View Single Post
Old
11-13-2003, 11:05 AM
  #17
discostu
Registered User
 
discostu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
How? The pay cut does not produce a less favourable CBA, and they know the luxury tax will be rejected because the owners are not interested in revenue sharing.
How do you know that a luxury tax solution will never be accepted by the owner? They won't accept a tax right now, because they're still pushing for the cap. This is how a negotiation works.

Their initial offer is that of a hard cap. They claim they will not sign a deal that doesn't have a cap, or cost certainty, if you prefer their euphemism.

The players are offering a luxury tax, likely a weak one. They claim they will never accept a salary cap.

Now, if we take both sides claims as absolute truths, then there is no compatable solution. The lock-out will continue indefinitely.

The more realistic solution is that this negotiation will occur like nearly every negotiation in history. A solution will be reached somewhere in-between, probably a soft-cap at a higher payroll level, or a stricter luxury tax that is currently being offered by the players.

Why are you so confident that the owners won't accept a luxury tax? Do you think the players are more likely to back-down than the owners?



BTW, a luxury tax and revenue sharing are two very distinct items, and shouldn't be used interchangeably.

discostu is online now