Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 18, 2012 16:18:27 GMT -5
After a long and drawn out process that required lots of research, listening, complaining and opinions it has been determined that the best course of action for the Paramount Baseball League is to reduce the budgets in order to get the financials of the league back to a realistic fashion that will eventually lead into the owners fully controlling their teams budgets.
We have struggled mightily to find the most accurate and fair way of doing this so every team is placed on an equal playing field (in terms of compromising), which is often very difficult when considering market sizes, owner personalities and the competitiveness or lack of by some of the team that you put on the field. However, after giving it much thought, I came to a conclusion that I think can satisfy the majority and a way of putting each team on an equal playing field for the moment.
No matter where you play and the type of owner you have, there are really two things that matter the most. The first is the most important and that is winning. Owners around the league want to win, because winning means money. The other is attendance, which coincides with winning. Putting people in the seats means higher gate revenue, better television deals, higher merchandising and concession sales as well.
So on that, I have decided to follow my original decision of taking the 3-year average budget from every team to determine what your budget for the 2017 season will be. Some teams could see a budget decrease or increase. The results are another $154,732,000 will be removed from the league from last season which eventually will help out the free agent pool even more.
To be fair to all teams, I have made an exception to the rule. If you have had your winning percentage increase over 3-consecutive seasons AND your attendance has ALSO increased as well for 3-consecutive seasons then you will not be subject to this years budget modification.
I think this is more than fair to all sides. First it goes with what everyone has been saying for a long time now and that is budgets are getting too high while also rewarding those teams who have been building upon their success each season and could be working their way to a higher market. Some owners pointed out in big discussion thread that Philadelphia and Oakland were two teams in completely different markets that seen them go the opposite way in terms off attendance, market size, etc based up winning and losing in real life so why shouldn't it happen in the PBL.
With this exception in place, there were only 5-teams that will not be subject to the budget modifications and their budgets will remain what they are currently set at. Those teams are the Baltimore Orioles, Colorado Rockies, Houston Astros, Miami Marlins and Pittsburgh Pirates.
Once I figured out what teams would not be subject to the modifier, it made me think I made the right decision.
Baltimore is a team that has gone from worst team in the leagues (63 wins in 2014) to almost .500 (76-86 in 2015) to one of the elite teams of 2016 (100-62) and leading them to their first 100 win season since 1980. A slight budget increase (+$6M this season over last makes sense).
Houston, after struggling in the PBLs first 4 seasons have turned it on and since the move to the American League have become one of the best the league has to offer by making the playoffs the past two seasons via the Wild Card. I can see the owner wanting to give them an increase in budget to finally get them over the top.
Colorado is kind of the exception to the rule a bit if there were one as they were among the PBL Elite from 2010-2013 before having a set back in 2014 but fortunately for them they started to build themselves back in and fall into this category. Still they were a playoff team this past season so a budget increase/stability is fair.
Miami and Pittsburgh are both in the same class. Two small market teams making its way up to mid-markets having constant raises in attendance and more importantly winning percentage and both are the class of the PBL.
I hope everyone can agree with this decision and you all see the reasoning behind it all.
*Carolina and Portland will be based on 2 year averages since they came into the PBL during the 2015 season
We have struggled mightily to find the most accurate and fair way of doing this so every team is placed on an equal playing field (in terms of compromising), which is often very difficult when considering market sizes, owner personalities and the competitiveness or lack of by some of the team that you put on the field. However, after giving it much thought, I came to a conclusion that I think can satisfy the majority and a way of putting each team on an equal playing field for the moment.
No matter where you play and the type of owner you have, there are really two things that matter the most. The first is the most important and that is winning. Owners around the league want to win, because winning means money. The other is attendance, which coincides with winning. Putting people in the seats means higher gate revenue, better television deals, higher merchandising and concession sales as well.
So on that, I have decided to follow my original decision of taking the 3-year average budget from every team to determine what your budget for the 2017 season will be. Some teams could see a budget decrease or increase. The results are another $154,732,000 will be removed from the league from last season which eventually will help out the free agent pool even more.
To be fair to all teams, I have made an exception to the rule. If you have had your winning percentage increase over 3-consecutive seasons AND your attendance has ALSO increased as well for 3-consecutive seasons then you will not be subject to this years budget modification.
I think this is more than fair to all sides. First it goes with what everyone has been saying for a long time now and that is budgets are getting too high while also rewarding those teams who have been building upon their success each season and could be working their way to a higher market. Some owners pointed out in big discussion thread that Philadelphia and Oakland were two teams in completely different markets that seen them go the opposite way in terms off attendance, market size, etc based up winning and losing in real life so why shouldn't it happen in the PBL.
With this exception in place, there were only 5-teams that will not be subject to the budget modifications and their budgets will remain what they are currently set at. Those teams are the Baltimore Orioles, Colorado Rockies, Houston Astros, Miami Marlins and Pittsburgh Pirates.
Once I figured out what teams would not be subject to the modifier, it made me think I made the right decision.
Baltimore is a team that has gone from worst team in the leagues (63 wins in 2014) to almost .500 (76-86 in 2015) to one of the elite teams of 2016 (100-62) and leading them to their first 100 win season since 1980. A slight budget increase (+$6M this season over last makes sense).
Houston, after struggling in the PBLs first 4 seasons have turned it on and since the move to the American League have become one of the best the league has to offer by making the playoffs the past two seasons via the Wild Card. I can see the owner wanting to give them an increase in budget to finally get them over the top.
Colorado is kind of the exception to the rule a bit if there were one as they were among the PBL Elite from 2010-2013 before having a set back in 2014 but fortunately for them they started to build themselves back in and fall into this category. Still they were a playoff team this past season so a budget increase/stability is fair.
Miami and Pittsburgh are both in the same class. Two small market teams making its way up to mid-markets having constant raises in attendance and more importantly winning percentage and both are the class of the PBL.
I hope everyone can agree with this decision and you all see the reasoning behind it all.
*Carolina and Portland will be based on 2 year averages since they came into the PBL during the 2015 season