Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Cubs envoke $1 buyback for World Series Rings (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=238559)

bn2cardz 04-20-2017 09:07 AM

Cubs envoke $1 buyback for World Series Rings
 
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...aign=editorial

For those not reading the article, this doesn't apply to the players.

I think this is a good move on the part of the Cubs. I could see why the Organization would want to hold control over these if they were the ones investing in them.

The questions I have is if there is a time limit on this restriction and does it carry over to the family of the recipient in a case of them passing away?

Also from a speculative mind how quickly will someone disregard this and sell theirs and fight it out in the courts?

edit: Added info to avoid confusion on who this applies to according to article.

Topps206 04-20-2017 09:11 AM

I actually disagree with this. The players earned them. Thet worked hard for them. They should be able to do with their ring as they wish.

Bestdj777 04-20-2017 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Topps206 (Post 1652447)
I actually disagree with this. The players earned them. Thet worked hard for them. They should be able to do with their ring as they wish.

It's not the players, just the staff. That said, I am not sure I agree with it either. I can see why the team wants to do it, but the idea of gifting it with that condition is troubling to me.

bn2cardz 04-20-2017 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestdj777 (Post 1652450)
It's not the players, just the staff. That said, I am not sure I agree with it either. I can see why the team wants to do it, but the idea of gifting it with that condition is troubling to me.

I just don't think there is an issue. They are essentially saying "if you would like a ring you have to promise us you won't sell it." My friend works for an MLB team and last time they won the WS he had to buy his own. In that case it makes sense, to me, that he would have full rights to the ring.

PM770 04-20-2017 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestdj777 (Post 1652450)
It's not the players, just the staff. That said, I am not sure I agree with it either. I can see why the team wants to do it, but the idea of gifting it with that condition is troubling to me.

If you have this condition in place, you didn't give anyone anything. You are just letting them borrow it. Its not really theirs.

packs 04-20-2017 09:43 AM

I don't agree with it at all. Don't give the employees rings if you're just going to claim you own them anyway. A ring is meant to be valuable otherwise it wouldn't be made with the stones they make them with. It would just be steel. Why dangle something like that in front of people?

Bestdj777 04-20-2017 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PM770 (Post 1652462)
If you have this condition in place, you didn't give anyone anything. You are just letting them borrow it. Its not really theirs.

Questionable. There is a discussion about the Cubs paying the taxes on the rings for their lower level employees, implying the team thought they were actually conveying something of value (not just lending) to their employees. If it was a loan, I doubt there would be a discussion of taxes. It's probably a gift, just one with a built in option to purchase it back, which is weird but understandable.

Topps206 04-20-2017 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz (Post 1652461)
I just don't think there is an issue. They are essentially saying "if you would like a ring you have to promise us you won't sell it." My friend works for an MLB team and last time they won the WS he had to buy his own. In that case it makes sense, to me, that he would have full rights to the ring.

There are no rings without the players. It's their hard work, their labor. They are the ones who ended the long drought and produced on the field, having to overcome a 3-1 deficit in the World Series, not to mention other big playoff comebacks.

As someone who lives in a suburb outside of Chicago, the Cubs are owned by greedy people. When the White Sox won in 2005, they got their rings with no strings attached.

bn2cardz 04-20-2017 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Topps206 (Post 1652470)
There are no rings without the players. It's their hard work, their labor. They are the ones who ended the long drought and produced on the field, having to overcome a 3-1 deficit in the World Series, not to mention other big playoff comebacks.

As someone who lives in a suburb outside of Chicago, the Cubs are owned by greedy people. When the White Sox won in 2005, they got their rings with no strings attached.

Again you are missing the fact that this doesn't apply to the players. No player had to sign the contract. Players are free to do as they wish with their rings.
This is for the club support people.

packs 04-20-2017 10:25 AM

As an admin I think it's pretty short sighted to say the players are responsible for the championship. The Cubs are ultimately a business and a business depends on its employees. The players are only some of the employees. How do they think they manage to even get to games without the staff supporting them the entire way?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.