Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: RE: cubs go to court
Message-ID: <470@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Jan-85 10:21:07 EST
Article-I.D.: fisher.470
Posted: Mon Jan  7 10:21:07 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 03:11:48 EST
References: <1005@ihuxe.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 150

>>Instead of railing against the unfairness of pressuring the Cubs to
>>play night games, Cub fans ought to ponder the unfairness of the Cubs
>>sharing the profits of a TV contract which demands night games during
>>the week yet claiming exemption from its responsibilities.  The Cubs
>>COULD have raised the issue beforehand, and presumably could have
>>negotiated with the league and the networks to be get such a waiver,
>>presumably at the price of part of their cut of the contract being
>>used to reimburse the networks should the Cubs win.  They did not.
>>
>>Protestations against being pressured to play night games while
>>cheerfully accepting the profits made possible by other clubs  playing
>>night games has more than a hint of hypocrisy.  If Cub management (and
>>fans) wish to impress me with their sincerity, let them refuse their
>>share (or some portion thereof) of the profits they get from the
>>networks for baseball holding weekday playoff/championship games being
>>played at night.
>>
>>						David Rubin

>May the Mets croak off in a plane crash.

Happy New Year to you, too!

>I can't believe anyone would dare write such an uninformed article. I
>knew New York wasn't exactly in touch with America's heartland, but
>I was shocked to realize they are actually in siberia. Listen carefully
>now while I explain reality.

Goodness, I'd say we're at the beginning of an ad hominum attack.  In
net.baseball, too!  Is courtesy dead even here?  Besides, I am writing
from New Jersey, and from closer to Veteran's Stadium than to Shea.

>You forget that the Cubs are not playing day games by choice.
>The Cubs management has been trying to change local and state
>ordinances against night baseball for years now. Thats because they felt
>the Cubs were doing so poorly all those years by being worn down by all
>those day games. Apparently, only because the Cubs are suddenly in the 
>limelight has siberia become aware of recent attempts to change the laws.
>Unfortunately the local inhabitants have so far prevented these cases from
>succeeding.

They certainly are playing day games by choice.  They are not legally
obligated to play their home games at Wrigley Field, and simply
reminding the appropriate authorities that this is the case would
probably suffice to have such restrictions lifted.  Does Chicago
really want the force the Cubs to move to the suburbs...or worse?  I
have as much sympathy with the neighborhood folks near Clark and
Addison as I do for the folks who buy homes near an airport which
later expands.  Sure, it's a real pain and inconvenience, but they
KNEW there was that risk when they moved there.

>So now, tell me why the cubs shouldn't receive their share of revenue?
>Is it because the cubs are a class organization and are in the business of
>providing entertainment and the league is Big Business and only cares
>about profits?

If weekday night games bring more revenue to the major league clubs,
and if the Cubs refuse to play weekday night games, why should the
Cubs receive a reward for other teams more profitable policies?  The
Cubs are too "classy" to play night ball but are not too "classy" to
accept money for other teams doing so, eh?

>By the way, the cubs have no power in negotiating their own tv contract
>as you infer they should have down before the fact. The league board controls
>such contracts. And they were caught with egg on their face for agreeing to
>a contract that allowed the networks to pay less for day games. It is the 
>board's responsibility to be aware of the ramnifications. They are suppose
>to represent the best interests of the league. Obviously they must have
>been satisfied with the contract(or gambled that the cubs wouldn't make it
>to the playoffs). So now whatever revenue is brought in as a result of this
>contract should be fairly divided between all teams(which they represented).
>Otherwise next you'll be telling me teams with small ballparks should be given
>a smaller share because they bring in less revenue compared to a team which
>plays in a large ballpark. Or you'll be telling me teams with a small 
>following(ie Minnesota) should receive a smaller share than teams with a large
>following(ie Dodgers) because their tv ratings won't be as high. Right.
>That cold up there in siberia must really be slowing your thinking 
>process(note that the plural form was intentionally left off).

I'm all for redistribution of baseball wealth to preserve some balance
(even though the Mets have the third largest cable TV profit---behind
the Braves (of course) and the Cubs), and do not wish to penalize a
team for playing in a small market.  But the Cubs play in a small park
during the day in a large market by choice, and I see no reason why
the Twins should support Chicago's lighting tastes.  Had the Cubs
clearly stated their opposition to any requirement for night games to
the Commissioner's Office while the contract was being negotiated,
they could have compelled Kuhn to negotiate a contract with a waiver
provided for the Cubs, so long as the Cubs were willing to accept a
wee bit less than more accomodating franchises.  The league board does
not negotiate against the interests of the franchises...

>You forget, the contract does not demand night games. It provides different
>revenue based on when the playoff games are held. This was agreed to by all.
>So why now are the Mets fans renigging on the deal they made? They should 
>have done so before the fact. They did not. What right do they have to change
>the contract after the fact and dish out more or less revenue for various
>teams as they see fit? 

Hey, Bowie didn't let me in on the negotiations.  Anyway, it seems to
me if, say, the Twins are willing to help all teams increase their
revenues, and the Cubs are not, they DESERVE a larger share of the
procedes.  It's hard to get worked up into an egalitarian frenzy when
some bake the bread and some just demand to eat it. Besides, the Mets
and everyone else are not reneging, as they would fulfill their
financial obligation to other teams by playing weekday playoff games
at night.

>This apparent Mets attitude is a disgrace to baseball. Baseball should not
>be a big business charging for their product to maximize profits. 
>Rather it should be providing a service. But I have no sympathy for Mets fans
>who cannot enjoy the game as it should be and as it is provided to Cubs fans.

	(1) I speak for myself, not the Mets or other Mets fans (and 
	    your insulting response is, fortunately, atypical of Cubs
	    fans).
	(2) Clubs playing night games during the week are maximizing
	    their services.  More people can attend them, more people
	    can watch them.  
	(3) I can enjoy the product as presented at Wrigley; in fact
	    when I was an undergraduate at U of Chicago, I often made
	    the trip up to Wrigley.  Of course, had I held a job at
	    the time, it would have been physically impossible to do
	    so during the week.  Even as a student, my schedule often
	    forced me to take in my baseball at Comiskey.
	(4) All owners treat baseball team ownership as a business,
	    even the Chicago Tribune.

Make no mistake: I prefer day games.  When I go to Shea, it's almost
always on a Sunday afternoon.  But to maximimize services, a ball club
ought to schedule its games so that the guy who's employed but not
free to skip out can still come to the park.

>Robert

>PS. I did not mean to put down all Met followers. Just one in particular who
>is not a true baseball fan.

Well!  I've been called all sorts of things in other newsgroups, but
nothing more offensive than "not a true baseball fan" right here, in
what was once the last refuge of good will.  To disagree with Robert's
world view on baseball evidently disqualifies me as a "true" baseball
fan.  Perhaps Robert is more out of touch with the "heartland" than I
am; most of the Cub fans I've known have loved a good baseball argument,
and could carry one on without denigrating their opponent.  A "true"
baseball fan is stimulated, not offended, by intelligent dissent.  Of
course, Robert may think I'm an idiot...

						David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david