Page 1 of 3
AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 8:09 pm
by Kapono
Quotes from today:
On salaries and payroll going foward:
“That was a factor. When you look at the salaries over six years, it’s not a bottomless pit. If it was it would be different. It’s like going out to eat and looking at the menu, you don’t even look at the prices on the right-hand side.
“We have to, it’s part of what we’re doing. Ownership has been great, we’ve spent a lot of money on the draft, especially when you look at where we’ve been attendance-wise and what we spent on payroll. I have parameters to work within and that’s fine. That makes sense. And if there’s certain cases, I can make my case to Paul. Trying to fit all those things in and build a sustainable team, that’s the challenge.”
On the loss of income via revenue sharing:
“It’s not impacting us in ’12, but I think in ’13 and beyond it’s going to impact us, certainly we’re going to be receiving less. I don’t get involved in those conversations with accounting, but there’s no question that’s going to be phased out and we’re going to lose dollars there. I’m sure that has some type of bearing and impact.
On team payroll year-to-year
“I understand it all depends on how we do in attendance, things like that. My thought is being able to know what a floor is going forward as a parameter, but it’s never set in stone. I’m always given a, ‘this is an area I’d like it to be’ and if there’s something we need to go over for … with certain cases we’ll jump up beyond that. There’s no questions that there’s areas I’ve been asked to be, and I can work within those areas. Whatever I’m handed to work with, I can make it work.”
Is it just me or the tone in these quotes seem a lot different (and negative if you're a fan) when compared to the quotes from a year and two years ago (constantly saying "we have the green light from Rogers to have a payroll in the $100-120 million when the time is right) ?
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 8:16 pm
by James_Raptors
It definately sounds more guarded and neutral than a few of the past quotes.
What it means for the team and us , down the road, I can only guess.
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 8:23 pm
by Rhettmatic
GloBlair Jeff Blair
Told AA: "Last time I heard somebody talk about payroll parameters so much it was Claude Brochu." He didn't laugh ....
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 8:26 pm
by James_Raptors
Rhettmatic wrote:GloBlair Jeff Blair
Told AA: "Last time I heard somebody talk about payroll parameters so much it was Claude Brochu." He didn't laugh ....
Funny and not very funny at the same time, unfortunately.
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 8:28 pm
by satyr9
I think it sounds more guarded and neutral 'cause Beeston's "the money will be there" quote led to a couple billion press inquiries about Prince and is probably generating a significant amount of fan expectation that he doesn't expect to fulfill. I doubt Rogers projections or budgets changed in the last couple weeks.
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 8:42 pm
by sule
I blame it on the new CBA
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 8:48 pm
by Double Helix
What I don't understand is that things seem to be substantially on the up, no, in comparison to the JP/Paul Godfrey years?
They spent then. Why not now?
With Bautista going on 32 next year and coming off a historic offensive season, the retro looks returning, and the new wild card spot on the horizon, it seems like this coming season more than any other over the past decade should be the one to spend large.
And, yes, I realize that they spent a hefty sum to keep Bautista but I'd still like to see another splash. You can sense the optimism in the city. There's a hunger for that next step that hasn't been there for a while amongst casual fans and those are the ones Rogers needs to bring in right now.
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 8:51 pm
by darth_federer
We need a permanently stickied payroll/ Rogers thread
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 9:14 pm
by torontoaces04
If anyone was listening, I was the 1st one on today with Bobcat on PTS. McCown really isn't holding his punches back about the Jays.
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 9:18 pm
by Kapono
torontoaces04 wrote:If anyone was listening, I was the 1st one on today with Bobcat on PTS. McCown really isn't holding his punches back about the Jays.
What did he say?
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 9:25 pm
by torontoaces04
Kapono wrote:torontoaces04 wrote:If anyone was listening, I was the 1st one on today with Bobcat on PTS. McCown really isn't holding his punches back about the Jays.
What did he say?
-I put a lot of the blame on Rogers, talking about 11 years of hollow promises
-He countered with his standard line "I've been told when the time is right, the money will be there"
-He places the blame on AA and Beeston for not spending now
-Bobcat believes the time to spend is now
-Signing Prince is not only a good move statistically, but shows the fans you are serious about contending
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 9:25 pm
by Kapono
torontoaces04 wrote:Kapono wrote:torontoaces04 wrote:If anyone was listening, I was the 1st one on today with Bobcat on PTS. McCown really isn't holding his punches back about the Jays.
What did he say?
-I put a lot of the blame on Rogers, talking about 11 years of hollow promises
-He countered with his standard line "I've been told when the time is right, the money will be there"
-He places the blame on AA and Beeston for not spending now
-Bobcat believes the time to spend is now
-Signing Prince is not only a good move statistically, but shows the fans you are serious about contending
I agree 100% with him
AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 9:46 pm
by CapeCrusader
Hopefully Rogers does to.
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 10:06 pm
by JunkYardSubs
Seriously, the return value of signing Fielder is so much higher than his salary
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 10:11 pm
by dagger
It would be interesting if the problem isn't so much Rogers as two employees who have been raised in a culture of frugality and can't think in different terms. A good businessman knows he has to invest to make more money. A Fielder signing would sell tickets and create audience for the televised broadcast. If you don't like Fielder, slot in another name. Jose Reyes ended up signing a six year deal with the sixth year only partially guaranteed? Not a 7-8 year contract like AA and Beeston keep telling the world they won't give. You mean we could have had Reyes for only a little more than the contract we gave Bautista?
When someone says we'll spend more when the revenues are there, I wonder if that really means we'll never spend because the revenues aren't there.
Why not be honest. Just tell us the Jays won't ever sign a big ticket free agent, that the team is going to depend entirely on organic growth even though the new CBA incapacitates that strategy to a degree, especially looking 3-4 years out.
Just tell us we are Tampa Bay North, and try to explain to the fans why a city with an 8 million person catchment basin extending into Western New York and a healthy economy can't spend more to make more.
Just tell us why a team with this demographics needed revenue sharing in the first place.
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 10:27 pm
by JMH
put it this way:
sign fielder and I will go to 85 percent of the games even if its just using a fanpass that in any other circumstance I wouldn't buy. I will also spend money on food, drink and merchandise at ever game I attend. But don't sign fielder and I will attend 5-10 games on the season, without spending money on anything else because I don't want to give my money to a team who won't give back.
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 10:30 pm
by Rhettmatic
ShiDavidi Shi Davidi
Jays prez Paul Beeston says revenue-sharing changes in new CBA will not affect team spending. "The CBA has not changed anything."
More Beeston: “We’re still capable of going to the US$120m payroll once we start drawing the people. ... The formula hasn’t changed."
37 seconds ago
"Once we start drawing the people." Go away, Beeston.
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 10:31 pm
by MikeM
So does that mean we can go to 100M without the people?
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 10:32 pm
by dagger
Amazing sight, cart running front of horse.
He really must think we're all idiots.
Re: AA's change of stance on "payroll"
Posted: Tue Dec 6, 2011 10:34 pm
by Trilogy
Rogers won't take a leap of faith and that is the problem.
They want to see the fans come back and then spend as opposed to putting trust into the fans coming out if they dole out the dollars beforehand.