Revenue Sharing

Well I am spending no matter what, but it would be nice to know.

I think were doing the one that was passed last year where each team contributes 10% of their revenue into a pool and then we divide the total by 30 and each team will get that much.

That would wind up being 9.13M per team.

so is the revenue sharing vote for this off season going to be for the plan that goes into place next year?

Also for this year I am paying in 10% of my revenue (71.3 million) which would be 7.13 million and I get 9.13 back, for a whopping net of 2 million?

If you want to see how much cash you have now, download this....


http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9Q9N6TI6


And Baltimore shouldnt get a lot of cash b/c they are not a small market team.

So just for some in debt, and close to debt teams, and some interesting cases(imo), this is what revenue sharing will do to your cash:

cincy: + approx 2.8 million in cash(getting there, man)
chi whi: + approx 3.6 million in cash
lad: - approx 1.3 million
mil: + approx 3.9 million
nyy: - approx 19 million
oak: + approx 2.8 million
pit: + approx 3.6 million
sd: + approx 2 million
tex: + approx 3.4 million
tor: - approx 2.1 million

Remember I just did this in my head(I am pretty good in mathmatics), so one or two might be off

so the largest gain was 5 million for KC? Will there be a vote on doing more for this next year, or have you decided against this?

Thats about one sixth of the Royals payroll, how much do you think they should get?

I cannot believe NY lost almost 20 million

Woo! So close to being out of debt I can taste it!

-Cinci'

i know everybody here always argues for making it realistic, well in real life KC gets 30 million, and 3 teams get more then them.
20 million is nothing to the Yankees, will they actually have to do anything different?

Here's what team's pay out in the Majors,

New York Yankees $76
Boston Red Sox $52
Chicago Cubs $32
Seattle Mariners $25
New York Mets $24
Los Angeles Dodgers $20
St. Louis Cardinals $19
Chicago White Sox $18
San Francisco Giants $14
Houston Astros $11
Los Angeles Angels $11
Atlanta Braves $10
Texas Rangers $.035


Here are the payees under the revenue sharing system:
Team Amount received
(millions)
Tampa Bay Devil Rays $33
Toronto Blue Jays $31
Florida Marlins $31
Kansas City Royals $30
Detroit Tigers $25
Pittsburgh Pirates $25
Milwaukee Brewers $24
Minnesota Twins $22
Oakland Athletics $19
Cincinnati Reds $16
Colorado Rockies $16
Arizona Diamondbacks $13
Cleveland Indians $6.0
Philadelphia Phillies $5.8
San Diego Padres $5.7
Washington Nationals $3.9
Baltimore Orioles $2.0

Can you give us a spreadsheet comparing the current plan and the new plan???

i posted it several weeks ago, uses end of last year revenue and team salary as of trade deadline. no idea if the link still works.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UDAO0AP0

Well free agency is wrapping up, so thought I'd bring this up again. This is the perfect time to look at this as the main person it would affect is the NYY. They have signed no one so far, so as things stand right now they have a payroll of 186 million. In addition next season the following contracts expire...

Posada 5.8 million
Matsui 13 million
Damon 13 million
Sheffield 6.6 million
Molina 1.7 million
Cairo 2.35 million
Kotsay 2.2 million
Wilson 3.7 million
Giambi 9.05 million
Mussina 10 million
Buehrle 5.3 million
Rivera 4.6 million
Fuentes 5 million
Crain 4.15 million
Rasner 2.9 million

Total of these expiring contracts is 89.8 million. I addition if their payroll stays the same this season they will probably end up with a profit of at least 60 million, and probably closer to 100 million if they make as much revenue as they have the past 3 seasons.

In addition most of the teams who will lose the most have cash on hand already. NYY 47.9 million, NYM 37.7 million, STL 18.9 million, CHI N 21.9 million, Boston 22 million, Seattle 24.2 million, Detroit 13.7 million, etc. Exceptions are Toronto -3.3 million and LA N -13.6, but they lost 43.5 million last season so not sure what's going on with them.

What I propose is on the following spreadsheet. I've updated it to reflect this years revenue #'s, and I've also modified the numbers so my original plan could be phased in over a 3 year period. This would allow the following.... after next year we would start the plan using the 1st year numbers, after 2010 and each year after that we could vote to continue with the plan, hold at the current rates, change the rates, or discontinue it altogether. Just as a comparison the current plan is on the 4th tab, and it includes what increasing 10% to 20% and 30% would do.

If you don't feel like downloading, next season the biggest payers into this system would be: NYY 76 million, NYM 18 million, STL 5 million, CHI N 4 million, big gainers would be KC 16 million, TB 12 million, MIL 11.5 million, and PIT 10.5 million.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LT4GIQBN

There are some details that will need some examining. For example we may want to set an amount of cash that a team paying into this system can't dip below, say 15 or 20 million. This could probably be increased over time. Also if anybody is wondering it's very easy to make adjustments in the event a team that is supposed to pay is in the red. You would simply change each cell that says they should pay to zero and it will automatically update. Also if people think this is complicated it's really not. It would be done just as the recent plan was done as far as what admin needs to do. I'll be happy to do all the actual work in generating the numbers, and would be willing to post an estimated # a few times throughout the season so teams can plan accordingly.

Eventual issues that will probably come up are additional tax on to much cash, say over 200 million, or making it so if you are receiving revenue you must have less than a certain amount of cash on hand. This would prevent small market teams from not spending the money they receive, which is what it's intended for. We might be able to set an exception to this that would allow teams to set money aside for resigning specific players. An example would be if you have a player at 4 million, and you know it's going to cost 10 million a year to resign. Over a 5 year period this would be 30 million more, so it might make sense to save up for this.

If we could get a vote on this to see if there's interest I'd appreciate it. Maybe vote for keep it the same (10% plan) or move to this plan with the understanding we'll re-examine it each year. If there's no interest I'll put it on the back burner and stop messing with it. From talking to other owners it seems like there is interest though.

Oh and when considering this please think about what you think is good for the league, not just how it affects your team.

I think teams are paying way too much into this.

I think it would be better if teams over a certain payroll have to pay money and teams that are bankrupt or have below a certain payroll will receive money.

Its kinda ridiculous that I have to pay nearly ALL my cash to this revenue sharing sytem... its just going overboard... this isn't the real MLB where we rev. sharing has these numbers.. and don't forget, IRL teams have things like merchandise sales, promos, etc... that inflates their revenues irl ALOT, which many times makes these numbers we have here moot point...

On admin's idea I think that encourages two things: One large market teams will spend even more. Even if it means paying for a few high priced players that end up in AAA this is a smarter option then giving your money to another team. On the other end it rewards teams that spend foolishly. If you know you're going to get bailed out you'd be willing to take more risks, knowing if you end up in the red you're going to be okay. Short term, as in right now, this might make sense. Getting all the teams that were run into the red by a previous owner back into the black wouldn't be bad. Long term though I don't think that's the solution

On tunit's comments, so basically you cannot compete with 125 million in revenue? It doesn't say you have to pay nearly all your cash. I said while we are putting this plan in place we would set a level of cash that the teams putting money into the plan can't go below. It gives you time to plan long term to do this, and included voting on whether it helped the league after each season. What would be an acceptable level of cash for you?

I think after trading Nomar you have 5 players making 9 million or more PLUS the 240 million (24 million a year) Fielder you just signed. You will be spending more on Fielder, your scouting, and your medical then KC makes all year. Somebody please tell me how a plan that gets everybody to a revenue level of between 70 million and 165 millioon compared to 40 million and 280 million will be a bad thing and make the league less competitve?!?!? I just don't see it and can't come up with even one reason why in our league this would be bad. Tunit's comment that IRL teams have merchandise sales, promos, etc,..... that is surely the case, but IRL the Yankees "only" have a payroll of 200 million and the Mets opening day payroll in the last two years has been 100 million and 117 million. It's not like I'm asking the Mets, Yankees, Cards, Cubs, Red Sox, etc to suddenly try and compete with 40 or 50 million in revenue, or even the league average revenue.

On the other hand I feel that I can and have come up with and made a convincing arguement for several points for how this would make the league better and help prevent some problems that are going to start occuring in the next few years. Sorry to keep running this into the ground, but I've yet to have anyone make a convincing arguement for how this will hurt the league instead of individual teams. If somebody can finish the following two sentences in a coherant manner maybe that would help.

Kansas City having 70 million to spend each year would be bad because.....

New York Yankees and New York Mets having "only" 165 million (I've realized the Yankees pay for scouting, so this would add 15 or so million back into their revenue to cover this cost)and 125 million respectively would be bad because.....

an example IRL that would work...

New York Yankees and New York Mets having "only" 165 million and 125 million respectively would be bad because..... their ownership groups used their own money to buy the team and have a right to the profits they are able to generate from the efforts they've put into building that team/brand.


And please don't hold this against me or label me difficult. I truly enjoy this league and plan to be active for many years to come. If this weren't the case I wouldn't spend my time arguing for ideas that i think will help the league longterm.

I dont know how teams would want to spend more with my idea. If teams have a payroll over lets say 130 million, then they would have to pay a luxury tax. This would discourage signing free agents because then you would have to spend more money. And if you run your team into the ground and get bankrupt, then you wouldnt be allowed the taxed money, it would only be for new owners who took over bankrupt teams and small market teams.


Teams paying 76 million is ridiculous. If we wanted to make it that even, we might as well check off the equalize teams/cities (or whatever the name is) button.