RP> You're offering a half-truth at best.  Are you trying to tell me that
RP> the Pittsburgh Pirates are making money?
The worst that any team is doing is paper losses. With what they get back
in taxes, even the most "unprofitable" team makes money.
RP> Free agent salaries have inflated payrolls to the point where the
RP>  payroll alone exceeds the total operating expenses of 10 years ago.
Of course, revenue also exceeds what it did 10 years ago.
RP>  Media?  You mean the press?  Is the press paying free agents?
Don't act like you don't know. The media, TV and radio, pay them a
pretty good sum of money. It may not be NFL-type money, however, it's
better than they deserve.
RP>  Do you mean merchandisers?  You completely lost me on this line of
RP>  --ahem--reasoning.
I didn't even mention it but they did make money, albeit less than
before, in merchandise.
RP> Huh?  Isn't that kind of backwards?
Baseball pays what it can afford. Take way media income and they will
lower salaries (and players won't have a choice but to accept what
they're offered).
RP> I have no idea what you mean by "profit maximization.  Please
RP> elaborate.
I'm talking about teams like Montreal that claim hardship and yet, manage
a $7.1 mil profit BEFORE they fill out their tax returns. Rather than
funnel that into re-signing their free agents, they cut salaries even
more in a effort to make even more profit. Those kind of teams don't
deserve revenue sharing.
RP> We'll see how it works out for San Diego.
It worked enough for them to make even more money this year than they
did last year (and they WILL make more profit) and they should see an
increase in revenue next year.
RP> Despite success on the field, the Oakland Athletics eventually had to
RP> unload most of their high profile/high salary players.  Canseco,
RP> Henderson, Eckersly, Stewart--
Baloney. NOT ONE of the people that you mentioned were let go because of
economic reasons. Stewart and Henderson (this last time) were allowed to
leave because what they wanted wasn't in line with what the team felt
they were worth. If they were still playing at the same level as they
had been playing previously, Oakland wouldn't have thought twice about
re-signing them. Canseco was traded for players that made MORE than he
did and Eckersley was traded because LaRussa wanted him (and he would
have been retained if LaRussa hadn't made the offer).
RP> Sure, Oakland treated the Raiders very well.  Sued the Raiders in 1982
RP> and lost, at great expense.
They sued the Raiders AFTER they made it know that they were going. If they
had given Davis what he wanted, they would have spent far LESS and they
wouldn't have been thrown out of office years later when they tried to get
Al to come back and the voters felt that the money was better spent on other
areas of the city.
RP> You need to reread your NFL history texts.  In 1982, when the
RP> Oakland Raiders left Oakland, Al Davis had not made any complaints
RP> whatsoever to the City of Oakland/Alameda County.  He had made money
RP> hand over fist there for the entire time he owned the team (which, if
RP> I'm not mistaken, is the entire time the team has existed).
Sorry, Russ, but you're way off. First off, Al didn't own the Raiders for
many years and the team lost a lot of money during its early years (They
wouldn't have made it if the AFL hadn't bailed them out). In the second
place, Davis asked for renovations and luxury boxes in order to stay in
Oakland.
The problems with the game lie squarely with the owners and NOT the players. 
The players have bent over backwards to get an agreement and the owners have 
blocked it at every turn. When the owners get their act together, the game 
will be back on track (Like that's ever going to happen soon).
--- TrekEd 1.00
---------------