Steinbrenner makes mockery of baseball's rules

[HuckleB]

Steinbrenner makes mockery of baseball's rules

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05009/439068.stm

"The revenue-sharing provisions of baseball's basic agreement with its players shift an insignificant amount of money from high-revenue clubs to those below the average, and the luxury tax on payrolls above a floating threshold is essentially a nonfactor, as only three teams -- the Yankees, Red Sox and Angels -- have been forced to pay it since the new agreement was signed in 2002.

Would it be too much trouble, do you think, for Selig to point out to Steinbrenner that while they've gentlemanly agreed to call it a tax, the rest of the game's owners meant for the luxury tax to be punitive. It's really a fine. It's there because baseball doesn't want anyone -- anyone -- to have a payroll so excessive that it mocks the competitive basis of the industry.

The speed limit is 65, but that doesn't mean it's OK to do 100 so long as you have enough money to pay the fine. At least not in theory. Selig's rear-window view of all this is tantamount to drawing the curtains on what he knows is a sinister disregard for the good of the game. According to the New York Times, the Yankees could, with a payroll expected to break the $200 million barrier, pay more in luxury tax this year than some teams pay in player salaries. The Yankees paid a 17 percent fine on the difference between the luxury-tax threshold and their actual payroll in 2003, a 22.5 percent fine for a second offense in 2004, and face a 40 percent fine for a third consecutive offense in 2005.

...

Spare me this twaddle about how Steinbrenner's only being his ultracompetitive self within the established system. He's flaunting the system for the benefit of his YES cable network and an insatiable ego that ceaselessly undermines the game.

..."

------------------------------

Say it ain't so, George: Yankees in red?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/09/SPGQCAMLJR1.DTL

----------

DEBATABLE: Are baseball's payroll disparities right?

http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2005/01/07/local_sports/iq_3305621.txt


:shrug:

[Osamasux]

1. It really does make a joke out of the game.

They screw up with signings and trades as much as anyone, but then just go out and buy another player so who gives a damn. They really will be paying 40% over the contract for anyone else they sign this year, which helped keep him away from Beltran, but their payroll is already triple what it reasonably can be.

They have all that TV revenue. They were blackmailing cable stations to pay ridiculous sums for the right to carry his Yes network, which is basically 162 4 hour Yankees games, 90 three hour Nets games (including playoffs) and 7,800 hours of filler. They get a ton of cash from merchandising. They enforce their logos vigorously. I have seen cops pull up to street vendors in NY. A civilian will get out, inspect the guy's merchandise, then the cops will confiscate only items with a Yankees logo.

[madrchsod]

2. selig is a whore

for the cubs and the east coast-red sox,mets, and yanks. the last team i enjoyed watching was the cards when they played small ball years ago...remember when no one hit over 45 home runs,they knew how to hit and run,bunt,steal home, play defense,and sammy sosa was a skinny guy who couldn`t field or hit...

[autorank]

3. Time to take away the anti-trust exemption.

Anyway, football is now America's game of choice. Having the Commissioner and an owner be one and the same person for years was enough to justify trashing the special exemption.

I'm an ex-New Yorker who was an avid Yankee fan. New York sports fans finest moment was when the crowd at Yankee Stadium changed "F..k Steinbrenner" over and over. Priceless.

[HuckleB]

4. Yes, the exemption should go.

Football is indeed America's TV sport of choice, but one really can't compare the two beyond that, when one plays 10 times as many games as the other each season.