World Series title costly for Yankees

Bigfish · « **on:** 22 Dec 2009, 01:56 pm »

"World Series title costly for Yankees," is the headline for an article on the front page of the Sports Section of the USA Today. The article states: The World Series champion New York Yankees were hit with a luxury tax of nearly $25.69 million Monday, the penalty for again crossing the payroll threshold in baseball's collective bargaining agreement. According to the Associated Press, the Yankees are the only team to pay a tax this season and have crossed the threshold all seven years since the tax started. New York has been billed $174 million of tax's $190 million total since 2003. End of article.

The only sport I dearly love is NFL Football and I sincerely hope that collectively the owners will have the good business sense to maintain team salary caps and minimal spending requirements. With just two regular season games left there are 10 teams in the AFC in the hunt for a playoff spot. A bunch of bad teams or parity, no matter, it makes for tremendous fan interest. In my opinion without salary cap restrictions, the small market teams, like my favorite Steelers, will struggle to survive and be competitive.

Ken

rydenfan · « **Reply #1 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 02:06 pm »

I really feel that the Yankees luxury tax is just something for people to talk about. It is clear the Yankees dont give a shi$ about paying it, so why should we talk about it? The amount of money they generate in memorablia alone based off winning will far exceede that tax number. Now pile on extra ticket prices and concessions during the October run and the number grows even greater. The rule is in place and they have the money to pay it and are willing to spend whatever neccissary to continue winning. There is no greater comitment than putting your money where your mouth is

and I am a Mets fan...

droht · « **Reply #2 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 02:24 pm »

I don't doubt that you are correct rydenfan, but baseball has got to do something about this. The left side of the Yanks infield (A-Rod & Jeter) were paid more than the entire Marlins team. Crazy. The owners need to stand firm next time they are at the negotiating table. I'd rather see the game shut down again than just continue as it is going.

bpape · « **Reply #3 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 02:25 pm »

Exactly. As long as the penalty isn't severe enough to outweigh potential benefits, teams will basically ignore it.

Bryan

rydenfan · « **Reply #4 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 02:31 pm »

Quote from: droht on 22 Dec 2009, 02:24 pm

I don't doubt that you are correct rydenfan, but baseball has got to do something about this. The left side of the Yanks infield (A-Rod & Jeter) were paid more than the entire Marlins team. Crazy. The owners need to stand firm next time they are at the negotiating table. I'd rather see the game shut down again than just continue as it is going.

To me this is completely backwards. So an owner who wishes to spend no money and make whatever profits he can of tickets, concessions, and merch should be rewarded over a team who continues to spend money?? Anyone who has enough capital to buy an professional sports teams can afford additional saleries, it is merely a question fo whether they chose to or not.

TF1216 · « **Reply #5 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 02:31 pm »

What do you guys think about Scott Boras stepping up to the plate against the small market team owners? if you haven't heard his latest trick he is suggesting that these owners are pocketing revenue instead of investing it back into the team as more money for players.

rydenfan · « **Reply #6 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 02:33 pm »

Also, since when does spending money equate to championships? Take a look at my Mets

MaxCast · « **Reply #7 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 02:38 pm »

Quote from: tf121682 on 22 Dec 2009, 02:31 pm

What do you guys think about Scott Boras stepping up to the plate against the small market team owners? if you haven't heard his latest trick he is suggesting that these owners are pocketing revenue instead of investing it back into the team as more money for players.

Maybe their saving it for a real big payrol someday.

Maybe they should tax the team and the player. Expensive players would not want to play for a team at the salary cap??

zybar · « **Reply #8 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 03:52 pm »

Quote from: tf121682 on 22 Dec 2009, 02:31 pm

What do you guys think about Scott Boras stepping up to the plate against the small market team owners? if you haven't heard his latest trick he is suggesting that these owners are pocketing revenue instead of investing it back into the team as more money for players.

This happens to be true and has been out there for quite some time. Since revenue sharing started, some of the teams who have received substantial funds have not translated that into increased payrolls.

George

jtwrace · « **Reply #9 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 04:01 pm »

George,

It just dawned on me. You live in the Boston area but are a NYY fan?

zybar · « **Reply #10 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 04:16 pm »

Quote from: jtwrace on 22 Dec 2009, 04:01 pm

George,

It just dawned on me. You live in the Boston area but are a NYY fan?

I grew up about 20 miles from Yankee Stadium and have been a Yankees fan since I was 5. My family has been going to Yankees' games and supporting them since the 1920's when my grandfather watched the Babe play.

Moving to Boston almost 4 years ago doesn't alter my undying support for the Yankees. I simply have learned to deal with being in "hostile" territory.

George

BikeWNC · « **Reply #11 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 07:03 pm »

What is the point of a salary cap if teams can exceed it? Obviously the fines are too low.

zybar · « **Reply #12 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 07:09 pm »

It isn't a salary cap.

George

jtwrace · « **Reply #13 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 07:11 pm »

Quote from: zybar on 22 Dec 2009, 04:16 pm

Quote from: jtwrace on 22 Dec 2009, 04:01 pm
George,

It just dawned on me. You live in the Boston area but are a NYY fan?

I grew up about 20 miles from Yankee Stadium and have been a Yankees fan since I was 5. My family has been going to Yankees' games and supporting them since the 1920's when my grandfather watched the Babe play.

Moving to Boston almost 4 years ago doesn't alter my undying support for the Yankees. I simply have learned to deal with being in "hostile" territory.

George

Ok that makes sense. I grew up 15 miles away on the other side of the water. Yanks & Giants!!!!

maxwalrath · « **Reply #14 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 07:18 pm »

Quote from: zybar on 22 Dec 2009, 03:52 pm

Quote from: tf121682 on 22 Dec 2009, 02:31 pm
What do you guys think about Scott Boras stepping up to the plate against the small market team owners? if you haven't heard his latest trick he is suggesting that these owners are pocketing revenue instead of investing it back into the team as more money for players.

This happens to be true and has been out there for quite some time. Since revenue sharing started, some of the teams who have received substantial funds have not translated that into increased payrolls.

George

As much as I think the world would be a better place if Scott Boras was never born, he is right on this one. Still, for the small market teams he's talking about, there's no way the profit they make could come close to assembling a team rivaling the big spenders on a regular basis. Maybe they could hang on to a rising star for an extra year to make a playoff run with the profit they keep...but then the talent will chase the bigger payday.

sts9fan · « **Reply #15 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 07:25 pm »

Sure George but their profit is not as high either.

I don't think the WS cost the Spanks anything but it earned them a bunch.

rydenfan · « **Reply #16 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 07:32 pm »

One thing I can tell you for sure is Boston fans make a lot bigger deal out of the rivalry than Yankee fans. A lot gets said about New Yorkers, but they are far more obnoxius in New England. YMMV

lcrim · « **Reply #17 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 07:40 pm »

While there is a ton of criticism about the Yankee business model, this season it worked. I have read that a number of owners put the revenue sharing in their pockets and don't spend it on improving the onfield product. The Yanks can't be accused of that. The bottom line is that they were hugely profitable and they won the World Series.
They did take taxpayer bucks and tax advantages to build the new stadium. That was wrong. Did they cheat the system in any way? Yeah, they should give back the public monies they took to build the new stadium.

droht · « **Reply #18 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 07:46 pm »

I'd like to see pro sports leagues run like corporations, with much more centralized power than exists today with the almost powerless commissioner. Each team would be more like a division of that corp, responsible for profit and loss (and wins and losses), but forced to play within a stricter set of rules than what exists today. There would be a real salary cap, but also a minimum as well. Owners who did not want to pay players would not pocket the difference. This all has to be based on a revenue sharing model, where players receive a negotiated piece of the pie. The key to me is that no team, even the Yanks, can exists without other teams to compete against.

rydenfan · « **Reply #19 on:** 22 Dec 2009, 07:56 pm »

Quote from: droht on 22 Dec 2009, 07:46 pm

I'd like to see pro sports leagues run like corporations, with much more centralized power than exists today with the almost powerless commissioner. Each team would be more like a division of that corp, responsible for profit and loss (and wins and losses), but forced to play within a stricter set of rules than what exists today. There would be a real salary cap, but also a minimum as well. Owners who did not want to pay players would not pocket the difference. This all has to be based on a revenue sharing model, where players receive a negotiated piece of the pie. The key to me is that no team, even the Yanks, can exists without other teams to compete against.

Yes, the last few years have shown us how great centralized big buisnesses are for us