that it's a fucking cash cow. feel free to argue amongst yourselves.

[Lazorko Saves]

5 hours ago, Dochalo said:

So correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the anticipated or actual increase in equity on a yearly matter?

Yes, for calculating total return, this is correct.  Which arguably only matters when you sell the team.  MLB owners are not doing cash-out refinancing like homeowners are; in order to extract equity you'd have to borrow at relatively high corporate bond rates (like rated lower than the typical muni rates for stadium build projects, which usually are Baa2 or lower) or sell an ownership interest.  Both are difficult and expensive.

Scott Boras has argued that MLB owners should be expected to run the teams at an operating loss by extracting equity during their ownership tenure to subsidize operating losses.  I'm sure some here think that makes sense.  No other businesses really run that way, though.

But to be accurate you also have to account for capital expenditures (like the $200 billion the Braves spent on a new stadium) and other cash infusions, which are not accounted for in our simple ROI based on Forbes estimate histories.  We might have all of this info for the Braves, since they are essentially a component of a publicly traded company that must file financial statements.  You'll have to forgive me for not bothering to spend a week reading that deeply into their financials.

And we won't have this info for any other MLB team that I know of, since I think they are all privately held.

The Braves have roughly doubled their franchise value in the last 8 years, per the Forbes estimates.  Which is a 9% annualized capital gain.  The S&P 500 has done 12.5% annualized over that same time frame.  No one is arguing poverty on the part of the owners here, the argument is whether loaded words like "obscene" or "making out like bandits" accurately describe what owning a MLB team is like.  If you're under-performing the most boring, widely-available, and easy-to-enter investment in the world (the S&P 500 index) by this much, it is simply not true that you are making riches that are unavailable to the common man.

If you think the Braves owners are making obscene profits, then what must you think about your neighbor who is working his boring middle class job and investing in an index fund in their 401k beating the Braves return by 3+% a year?

Edited February 26, 2022 by Lazorko Saves

[Lazorko Saves]

1 hour ago, ukyah said:

i'm going to assume that it's a fucking cash cow

Yep, that is a good word to describe what some of you are doing.

[Taylor]

These poor owners might have to forgo that sixth house or third yacht.

[jsnpritchett]

6 hours ago, Lazorko Saves said:

(like the $200 billion the Braves spent on a new stadium) 

Wow, that's a really expensive stadium...