You're Not Retired

[Jarhead*]

Cutthroat:

Got to make this short, as I've got to find a big rock to hide under. (Re: prvious post).
Combination of by the book Marine Training, and the fact that I was oldest in a large family (4 sisters), and we also have 3 daughters, have always been protective of the female gender.
As Mikey stated, it would be hard to produce a picture of a happier lady. (The fact that she seems so happy on a fishing trip, makes it a homerun for a guy that is hooked on fishing.) She is also apparantly a philosopher "trout do not live in ugly places".

Regards, Jarhead

(Now if I can just find a big rock, my days work will be complete.

[fire5soon]

Retired to me is when I don't have to rely on a paycheck to survive... not necessarily being unemployed. I guess you could say retirement is on the same playing field as being financially independent... to me anyway :

[Ted]

We are in the process of doing the same idiotic thing here in St. Louis for the Cardinals. We are about to tear down a beautiful stadium that was built in 1965, and replace it with a new stadium that has the "retro" look that is currently in vogue. The seating capacity will be slightly less, but much more of it will be in high priced "suites" where corporate pooh-bahs can sit and watch the game on TV in air conditioned comfort while sipping cocktails and having hot hors d'ourves delivered (not just plain ballpark weiners!)

I wouldn't give a hoot about all of this were it not for the fact that the new stadium is being subsidized by the taxpayers in a number of ways. And these are not just the taxpayers of St. Louis (who are generally lower income and at the limit of their ability to finance government expenditures) but the taxpayers of Missouri.

In writing some letters opposing this ripoff, I noted an analogy to the way in which the Air Force has kept the B52 bomber in service, performing a vital mission for much less than it would have cost to completely replace it every decade or so. If the useful life of an aircraft can be extended to more than 50 years, it is absolutely crazy to claim that a stadium is "obsolete" at 40. I guess that I am further insulted by the implication that any person older than that is also obsolete.

Hi Jarhead,

Yes, I am all in favor of the players getting more money, but I am also in favor of the game being run like other businesses - No welfare for Billionarie Owners! If the game cannot sustain itself with higher ticket prices or bigger TV revenue then it will have to cut costs, like other businesses.

I have a hard time separating this business thing in my mind from the game, because I live in a Metro area. We are still paying higher taxes downtown for dinner to pay for a Basketball arena and the State is in Debt for over $4 Billion dollars. To solve this problem they are laying off teachers and cutting education programs.

The citizens of this state have finally woken up to this fact and the billionarie owners are having a very tough sell this time around for public funding for a new stadium. Even more frustating for them - Is that Liberals and Conservatives are united on this issue. The only people that are in favor of it turn out to be politicians (because the owners donated to their campaign) and the media because they want sports to cover to sell TV and papers.

[Ted]

I find it amazing how liberals can complain about "billionaire owners" while completely overlooking the fact that most of the cost that people pay to watch professional sports is attributable to player salaries, and not profit to the owners. *As with most liberal economic ideas, they are still imagining that we are back in the distant past when player salaries were quite modest. *And why shouldn't they be if they choose to play a damned game for a "career"?

It is because most owners actually make such a low rate of return on their investment that they are forever looking for ways to get public subsidies that will (a)allow them to pay the exorbitant salaries that are required to attract "star" players who are (b) required to make the team a "championship contender," which is (c) necessary to attract enough spectators at (d) sufficiently high ticket prices to (e) enable the owners to make a profit, whether or not it is "excessive." *Of course, to a liberal, any profit is "excessive," other than what they make on their own investments. *

I think that a good market-based solution to all of this would be for teams to become publicly owned corporations. *Then, people who wanted to support a particular team could do so with their investment dollars, and not just by buying tickets and "official" team jackets etc, etc. *

Another option, from the perspective of fans, is to take the attitude that their " home team" can play at a competent but not championship level, and that they will pay reasonable ticket prices and go to games to root for the team from out of town that the taxpayers in its home city are stupid enough to subsidize.

[unclemick]

Green Bay Packers? Like Bogle and Vanguard, I don't know the nitty gritty details but I like Vanguard and the Pack(with Bret of course). There doesn't seem to be a big rush to duplicate either organization.

Quote:

I find it amazing how liberals can complain about "billionaire owners" while completely overlooking the fact that most of the cost that people pay to watch professional sports is attributable to player salaries, and not profit to the owners.

Ted,

You are way out of line here!

It is the Billionarie owners that make all the rules and their egos set the players salaries. *Am I supposed to complain that a *28 year old player didn't turn down a contract of 140 Million because it was too much money?
Give me a fricken break!!!

The Billionaire owners are making the rules not Liberals!

In reality, these owners are claiming they are not making any money. - And they are right, because they don't show a profit and pay little taxes. The real gains are made when they sell the team. The stadium is the real Capital Gains!

Fine and dandy - Just don't ask the taxpayers to cover the bill!

The Liberals will not complain as long as you don't ask them to pay for it. We would rather give our money to people that really need it!

[Jarhead*]

Ted:

Like a lot of things in life, the pendulum has swung too far in baseball.
Prior to Curt Flood, challenging and winning the right for free agency, baseball players were at the mercy of their signing club. You received in salary what they were willing to pay, period.
The only possible way to stem the tide of the current situation in baseball is to salary cap each team, as the NFL has done. The problem with that is the players union is probably the strongest union in the country. Also, owners like Steinbrenner, etc. like the status quo just fine.
While it is certainly true that even the average major league player is paid exhorbident sums of money, about 95% of players that are good enough to sign a contract with the parent club never spend any time in a major league uniform.
A fair analogy would be the Real Estate business. Most of the folks in any area I lived made a marginal living , but there were always 2 or 3 that were able to make fantastic money.
As far as I know nobody stuck a gun in the Texas ownerships face when they signed ARod to a $284,000,000.00 contract.
As long as there is no salary cap in baseball, short of a complete rebellion on the part of fans. (Which is highly unlikely), it is going to continue to be an unfortunate dampner on the folks that appreciate the athletic ability of these young talented kids.
Jarhead

[Ted]

My attitude towards the owners of sports teams is pretty much neutral -- like my attitude towards business owners in general. *In the first place, they aren't all "billionaires." *They certainly are very wealthy, and most approach team ownership pretty much as a "hobby," like owning a race horse. *If it were an "investment," it would be one with a pretty low rate of return. *

Like business owners in all other industries they try to enhance this return by lobbying for various types of subsidies. *Typically, this is in the form of new stadiums that their teams get to use at less than full cost. *Of course, this attempt to milk the taxpayers is cloaked in "civic pride" and "job creation."

As Jarhead says, owners formerly did "make the rules" as far as player salaries were concerned (although nobody ever put a gun to a player's head and told him that he couldn't make a living doing something else). *But they don't any more, with the advent of free agency. Owners are pretty much of a conduit for passing exhorbitant player salaries on to fans.

Personally, I'm undecided as to whether a salary cap would be the "right" thing to do, although I agree that it would be effective at holding down costs to fans. *It runs counter to my Libertarian tendencies that say that anybody should be free to sell their services to the highest bidder, as long as they play by certain rules -- such as not hypocritically scheming to tap into public funds, or lobbying for laws that allow them to limit competition.*

What I feel entirely comfortable in doing, however, is what I am doing here -- pointing out that the high prices that fans are paying are attributable mostly to the salaries of "superstar" players. *If the fans "can't afford it," they are free to spend their money on some cheaper form of entertainment, and that will eventually act to limit the salaries of superstars. *In fact, minor league baseball in major league cities is becoming one such alternative.

In addition to tax subsidies, another way that the cost of professional sports is passed on to the general public is through the perks for "corporate pooh-bahs" that I alluded to previously. *The really high priced seats are purchased mainly by corporations, which pass the costs on to the consumers of their products.

[wzd]

Quote:

If the fans "can't afford it," they are free to spend their money on some cheaper form of entertainment, and that will eventually act to limit the salaries of superstars.

In fact, my wife, son, and I have a much better time at the local college and high school games than any of the pro (I have a real hard time using the word professional in this context) games.

Wayne