|
|
Post by guest2 on May 15, 2017 0:34:06 GMT -5
So the value of a player's opinion is solely based on how many tournaments they've won? Good to know. Based on that, guess the only opinion that matters is Kerri's. Absolutely, or if not wins then at least some measure of marketability, Suzanne Stonebarger's opinion probably having more value once upon a time than John Mayer has now for example. The value of a player's opinion is directly related to either: 1) How much money he can generate for owners or the sport he plays 2) The degree to which he can influence others For Robbie 1 is zero and 2 is also zero (or maybe he brought Kolinske to the cause) Just as you would not take seriously a McDonalds manger demanding $350,000 per year, it is unreasonable to expect the AVP to make significant concessions to players who have no economic value and no infludence - like Robbie. Kerri is, without question, the player with the most value to an organization and is entitled to concessions based on that, as shown by her previous contract. Obnoxious mewling aside, Kerri is one of maybe six players whose opinion Donald Sun actually needed to listen to (although I think Kerri's actual complaints are "I dont have enough power or money" rather than the Karen Silkwood BS she has been spouting.) She overestimated that value, but I am sure Sun would have made some concessions to her, at least in terms of money had they been more reasonable. In this case though, Robbie's opinion is not de facto stupid because its his - although it is worthless for that reason - his specific opinion here is stupid because he hasn't won anything or generated money and neither have any but a few of the other players. To exhaust an analogy, Robbie is a fry cook who wants a raise ad a 35 hour work week but who keeps burning the fries. |
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on May 15, 2017 0:42:24 GMT -5
So the value of a player's opinion is solely based on how many tournaments they've won? Good to know. Based on that, guess the only opinion that matters is Kerri's. Absolutely, or if not wins then at least some measure of marketability, Suzanne Stonebarger's opinion probably having more value once upon a time than John Mayer has now for example. The value of a player's opinion is directly related to either: 1) How much money he can generate for owners or the sport he plays 2) The degree to which he can influence others For Robbie 1 is zero and 2 is also zero (or maybe he brought Kolinske to the cause) Just as you would not take seriously a McDonalds manger demanding $350,000 per year, it is unreasonable to expect the AVP to make significant concessions to players who have no economic value and no infludence - like Robbie. Kerri is, without question, the player with the most value to an organization and is entitled to concessions based on that, as shown by her previous contract. Obnoxious mewling aside, Kerri is one of maybe six players whose opinion Donald Sun actually needed to listen to (although I think Kerri's actual complaints are "I dont have enough power or money" rather than the Karen Silkwood BS she has been spouting.) She overestimated that value, but I am sure Sun would have made some concessions to her, at least in terms of money had they been more reasonable. In this case though, Robbie's opinion is not de facto stupid because its his - although it is worthless for that reason - his specific opinion here is stupid because he hasn't won anything or generated money and neither have any but a few of the other players. To exhaust an analogy, Robbie is a fry cook who wants a raise ad a 35 hour work week but who keeps burning the fries. One word: bullsh!t. I mean, it's highly likely my record on the AVP is better than yours, so my opinion matters more, right? To answer my own question, no, it really doesn't. My point is that y'all are ripping Page not on the merits of his point, but simply because he isn't a star. I just don't agree with that. |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on May 15, 2017 2:13:44 GMT -5
Absolutely, or if not wins then at least some measure of marketability, Suzanne Stonebarger's opinion probably having more value once upon a time than John Mayer has now for example. The value of a player's opinion is directly related to either: 1) How much money he can generate for owners or the sport he plays 2) The degree to which he can influence others For Robbie 1 is zero and 2 is also zero (or maybe he brought Kolinske to the cause) Just as you would not take seriously a McDonalds manger demanding $350,000 per year, it is unreasonable to expect the AVP to make significant concessions to players who have no economic value and no infludence - like Robbie. Kerri is, without question, the player with the most value to an organization and is entitled to concessions based on that, as shown by her previous contract. Obnoxious mewling aside, Kerri is one of maybe six players whose opinion Donald Sun actually needed to listen to (although I think Kerri's actual complaints are "I dont have enough power or money" rather than the Karen Silkwood BS she has been spouting.) She overestimated that value, but I am sure Sun would have made some concessions to her, at least in terms of money had they been more reasonable. In this case though, Robbie's opinion is not de facto stupid because its his - although it is worthless for that reason - his specific opinion here is stupid because he hasn't won anything or generated money and neither have any but a few of the other players. To exhaust an analogy, Robbie is a fry cook who wants a raise ad a 35 hour work week but who keeps burning the fries. One word: bullsh!t. I mean, it's highly likely my record on the AVP is better than yours, so my opinion matters more, right? To answer my own question, no, it really doesn't. My point is that y'all are ripping Page not on the merits of his point, but simply because he isn't a star. I just don't agree with that. Record on the AVP in what respect? In terms of knowing whats going on with a lot of things, your opinion would certainly be more likely to be informed. I'm ripping Page for both reasons but the two are intertwined. If Donald treats Kerri and Robbie the same, then it can be bad business and rude in one respect and just fine in another. For example if Kerri came in and asked for 50k to play AVP this year in addition to prize money, then the appropriate reaction would be to consider it, talk it over with Kerri, and maybe pay. If Page did the same, giggling would not be out of line, chuckling would probably be ok, and only an aggressive belly laugh would really cross the line. I think the level of consideration he expects from the AVP is not appropriate for someone who is barely a main draw player and has no following. I see his whining as one more indicator of something that has handicapped the sport forever, that being whiny, entitled players. If Robbie was standing up for Casey Patterson then fine, his opinion may have some merit, but as regards himself, a player who is more likel to go uno dos than finish 7th, it does not. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on May 15, 2017 13:19:53 GMT -5
Of course the better players have more pull with the AVP. OTOH, I don't think anyone should sign a contract that they don't think is fair. And FWIW, fair include both compensation but also contractual limitations like a non-compete. I give this guy credit for standing up against a contract that he doesn't believe is just. Takes some guts and is a lot harder to do when you are not a big name.
|
|
|
|
Post by haze on May 15, 2017 13:56:49 GMT -5
Pretty sure Pages problem with contract comes down to player control and not monetary compensation. The kid is 24, coming off an indoor career, trying to learn the beach game in multiple environments, and looking for competitive environments to get better. It's not like the avp is giving these players 10+ tournaments, and he surely wasn't the only young no name to not agree with the contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by ardatak on May 15, 2017 14:18:17 GMT -5
Yup. His statements should be judged based on their own merit. Not how much he wins. Also, he's not asking for a raise. He's just objecting to being limited in terms of which tourneys he's allowed to play in, which if you think about it, is more meaningful to a mid-tier player while simultaneously, less detrimental to the AVP.
|
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on May 15, 2017 14:48:37 GMT -5
Pretty sure Pages problem with contract comes down to player control and not monetary compensation. The kid is 24, coming off an indoor career, trying to learn the beach game in multiple environments, and looking for competitive environments to get better. It's not like the avp is giving these players 10+ tournaments, and he surely wasn't the only young no name to not agree with the contract. Page does have control. Choice A. a company has put together a compensation package, they just would like a non compete. Choice B. don't play for company A and do what you want. What Page (and others) want is to take company A's money, and also others. Maybe people are confused, the AVP is not the governing body of beach volleyball. I would be interesting if USAV came out and said something like "If you are an USAV member, you are qualified to enter any USAV sanctioned event" |
|
|
|
Post by acemand23 on May 15, 2017 14:57:29 GMT -5
As soon as there is another viable option in the market, AVP will lose all players, and they deserve it. AVP is a brand, nothing more, it does not represent beach volleyball players anymore. The only people that are loyal are brand fans and players almost ready to retire. The sport needs a big shift and when AVP goes under, hopefully, from the fall will rise a better tour platform that is not as worried about its brand.
Any player that stands up against signing their rights away should be praised....
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 15, 2017 15:11:22 GMT -5
The problem is, another viable option in the market will NOT come up.
Professional sports in the US survive because the stars make huge concessions to the borderline or journeyman players - the Pages of the NFL, NBA - via salary caps/minimums, veteran-friendly CBAs, etc. (which are all basically giveaways from the top potential earners to the lesser players of no value because they know they need a full league to generate any value). The problem is, the pie isn't big enough for anyone not named Kerri to make an economic concession of any meaningful value (and Kerri is choosing not to do so at this time). The AVP is the only path forward to building that pie to be big enough and rather than make concessions to the only person providing the necessary start capital, they're choosing to say no with no actual plan forward. It sounds an awful lot like "Repeal and Replace the AVP" to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on May 15, 2017 15:15:59 GMT -5
Pretty sure Pages problem with contract comes down to player control and not monetary compensation. The kid is 24, coming off an indoor career, trying to learn the beach game in multiple environments, and looking for competitive environments to get better. It's not like the avp is giving these players 10+ tournaments, and he surely wasn't the only young no name to not agree with the contract. He was the only young no name not to agree to the contract. Everyone else signed. |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on May 15, 2017 15:18:19 GMT -5
The problem is, another viable option in the market will NOT come up. Professional sports in the US survive because the stars make huge concessions to the borderline or journeyman players - the Pages of the NFL, NBA - via salary caps/minimums, veteran-friendly CBAs, etc. (which are all basically giveaways from the top potential earners to the lesser players of no value because they know they need a full league to generate any value). The problem is, the pie isn't big enough for anyone not named Kerri to make an economic concession of any meaningful value (and Kerri is choosing not to do so at this time). The AVP is the only path forward to building that pie to be big enough and rather than make concessions to the only person providing the necessary start capital, they're choosing to say no with no actual plan forward. It sounds an awful lot like "Repeal and Replace the AVP" to me. That isn't why pro sports leagues make concessions to the lower tier players. They do so because those other sports have unions where the lower tier players get equal voting rights. Lower tier players get concessions because they are union members not because the NBA couldnt fill the league out with fat guys from the Y and still make money as long as the top 30 guys played. Agree absolutely with the rest though |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 15, 2017 15:21:57 GMT -5
The problem is, another viable option in the market will NOT come up. Professional sports in the US survive because the stars make huge concessions to the borderline or journeyman players - the Pages of the NFL, NBA - via salary caps/minimums, veteran-friendly CBAs, etc. (which are all basically giveaways from the top potential earners to the lesser players of no value because they know they need a full league to generate any value). The problem is, the pie isn't big enough for anyone not named Kerri to make an economic concession of any meaningful value (and Kerri is choosing not to do so at this time). The AVP is the only path forward to building that pie to be big enough and rather than make concessions to the only person providing the necessary start capital, they're choosing to say no with no actual plan forward. It sounds an awful lot like "Repeal and Replace the AVP" to me. That isn't why pro sports leagues make concessions to the lower tier players. They do so because those other sports have unions where the lower tier players get equal voting rights. Lower tier players get concessions because they are union members not because the NBA couldnt fill the league out with fat guys from the Y and still make money as long as the top 30 guys played. Agree absolutely with the rest though ... it is why the top players agree to participate in the players unions which in many ways go against their interests... |
|
|
|
Post by haze on May 15, 2017 15:23:06 GMT -5
Pretty sure Pages problem with contract comes down to player control and not monetary compensation. The kid is 24, coming off an indoor career, trying to learn the beach game in multiple environments, and looking for competitive environments to get better. It's not like the avp is giving these players 10+ tournaments, and he surely wasn't the only young no name to not agree with the contract. Page does have control. Choice A. a company has put together a compensation package, they just would like a non compete. Choice B. don't play for company A and do what you want. What Page (and others) want is to take company A's money, and also others. Maybe people are confused, the AVP is not the governing body of beach volleyball. I would be interesting if USAV came out and said something like "If you are an USAV member, you are qualified to enter any USAV sanctioned event" Yea he does have control. He choose B, and people are making fun of him for it. Pretty fn stupid. The comparison doesn't even relate from USAV and beach volleyball. The AVP is the strongest beach volleyball entity we have. I'll use the word "strongest" rather loosely. It doesn't have all the best players and it's dictating it's employers. I'm going to go ahead and use the tem "employer" rather loosely. It's fine if the AVP wants to control where it's employers play. They have that right. Page has the right to not play. The ironic thing is dome people are ridiculing him about it. I'll just chalk both sides up to this is one of the reasons why usa beach volleyball is no longer the worlds creme de la creme, is arguanly ghe worst its been vompetively in 40 years, and has a very questionable future of even existing. |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on May 15, 2017 15:23:17 GMT -5
As soon as there is another viable option in the market, AVP will lose all players, and they deserve it. AVP is a brand, nothing more, it does not represent beach volleyball players anymore. The only people that are loyal are brand fans and players almost ready to retire. The sport needs a big shift and when AVP goes under, hopefully, from the fall will rise a better tour platform that is not as worried about its brand. Any player that stands up against signing their rights away should be praised.... I am curious as to what employment contract or any contract really that you think would not involve someone signing rights away. That's the nature of contracting. You give away rights in exchange for consideration. Also how would the AVP lose the players exactly? What Donald did here that was so smart is he locked them all in before a viable option could arise. Now if one does - incredibly skeptical but hypothetically - there are only three decent players available (Kerri, Brooke, Summer) The rest are locked in for the next four years to the AVP |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on May 15, 2017 15:26:31 GMT -5
That isn't why pro sports leagues make concessions to the lower tier players. They do so because those other sports have unions where the lower tier players get equal voting rights. Lower tier players get concessions because they are union members not because the NBA couldnt fill the league out with fat guys from the Y and still make money as long as the top 30 guys played. Agree absolutely with the rest though ... it is why the top players agree to participate in the players unions which in many ways go against their interests... I was really interested in the NBA negotiations this time around in which player agents basically convinced their lower tier clients to agree to vote in a bunch of stuff against their own interests (the new larger max money for example). Unions used to be in top players interests when contracts were draconian - reserve clauses etc. - but now the union is a brake on the earnings of guys like Lebron, who would get at least 50-75 million a year in any kind of open market. Some very interesting labor issues arising from that, and I would love to see a James Jones sue his agent for recommending he sign a CBA that is so antithetical to his own interests this time around. |
|
