12/21/24
April 27, 2006
Players demand back wages: Owner fires entire team.
This is the most non important issue, $650.00 you make money at your real job. Just play ball. If I had nothing to lose I would play for free. You don't get paid for beer league softball games. Spilled milk!
posted by BigSpizznizzle at 10:05 PM on April 27, 2006
Also, that owner seems like a real piece of work. Asked about Stokes' job security, LaMunyon responded: "The coach hasn't been silly. The coaches have been very good." To say the least. Silly? If I had nothing to lose I would play for free. That's good, cause no one's gonna pay to watch you play softball. These players were being paid to play, regardless of the level of competition, which makes them different than you. So play for free. What other choice do you have?
posted by justgary at 10:28 PM on April 27, 2006
I don't play soft ball, I was putting there local arena team in the same catagory as beer league softball. We have a nifl football team where im from. The National champs the Tri City Fever. Many friends on the team. They don't play for the money, they play for fun. We have played 5 games were 4-1 we have had a different Q.B every game and still win. Not saying these guys are pushovers or anything. But this particular brand of football is as recreational as a softball team, thats all.
posted by BigSpizznizzle at 11:04 PM on April 27, 2006
Regardless, if someone is willing to pay them, it's no longer recreational. Play for fun, fine, but most rec players would gladly take money if someone threw it at them. Once someone decided to pay them money and sign them to a contract, they left the air of "rec football/softball/basketball" behind, no matter their skill level.
posted by justgary at 11:09 PM on April 27, 2006
This is truly a case of the media trying to get us to do what we are doing. Wich is fine. It is very recreational, they have open tryouts most people make it. The games are great I love our team. But come on, they threatend to not play over the money so she had to get new players. To tell you the truth the fans who don't read the local paper won't notice, the parody is that even. Im not saying she isnt a total sleezball, just the angle of owner fires whole team in refusal to pay back wages is overexaggerated. If it were a sugnifficant amount of income, it would be a job protected by many many labor laws. She would go staight to jail. So obviously it is legaly a rec. activity
posted by BigSpizznizzle at 11:28 PM on April 27, 2006
If it were a sugnifficant amount of income, it would be a job protected by many many labor laws. Labor laws only protect large amounts of income? Since when? From the second link below: "I have concerns that federal laws regarding workplace safety are being violated. And I have concerns about the solvency of this team and this league..." She would go staight to jail. So obviously it is legaly a rec. activity No she wouldn't. It's the owner's word against the players. More. And more.
posted by justgary at 11:51 PM on April 27, 2006
So why doesn't LNI step in she is by far not invincible. Her word means nothing. If they did not recieve wages, for federal taxable income that is illegal and she would go to jail. There must be something else going on
posted by BigSpizznizzle at 12:14 AM on April 28, 2006
my first comment was premature, upon reading more facts, it is definitely more serious than I thought. But it just doesn't make any sense at all. It is still beer league level, however they deserve due respect just like me and you.
posted by BigSpizznizzle at 12:25 AM on April 28, 2006
I am sick of these primodonna pro athletes, what is next, they'll ask for the team to pay their way to games?
posted by MassNole at 07:53 AM on April 28, 2006
Yeah...I'm sick of people wanting to get paid for a job they've done or are doing, which was established in a written contract! These kind of people suck! If I sign an employment agreement with a company, then I expect to work for free, just for fun, even if I am supposed to be getting paid for it according to my employment agreement!
posted by bkdet at 10:09 AM on April 28, 2006
Wow.. This is one of the more ignorant threads I've seen. Just because they play football they shouldnt be paid? I mean these guys make less than some one working at walmart for Gods sake. These guys got families to feed and its Spilled Milk??? What a utterly retarded comment. Not everyone has mommy and daddy with their hand out. MAN UP YOU LITTLE WOMAN.
posted by Robb Dubbs at 10:29 AM on April 28, 2006
If the people at Wal-Mart are making more money then these bozos then these losers should get a job at Wal-Mart. If they have families to feed then get out and get a job and get over being NFL wannabees. They should GROW UP!!!! No matter how you look at it, sports at ANY LEVEL sure beats working for a living.
posted by joromu at 11:19 AM on April 28, 2006
As much as I've come to dislike the players' unions for their contribution in putting ticket prices for major league level sports out of the reach of JQP, I guess this goes to show how a bunch of unrepresented jocks will fare without one. Sound just like how things used to go in the old days in baseball and hockey when the balance of power was still way over on the owner side.
posted by hb74147 at 11:32 AM on April 28, 2006
As much as I've come to dislike the players' unions for their contribution in putting ticket prices for major league level sports out of the reach of JQP Please explain how players' unions are responsible for ticket price levels.
posted by yerfatma at 11:35 AM on April 28, 2006
What do you mean, "No matter how you look at it," joromu? Try this one: You have a family to feed, and a profession that you've worked at literally all your life, since childhood. It's hard work, and you risk getting seriously hurt every day (and your health insurance, should something go wrong, is far from comprehensive). You're not the best at what you do, but you're good enough to get paid for it. Then one day, the owner of the organization you work for starts bouncing your paycheck. Then she makes excuses for why she's not able to pay you for the services you've already provided her. When you go public with this news, she blames you for the problem and fires you (and all your co-workers, who are in the same boat as you) rather than pay you for the work you've already done. I'd say that is working for a living, joromu. And I know these guys aren't the Enron Company Softball Team, but that doesn't mean the owner can get away with not paying them for services rendered.
posted by chicobangs at 11:37 AM on April 28, 2006
Please explain how players' unions are responsible for ticket price levels.
Stratospheric Salaries. Note that I said contributed.
posted by hb74147 at 11:40 AM on April 28, 2006
yerfatma- Because player's unions (as any union should try to do) drive up the average wage of the players they represent, owners need to raise ticket prices. I'm not saying that owners would lower ticket prices without the unions, but at least they have something to point to to blame for the increases.
posted by treak4455 at 12:10 PM on April 28, 2006
Someone break out the supply and demand lecture. Please. Hurry.
posted by bperk at 12:15 PM on April 28, 2006
Spare the hearts and flowers for these wannabees. Don't be taken in by their poor-me additude. Hard working people everyday in this country are thrown out of real jobs and many at an age where they are too young to retire and too old to be hired by someone else. Try putting in a lifetime, 20, 25, 30 years for a company only to be told they are closing or moving. GET REAL!!
posted by joromu at 12:21 PM on April 28, 2006
posted by gradys_kitchen at 12:23 PM on April 28, 2006
Just so we're clear: you think that owners would charge lower prices for seats if players got paid less. Is that correct? Given a pro sports franchise is a business and the purpose of a business (in the abstract) is to maximize revenues, you cannot be right. A couple of quick thought experiments: 1. If they players played for free, would ticket prices be $0 (or just enough to cover break-even costs)? 2. If we put a $200 million team in a small city and that team went 0-162, would the owners charge big dollars for ticket prices?
posted by yerfatma at 12:24 PM on April 28, 2006
I think ticket prices are at the levels they are because the owners price tickets as high as the market will bear. If people flat out refused to buy these overpriced tickets and let it be known why they are not buying them and the attendance started to fall we might see something change, but until then nothing is going to change. Also, teams are not relying on the individual tickets as much as they used to, they are are counting on corporate sales for the vast amount of ticket sales.
posted by joromu at 12:29 PM on April 28, 2006
Here's a great (as usual) bit by King Kauffman that's related to the supply and demand lecture, but not to the topic at hand: David Ortiz's new contract has made parking too expensive at Boston gas stations! The fans speak.
posted by Amateur at 12:32 PM on April 28, 2006
joromu, I know this is a losing battle, but -- here's where "real" is. Despite what the news networks may tell you, the vast majority of companies actually don't close and leave their workers unpaid and in the cold. Most companies, in fact, make sure their payroll checks don't bounce, and bargain in some form of good faith with their employees, whether they're unionized or not. If you had a bad experience with a company that broke a law by not paying you for work you did, well, I'm sorry to hear it. But that would put you in the same boat as these guys. Sports may be fun to play, even for little pay, but a job is a job, and we have centuries of labor law in this country that says if you work for a company, you get paid for that work. Since the Civil War ended, that's been true (at least in theory and in law) for everyone in the US. If the owner can't balance her books, her employees and their families shouldn't be the ones left to starve.
posted by chicobangs at 12:33 PM on April 28, 2006
Someone break out the supply and demand lecture. Please. Hurry. Owners will charge whatever the market will bear, regardless of the quality of the team and in direct proportion to the stupidity loyalty of the fan base. See Example #1 and Example #2 for more information.
posted by wfrazerjr at 12:56 PM on April 28, 2006
"Just so we're clear: you think that owners would charge lower prices for seats if players got paid less"
Left alone players and owners are only going to keep on trying to maximize their revenue. The 3rd party that always gets left out of the equation is the local goverment along with their consituents the taxpayers. Pro sports franchises are subsidized by John Q Public via their facilities, capital contributions, tax breaks and use of local infrastructure. By way of reward owners and players put ticket prices out of the average man's means and if he wants to watch it on the tube he'll have to pay for some sort of specialty channel (and sometimes even the radio broadcast now).
I think that the next city that is getting strongarmed by a franchise that wants this or that or they'll move needs to make some demands for better access for Joe Average Fan before they subsidize them in any way. Crap they ought to extract a huge licencing fee from them while they're at it for permission to fleece public the way that they do.
I think if we all were really smart we'd dial down our love for all these millionaires a bit and move price of being a fan waaaaay down that supply and demand chart. Either that or we need to start a movement for sports socialism. Down with the bourgeoise owners and players! Power to the proletariat sports fan!
posted by hb74147 at 12:59 PM on April 28, 2006
Left alone players and owners are only going to keep on trying to maximize their revenue. The 3rd party that always gets left out of the equation is the local goverment along with their consituents the taxpayers. Pro sports franchises are subsidized by John Q Public via their facilities, capital contributions, tax breaks and use of local infrastructure. By way of reward owners and players put ticket prices out of the average man's means Name all of the famous Marxist economists, quick! Just one, huh? Guess there's a reason for that. Players + owners = supply John Q. Public, your salt-of-the-Earth everyman who never gets a decent break = demand Your problem is the other JQPs around you can afford to pay those amounts for tickets (more accurately, the companies they work for can and then write them off as expenses) and then you get priced out of the market. Don't blame those fatcats in Washington, proud Proletarian. Start hacking away at your fellow workers. La Lucha Continua! /ambles away, whistling "The Internationale"
posted by yerfatma at 01:13 PM on April 28, 2006
"Your problem is the other JQPs around you can afford to pay those amounts for tickets (more accurately, the companies they work for can and then write them off as expenses) and then you get priced out of the market."
I'm happy enough to let things go to the highest bidder as soon as cities/governments stop subsidizing and rather take their fair share of the cut. Ok maybe I won't be happy, but I'll at least quit bitching about it.
posted by hb74147 at 01:29 PM on April 28, 2006
Spare the hearts and flowers for these wannabees. Don't be taken in by their poor-me additude. Hard working people everyday in this country are thrown out of real jobs and many at an age where they are too young to retire and too old to be hired by someone else. Try putting in a lifetime, 20, 25, 30 years for a company only to be told they are closing or moving. GET REAL!! That has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. These guys weren't just let go after years of service...they were denied wages for past services and then fired when they demanded that payment. This has absolutely no relation to layoffs that happen at companies like GM...those guys got paid for everyday they worked. These guys did not. This does NOT go on around this country every day. This rarely happens with any business above a mom and pop shop.
posted by bdaddy at 01:33 PM on April 28, 2006
Owners will charge whatever the market will bear, regardless of the quality of the team and in direct proportion to the stupidity loyalty of the fan base. Didn't this get also get proved with the an MLB team several years back (I think the Pirates)? They raised ticket prices (which they justified by increased player wages)...hardly anyone was showing up, so they lowered ticket prices again. The fans create the ticket prices by what they are willing to pay. Salaries have no affect on it. In fact, if people stopped coming in droves, player salaries would plummet..so it's the other way around.
posted by bdaddy at 01:37 PM on April 28, 2006
I'm happy enough to let things go to the highest bidder as soon as cities/governments stop subsidizing and rather take their fair share of the cut. The subsidies you rightly decry would be sunk costs to an owner and would not (greatly) affect ticket prices. Only marginal costs should change the price.
posted by yerfatma at 02:03 PM on April 28, 2006
Most everyone would rather sit behind a desk, then put on a helmet and bash your head against some one else for a low wage then to spit in your face they bounce the Check. Come on can you blame these athletes for trying to make something out of themselves. I mean Kurt Warner Super Bowl MVP came from a league similar to this one. THE DREAM NEVER DIES. Just the checks might....
posted by Robb Dubbs at 03:14 PM on April 28, 2006
Kurt Warner came from the A.F.L., wich is not the same, if do your research. You will find in the afl, they make real money, it IS there job. In the nifl it is for fun. If you were exceedingly poor, like myself, you could not afford, cleats,gas,time off from your real job, or anything else involved in the extra expences. The people who play are more "well off" than lower class america. There has been no meals lost. They were ripped off, but wouldn't she go to jail if she deprived 50-75 players primary source of income? Wouldn't the irs know if they were paid or not? What about the B.B.B. Or anyone are we the only ones who know?
posted by BigSpizznizzle at 05:59 PM on April 28, 2006
wouldn't she go to jail if she deprived 50-75 players primary source of income? Primary or not, it's income. She's not-paying them for contracted work they've already done. She's on the hook for that money. If she doesn't pay up, she risks having that money garnished in some other fashion, or going up on fraud charges or being on the receiving end of a lawsuit. Who cares how "well off" they were, or where they went to school or grew up or anything? She broke a contract. She either has to buy these players properly out of their contracts, or deal with the mess in court. Which could be vastly more costly, not just to her bank balance, but to her living arrangement.
posted by chicobangs at 06:56 PM on April 28, 2006
Chico I agree but I just was focusing on the over exaggeration of there league. They are nowhere near pro's. She is a scandalous person,..... who ripped off some guys. She should and probably will be punished. Primary or not is the exact deception that made this story in the first place.
posted by BigSpizznizzle at 02:25 AM on April 29, 2006
lol
posted by defrag3x at 01:21 PM on April 30, 2006
Wow. I take it the NIFL doesn't have a players' union. Also, that owner seems like a real piece of work. (Who's going to go see these replacement guys play? Is there that much loyalty to the league, as opposed to the team, that she can get away with an ungrateful and frankly idiotic stunt like this, even partially?) If you're so insolvent that you can't find five grand to cover your team's wages, then maybe you're not solvent enough to run the team. I don't see any winners here.