Buster: Jays big losers in new CBA revenue sharing deal

[dagger]

We took it on the nose with the draft and Latin talent acquisition.

Now we're taking it on the nose in revenue sharing.

Any doubts now the fans are going to take it up the arse?

Buster_ESPN Buster Olney
View of some officials: Blue Jays will be among teams taking biggest hit with new labor agreement, because of shift in revenue sharing.

Buster_ESPN Buster Olney
Quite simply, an early read on details of labor agreement is that Jays' revenue-sharing checks are being reduced. It's lost income for them.

Buster_ESPN Buster Olney
If TOR concurs with the read that they are impacted by reduction in their revenue sharing checks, it could impact their aggressiveness.

Meaning: We had a large market but low payroll team to begin with and the swindlers at Rogers were also raking in revenue sharing millions. Now, the league has cut off the flow of easy rev sharing dollars and expects the team to generate new revenue streams. Rogers can either spend more on talent to get more fans in the RC, or it can cut back total payroll + player development expenses to make up the shortfall in revenue sharing.

I'd really like to know what fool represented Toronto's interest in these CBA talks?

[Jimmy King]

Aren't you being a little over-dramatic here, without knowing any of the specific details?

[Mattd97]

if only there was some way to make money without league handouts

[rarefind]

if only there was some way to make money without league handouts

Oh yeah, there is that thing called gate revenue. But apparently Rogers doesn't want in on that.

I have no sympathy for them. If you saw how much the Texas Rangers got for their advertisement deal (3 billion over 20 years) one can only imagine how well Rogers is doing on broadcasting the games themselves. Sure, I am sure it hurts a bit; but if Rogers makes it seem that they HAVE to cut back because of this then we are giving them way too much credit.

[Jimmy King]

Where has Rogers said anything about cutting back?

[torontoaces04]

Where has Rogers said anything about cutting back?

I guess you've been living under a rock for the past 11 years. When did they ever start spending? You can't cut back, when there is nothing to cut back from.

Toronto is the 4th largest city in Canada or the US!!!!!! We are in a HUGE market, that is been owned and operated like we're in Des Moines, Iowa.

[dagger]

simmonssteve
@Buster_ESPN 4th largest mkt in North America, filthy rich owners: The Jays should be embarrassed to rely on revenue sharing.

[Raptors Realtor]

simmonssteve
@Buster_ESPN 4th largest mkt in North America, filthy rich owners: The Jays should be embarrassed to rely on revenue sharing.

You'd think... but who's really gonna turn down free money?

[rarefind]

my respect for steve simmons just grew exponentially.

[torontoaces04]

simmonssteve
@Buster_ESPN 4th largest mkt in North America, filthy rich owners: The Jays should be embarrassed to rely on revenue sharing.

Methinks we have a spy! But seriously, 4th largest city, FIIILLLLLTTTTTTHHHYYYYY rich owners!

I'm embarrassed for them, and the embarrassment should start to be setting in for AA.

[ForeverTFC]

simmonssteve
@Buster_ESPN 4th largest mkt in North America, filthy rich owners: The Jays should be embarrassed to rely on revenue sharing.

Amen!

[Jimmy King]

simmonssteve
@Buster_ESPN 4th largest mkt in North America, filthy rich owners: The Jays should be embarrassed to rely on revenue sharing.

You'd think... but who's really gonna turn down free money?

Especially since the origin of the sweetheart deal was the weak Canadian dollar. I think it took Americans a few years to cognitively adjust. Why shouldn't the Blue Jays take advantage of that.

[Randle McMurphy]

Not going to cry for Rogers Communications losing their revenue sharing money that they didn't need or deserve in the first place. Wouldn't be surprised if they used it as another excuse not to spend, though.

[dagger]

A little more insight into the rev sharing aspect of the new CBA

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45554847

The new deal, for the first time ever, disqualifies 15 markets from receiving initial revenue sharing dollars. They are: The Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Cubs, White Sox, Phillies, Blue Jays, Nationals, Braves, Rangers, Astros, Giants and A's (assuming they build their new stadium).

Beginning in the 2013 season, teams on this list can get back a percentage of what they pay in revenue sharing (referred to as a "rebate"). In 2013, those teams would get 25 percent of their money back. In 2014, those teams would get 50 percent of their money back. In 2015, those teams would get 75 percent of their money back, all the way up until 2016, when they would basically get a free pass.

A condition of getting this rebate however is that you couldn't get it if you were paying any sort of luxury tax. And that's the problem. The threshold in 2013 is $178 million and from 2014-2016 is $189 million. Go over that and you'll have to pay at tax PLUS you'll lose your ability to get your rebate, which increases over time.

[ForeverTFC]

The new deal, for the first time ever, disqualifies 15 markets from receiving initial revenue sharing dollars. They are: The Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Cubs, White Sox, Phillies, Blue Jays, Nationals, Braves, Rangers, Astros, Giants and A's (assuming they build their new stadium)

Why these teams? Is it based on Revenue?

If so ...

However, I'm getting the implication that the MARKET itself is the independent variable.