This is probably obvious, but doesn't it seem ridiculous that they would put the game at risk for these issues?
I know this is not a rational process, but there seems like some really obvious compromises on these issues:
1 - Revenue Sharing - How about a plan that steps up revenue sharing over the life of the CBA (say 5 years), from current levels up to 40%, with the Union's formula for distributing the funds to low revenue clubs and the Owner's salary floor.
2 - Competitive Balance Tax - kill it. This is the dumbest part of the Owners' proposal. It is just so blatantly a challenge to the Union that it cripples the negotiations. The owners are just not strong enough right now to push what is effectively a salary cap.
3 - 60/40 debt rule. Negotiate outside the CBA, in a concession to the owners.
4 - Commissioner's Discretionary Fund. Negotiate outside the CBA. I actually think there is a good idea in this, but it should not be at the Commissioner's personal discretion. It is too complicated and contentious, and has such limited immediate impact, why try to negotiate it as part of the CBA?
5 - Drug Policy - The Union should give in. The small print can protect the players. This is a potential PR disaster for the players.
6 - Arbitration - I think the union is talking out of both sides of their mouth when they oppose any restriction of !QUOT!free market!QUOT!, and then try to protect themselves from !QUOT!flooding the market!QUOT! with arbitration players. They should allow this rule modification. It would make a free-market statement that supports their position on the luxury tax.
7 - Central Information Bank - Kill it. Is this really the reason why they can't compete in Kansas City? This is not a core issue.
If these really are the issues, then it just makes me more angry that they would rather strike than compromise on these issues.Most people are not particularly well informed on either the history of the game / ownership, current economics, or the realities of the legal system.
The owners are entitled to their wealth? Well, most of them are using public facilities, bought and paid for with public funds (that is you and me).
The History of the game shows that the owners have done everything possible to use the players for their own financial benefit. Through the 1960s, most ballplayers had to work a winter job just to make ends meet. As I said, in an earlier post, the nickname !QUOT!blacksox!QUOT! came not because of the scandal, but because Charles Comisky would not pay to have the players' socks laundered.
Ball players are a unique commodity. It is truly unfair to compare them to other workers. A true comparison would be to show business folks. When you make that comparison (and the comparison goes very deep, think of the minor leaguers making very little money and eating at McDonalds...Think of the entertainers playing the lounge in the Holiday Inn in Watertown, Iowa), check the payroll for Britney Spears or Ricky Martin, not Joe Sixpack. BTW, if you think that Chipper Jones or one of the Anaheim Angels is in the big bucks, you ought to check out Ted Turner's or Mike Eisner's 1040.
BTW, I've been a union worker most of my life, but unless someone proves that Forbes Magazine is lying and not the Major League owners, I have to rate the owners' credibility as .5 on a scale of 1 - 100.
Sorry about the rant, but gosh, the owners' position is so bogus, it makes me sick. I'm leaning on the side of the players, yes, I would hate to see a strike. Lets keep one thing in mind it isn't necessarily the greed of the players, its owners as well.
