The Compromised Solution.

[dmworks]

Acting as an outside arbitrator for a moment here, real quick-n-dirty:
The Players have recommended a loose luxury tax system.
The Owners, a salary cap linked to revenues.

As an Arbirator I would suggest the following:

*A moderately restrictive luxury tax system, with a threshold based upon revenues.*

This would be the best starting point for further negotiations.
The points of further negotiation:

1 - Base threshold Team Payroll (Owners $31m, Players $40m-50m)
The most obvious choice would be to find some middle ground here where the luxury tax would kick in.

This amount could be adjusted, say if team or league revenues rise or fall, then the Team Payroll threshold could do likewise.

Arbitrator suggests: Meet in the middle for a viable option.

2. The luxury tax (Players have suggested 20%-30%, Owners 100%+)

Arbitrator suggests: Side with the owners on this point. Anything less than a dollar-for-dollar tax would be ineffective and a waste of paperwork.

3. Owners would also like to add restrictions to or remove salary arbitration options.

Arbitrator suggests: further negotiation regarding details.

4. Both would agree on more restrictions for entry level contracts, specifically reducing or elimination of various bonus clause options.

Arbitrator suggests: further negotiation regarding details.

Concessions:

Players offer 5% roll-back on salaries.
Arbitrator: Respectable offer, players may want to increase to 10% or greater in exchange for further concessions from the owners.

Owners offer more free agency options.
Arbitrator: Somewhat reasonable, but may prove to be counter-productive in the long run. Be wary of 'signing bonus' as a loophole. Might have to protect owners from themselves on this one.

Arbitrators Conclusion:
A salary cap is nothing more than the equivalent to an exceptionally restrictive luxury tax system. The parties are currently engaged in media banter in an attempt to pressure one another into further concessions. A poor strategy and will prove hurtful to both parties and the industry as a whole. There is no reason the two parties should not be back at the negotiation table.

Click to read more...

 

[BLONG7]

Well thought out, for both sides... the problem is that Knob Goodenow and Gary are not willing to budge off of their current positions... Personally, I think the union is in for a tough haul this time, and they would do well to fire Knob and get on with the realization tha the BIG gravy train has left the station, and that they will still be very well compensated, but in a restrictive setting where the owners are protected from big losses and the fans are protected from rising ticket prices(there already outrageous) and where the GAME will survive.

 

[dmworks]

As a business man:
I'm dissapointed in both parites. Neither one is negotiating in good faith. They are both playing the "look the other guy is being unreasonable so why bother" card.

I've settle enough disputes to realize that assiging blame is useless. It doesn't matter if either parties believes one another's assesment of the facts and figures. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong. The only thing that matters is that both parties 'agree to disagree' on their principals and then try to find some middle ground.

Otherwise, simply declare an impasse, define terms again and start negotiating from there.

Anyway you slice it, if you're not at the table, you're not solving the problem.


As a hockey fan: I'm tired of the theatrics, stop telling me what and why you're doing things and just do them already.


To quote the movie 'Die Hard':
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Quit being part of the problem and put the other guy back on the phone..."

 

[Clutch Mediocrity]

Interesting. You make that proposal yourself?

 

[thinkwild]

I dont really see the compromise you're proposing.

Why is anything other than a 100% tax useless? If you want to deter spending, id suggest nothing less than a 700% tax will do it.

What is the purpose of this tax?
- to stop spending,
- to raise money,
- to only allow the very rich to spend?

If they raised the GST to 100%, would you increase spending or decrease it? Shouldnt you try and find the level that provides the most money for redistribution?