View Single Post
Old
11-17-2003, 03:53 AM
  #36
discostu
Registered User
 
discostu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The point is that you cannot have one without the other. Since the players know the owners don't want anything to do with revenue sharing, they can offer a luxury tax and be certain the owners will turn it down flat. Just like they can offer a 5% cut and know the owners will turn them down flat.
First of all, you seem to think that none of the owners want anything to do with transfer payments (i.e. a tax or revenue sharing), which is false. Right now, they are pushing for a solution that doesn't need such a system. THey want a cap at a salary level so low, that no team is dependant on such a system to make it work.

However, many of the owners would welcome a transfer payment system, since they will be on the receiving end of it. If it's a luxury tax system, then so much the better. They'll be receiving money, and there will be downward pressure on salaries. As long as you can make a majority of the owners happy, such a system will be accepted.

In addition, the owners already have a transfer payment system in place now, it's called the Canadian Equalization Plan. They seemed okay with approving it before, why is it such a stretch that it may come into place under the CBA.

But, you say it's impossible. You seem to have a crystal ball that indicates what the owners will or will not accept. Since you have this crystal ball, why don't you tell us how these negotiations will end up. You seem to criticize anyone else's opinion on where these negotiations are going to go, so here's your chance to give your 2 cents on the matter. If the owners will never accept a transfer payment system (i.e. revenue sharing or a luxury tax), then what direction will the negotiations go? Where do you see both sides ending up?

discostu is online now