It’s been quoted often that the owners signed deals that didn’t make sense for them, but that now they don’t have to.
The players therefore should be putting their money where their mouths are, but they don’t have to sell the farm to do this.
They could save face and sign the CBA thusly:
1:Elect a stiff luxury tax, something like 90% on 38 m teams give or take, with big increases beyond that.
2:Look at other inflationary measures such as arbitration.
3:Gaurantee these measures against cost escalation in the second year of the CBA and work out an agreement for refunding of the shortfall by 80% with owners picking up the rest making it a partnership, but one the players wanted so they pay more for.
The first year would really find out if the league would improve under a luxury tax and address the owners needs; as the players say it would. If there's no shortfall the luxury tax system stays in place.
But if the weaknesses do show up; which remember the players think won't, they’re shown to be having an insurance policy.
In a nutshell if they’re so convinced of their system, this is a way that would allow them to try their system, but give the owners some peace of mind with a fall back and it's not outright guaranteeing it all, which also for some reason seems to be a black word with the Union.
Or is this stupid….and why?!
|