Mets Revenue Sharing Proposal

I, the Mets, will obtain approximately 78 million dollars in game cash at the end of the playoffs, and possibly higher. This amount is w/o revenue sharing. With the revenue sharing plan my cash reserves will drop to about 55 million after what will seem to be a decent playoff run.

However, I am currently in the works on building a 73.1 million stadium. This stadium will be 65,168 seats, with a Good/Average/Average rating.

I am proposing, after significant discussions with jcclemen, that revenue sharing for me be "held off" one year for me, along with a 15 million dollar loan in order to afford this new stadium now. I will pay back the 35 million dollar debt within 7 years, each year I take to pay it back I will pay an extra 10% interest. This meaning, I delay the rev. sharing I owe this year, and pay it back in the years to come. I am paying either way.

Assuming I continue deep playoff runs, I will be making 210-230 million dollars in revenue.

I currently pay about 20 million in revenue sharing. With the extra 20-40+ million dollars in revenue I am generating, I would say I can contribute 10-30 million extra into the revenue sharing pool, benefiting the league.

Yes, I do get significant return for this. However, this is still absolutely nowhere near Yankee revenues. The extra money I am contributing into rev. sharing after I generate extra revenues will prevent me from going on a George Steinbrenner spending spree. For me, this simply provides more flexibility come time I need to resign contracts. I am not getting an extra 40 million to spend. I am only going to be able to use about 10-15 million of that extra revenue depending on how much revenue I draw in each year...


Points that jcclemen has added for your consideration


This waiving of the revenue sharing only applies to me this one time. The provision that allows team with under 15 million dollars in cash to not pay revenue sharing will not apply to me this year OR next year. Meaning, if I do not have enough cash to pay off my revenue sharing next year, it will be added to the sum I need to pay back already with the waiving of the previous year, at the same 10% interest rate.

The amount of rev. sharing can increase at any given time at the consent of the league. Considering this, if I make 40 million dollars and only pay 15 million of that to rev. sharing, it could rise to 30 million into the rev. sharing pool at consent of the league. Overall, alot of money can go back to the league for this one proposal.



So what does the league think.... this one time proposal will only go into effect if the league consents. There are no tricks that can be played. This is straightforward. The league can get alot of extra money to help teams like Kansas City and Tampa Bay get on a fair level playing ground.

Some of my conditions that would make this work are summarized above. In addition here's why I think we should approve this:

First the revenue sharing plan could really not move forward without the cooperation of the Mets. They could have made a case that this should not be in place until next offseason, but have agreed to the plan due to the benefits it brings to the league.

Second it just makes sense. The short term affects are small... the most affected team if I'm figuring correctly will be KC, which will receive 2-3 million less this year. They will make that back, plus 10% interest a year (not exactly that amount if you want to be technical, because it's not compounding interest ), and they will receive a larger revenue sharing payout each season for the life of the league. This means a 2 or 3 million reduction this year for KC could lead to that much or more additional revenue sharing EACH YEAR for as long as revenue sharing is in place. I can't see a bad side to this, as the worst case scenario is that the teams getting revenue sharing gets that money back plus interest.

Third, he mentions a loan, but I don't really see it as that. It is really just another piece of the puzzle in getting the revenue sharing started this year instead of next. This plan was first brought to my attention some time ago after it became clear we would begin revenue sharing this offseason. It was somewhat dependant on how they did financially, which is why it is just now being brought up, and they are pretty close to where we wanted them to be at this time. Also, if we had waited till next year the Mets would have their cash from this year (60-80) million, plus whatever profits he generated next year, which without looking to much into I'd guess at between 20-50 million. So really an arguement could be made that this amount be more. There were additional rules like this included in the revenue sharing plan, like no team paying into revenue sharing be left with less than 15 million, and potentially allowing teams to cut a player at no cost when the plan escalates to the next step.

So to sum it up, I agree. The plan makes sense, the short term cost is small, and the long term benefit to the league is quite a bit more. In addition it is a very proactive move on the Mets part as a move to help them somewhat offset the affects of revenue sharing, and close the gap on their hometown rivals the Yankees.

I have no objections, It looks well thought out and beneficial to the league.

As long as it's fair to those who want to try to build a new stadium after it's all said and done, I'm ok with it.