How the new agreement affects the Royals

tk13 · 08-30-2002, 06:33 PM

Here's part of an explanation about the new agreement...and it uses the Royals as an example...

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark...n/1425248.html

Q: So if a team isn't required to use its revenue-sharing money on players, why wouldn't it just stuff the money in its checking account?

A: Because now fans will know it isn't the system's fault and demand better behavior.

By the end of this agreement, the wealthy clubs will have given the middle and small-revenue teams close to $1 billion in revenue sharing along. That doesn't even count any money those clubs will get from the luxury-tax pot.

So let's take a look at how that money would start to add up. Take a team like the Royals. Let's estimate they'll get $20 million a year in revenue sharing in this deal. Add another $25 million in national TV, radio and licensing money. That's $45 million in their money market fund before they sell a ticket.

Then suppose they draw 1.7 million fans. That ought to generate another $50-55 million. We're now looking at a team with close to $100 million in revenue all of a sudden. If a team with that kind of income cuts payroll to the low $40 millions, how can it then turn around and blame it on the system?

How, in fact, can any small-market or mid-market team blame the system four years from now after taking in $1 billion in big-market welfare checks?

"I hope they don't," DuPuy said. "I hope what ends up happening is that no team has an inherent advantage in developing better players or running their team better ... and that every club comes to spring training knowing that if things go right, they have a shot to get to the playoffs and the World Series. That's the objective of this deal."

In the end, though, it was all laid out there between the lines of the agreement, not in them. And that's a potential danger zone we should all keep our eyes on verrrry carefully.

08-30-2002, 06:33 PM	Topic Starter
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $1512500	How the new agreement affects the Royals Here's part of an explanation about the new agreement...and it uses the Royals as an example... http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark...n/1425248.html Q: So if a team isn't required to use its revenue-sharing money on players, why wouldn't it just stuff the money in its checking account? A: Because now fans will know it isn't the system's fault and demand better behavior. By the end of this agreement, the wealthy clubs will have given the middle and small-revenue teams close to $1 billion in revenue sharing along. That doesn't even count any money those clubs will get from the luxury-tax pot. So let's take a look at how that money would start to add up. Take a team like the Royals. Let's estimate they'll get $20 million a year in revenue sharing in this deal. Add another $25 million in national TV, radio and licensing money. That's $45 million in their money market fund before they sell a ticket. Then suppose they draw 1.7 million fans. That ought to generate another $50-55 million. We're now looking at a team with close to $100 million in revenue all of a sudden. If a team with that kind of income cuts payroll to the low $40 millions, how can it then turn around and blame it on the system? How, in fact, can any small-market or mid-market team blame the system four years from now after taking in $1 billion in big-market welfare checks? "I hope they don't," DuPuy said. "I hope what ends up happening is that no team has an inherent advantage in developing better players or running their team better ... and that every club comes to spring training knowing that if things go right, they have a shot to get to the playoffs and the World Series. That's the objective of this deal." In the end, though, it was all laid out there between the lines of the agreement, not in them. And that's a potential danger zone we should all keep our eyes on verrrry carefully.
Posts: 55,050