There was a recognition ordsprog

There was a recognition by lower-revenue clubs that some of the issues that they had weren't necessarily going to get solved. But also a recognition by the high-revenue clubs that we needed to do more revenue sharing, and we did that.

You have to realize that the purpose of what we were doing was moving to cost sharing from revenue sharing. Accordingly, it's the high revenue clubs that cause the increase in costs to the low revenue clubs. Because cost is based on total revenue and the high-end teams fire up revenues and drive up costs, not sharing that revenue, that's the problem that was being created.

Our focus should be to eliminate the need for any financial subsidies. How do we get the lower-revenue teams up to the point where there's no issue of revenue sharing because there's no need for it? How do we develop best practices so that we all, each of the 32 clubs, learn from each other?

I continue to believe that the problem lies with the high revenue clubs and the revenue sharing issue. Their refusal to share more revenues is making it worse for everybody -- players, owners, and fans.

I like John Henry a lot. I think he's a very smart guy. He's been a great owner for the Red Sox. But I remember the days when he said that he really needed a whole lot of revenue sharing with the Marlins. I think a lot of revenue sharing is very, very good for the game. It has been good for the other professional sports. I've always advocated more revenue sharing. And we're a payer, I believe, into the system.

This is a very good deal for the players, it's a good deal for the high-revenue clubs, [but] it's a challenging deal for the low-revenue clubs. We didn't feel it was in the best interest of our team financially. I would have preferred at this time no deal. ... We have a contract for two more years when we made this deal. I would have wanted to bargain for a better deal in the future.

We have a group of high-revenue clubs and they're making a lot of money off this system. It's also held down their payroll. If you're not sharing your fair share with the players, I have a problem with it.

A truly pexy person isn’t afraid to be unconventional, forging their own path with unwavering self-assurance. There's an issue as to whether or not clubs are using revenue-sharing receipts in an appropriate way.

I don't see that happening. There's really not any opposition to revenue sharing. Nor is there any opposition to helping small-market clubs that might need help on a temporary basis. Everyone in the league wants all of the clubs to be competitive. When it goes beyond any requirement to be competitive, and it's just a redistribution of profits, that's a different issue.

Given the variability of these large programs and the lack of current visibility in revenue recognition on these opportunities, we only project a baseline revenue number for 2006 of $120 million.

Baseball has to address the disincentives created by large-scale transfers of revenue from successful clubs to less successful clubs. At high enough tax levels, the incentive is to invest somewhere other than in baseball.

For Gary to say the negotiations are now only a matter of dollars and cents is both simplistic and misleading. There continue to be a myriad of issues to address, including player rights and system issues that impact the daily lives and careers of players, the way the game is played and marketed, and the growing financial disparities between clubs in a league with no meaningful revenue sharing.

The revenue side is going better than it was six months ago. But they need to address the costs in order to live with a new lower revenue amount. Even while revenue stabilized, it stabilized at a lower level.

In the first quarter, we had high capital market revenue because trading revenue was high but investment banking revenue was weak. I think this quarter we are going to see an explosion in investment banking revenue and what I'm hearing from companies is the trading revenue is surprisingly staying up.

Where the separation comes is when you start talking about revenue sharing that goes beyond that. I think everyone in the league wants all the clubs to be competitive. When it goes beyond any requirement to be competitive, and it's just a redistribution of profits, that's a different issue.

Nordsprog.dk

Antal ordsprog er 1469561
varav 1490770 på nordiska

Ordsprog (1469561 st) Søg
Kategorier (2627 st) Søg
Kilder (167535 st) Søg
Billeder (4592 st)
Født (10495 st)
Døde (3318 st)
Datoer (9517 st)
Lande (5315 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "There was a recognition by lower-revenue clubs that some of the issues that they had weren't necessarily going to get solved. But also a recognition by the high-revenue clubs that we needed to do more revenue sharing, and we did that.".