It looks like a strike is now going to be a reality. All that optimism was proven (like I thought it would be) to be nothing more than wishful thinking. http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0824/1422352.html Owners accuse union of 'regressive bargaining' By Darren Rovell The tenor of the negotiations between baseball management and players turned very sour on Saturday, just two days after both sides optimistically expressed hope of reaching an agreement before the union's Aug. 30 strike deadline. After a 10-day delay, the union presented its counter-proposal on revenue sharing and the luxury tax, which management's top labor lawyer Rob Manfred characterized, in a conference call, as a sign of "raw, regressive bargaining." The owners and players now appear headed for their ninth work stoppage since 1972. "We were led to believe that the delay was due to the fact that they wanted to make a meaningful step towards an agreement," Manfred said. "That's why we had been so patient over the last 10 days." In what Manfred called "the most disappointing aspect of the proposal," the union proposed a phase-in revenue sharing plan, where the money shared would increase each year until it reached a total transfer of $240 million in the fourth year of the agreement. "The proposal was clearly not regressive," union head Donald Fehr said, in a separate conference call. "It was forthcoming in the tax area, both in rates and on thresholds. It was a proposal in their direction on revenue sharing, both on a number of technical matters that they felt important about and about the overall amounts." In the union's proposal, total revenue sharing in 2003 would equal $172 million ($3 million more than the current plan), $195 million in 2004, $217 million in 2005 and $240 million in 2006. All along, management said it believed that the players were advocating a transfer of $238 million in each year of the agreement, as Manfred said he hadn't even heard about the principal of the phase-in type proposal until Aug. 4. Fehr's opinion differed, saying the clubs had known about possible proposals for a phase-in for months. Because of the phase-in, the union proposes to share $116 million less over the life of the agreement than what management had previously thought. "When they were making the proposal, it was not made in a way that suggested that even they thought it was going to be a positive," said Manfred, who noted that the presentation of the proposal included a "monologue" from union head Donald Fehr regarding his perception about the state of negotiations. Management advocated $268 million in each year of the agreement, which now brings the total difference revenue sharing transfer over the life of the agreement to $248 million, instead of the $120 million that was believed to have been the difference. "My absolute nightmare scenario was that he was going to come back and say, 'Let me bridge the difference between my 236 (million) and your 268 (million) over the first couple years of the deal,'" Manfred said. "Not that he was going to say, 'I can't get to your number, plus I've decided to phase my number in over four years.'" Although there was a revenue sharing phase-in in the last agreement, Manfred said that was due to the fact that there was no revenue sharing prior to the 1995 season. The union did agree to lower the luxury tax threshold by $5 million per year. Under those terms, the luxury tax threshold (including the 40-man roster and benefits) would be $125 million in 2003, $135 million in 2004 and $145 million in 2005. The union proposed that teams exceeding the threshold in 2003 would pay a 15 percent tax. "The $125 million (threshold in the first year) will hit the Yankees and graze one other club, that club being Texas," Manfred said. "They moved around in a zone of thresholds where the tax doesn't hit anybody." In 2004, a team that exceeded the threshold for a second time would pay a 25 percent tax, while clubs exceeding the threshold for the for the first time would pay a 20 percent tax. In 2005, teams exceeding the threshold for the third time would be assessed a 40 percent penalty, second-time offenders would pay a 30 percent tax, while teams going over the threshold for the first time would pay a 20 percent tax. The union proposed that 2006 be a tax-free year for all clubs. The owners have proposed a luxury tax threshold of $102 million and suggest taxes ranging from 39.5 percent to 50 percent. "We have attempted to accommodate the clubs where we can, to move in directions that they thought were important, where we could, consistent with what the players interests are in this round of bargaining," Fehr said. Manfred said the two sides, which still have to work out details on non-core issues such as a drug-testing program and a worldwide draft, plan to meet on Sunday. "The proposal we received was so out of the realm of expectation that it's going to take us some time," Manfred said. "I can't tell you whether there is going to be a strike. We have not set a deadline, threatened to apply economic leverage to the players, none of that has come from us. It's the players that set the strike date and it's the players that are going to decide whether the game is not going to be played." Darren Rovell, who covers sports business for ESPN.com, can be reached at Darren.rovell@espnpub.com.
I'm hoping for a work stoppage. The last thing baseball needs is yet another band-aid in the form of a CBA that will last for 5 years and will result in another showdown between players and owners... Blow the current agreement up now and fix it for good. If the entire next season is a goner for it, that's fine. In the long run baseball will be much better off. And yes, I am a baseball fan and would miss the game, but if it means no more discussions about luxury taxes and revenue sharing in the future, i'm all for it! I'd rather be discussing ARod's MVP deservedness or if Soriano can reach 40/40 this year rather than money issues! but if we don't fix the problems for good, we'll always be talking $$
Please don't ever post in a baseball thread ever again. To go into a thread you KNOW will be populated by baseball fans and say something like that just makes you look like an ass.
Texas newspaper boycotts baseball coverage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press Originally published August 24, 2002, 9:40 PM EDT HUNTSVILLE, Texas - The Huntsville Item has decided, after a poll of readers, not to run any coverage of major league baseball until Friday's strike deadline. In its Sunday editions, the newspaper reported: "Item readers have spoken. Asked to strike or not to strike, 82 percent of you said, `Let's strike.' So, The Huntsville Item is going on a pro baseball strike." There will be no stories about the Houston Astros or Texas Rangers or any other teams, no game reports, no boxscores and no major league baseball standings. The paper plans not to cover baseball until Friday. The self-imposed strike would be lifted if an agreement between owners and players is reached before then. The newspaper asked its readers last week how they felt about a baseball strike. Of 100 people who called, faxed or e-mailed, 82 said they support a boycott of baseball coverage, the newspaper said, and 18 said baseball coverage should continue. Among those in favor of a one-week boycott was Ronnie Choate, former athletic director at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville. He told the newspaper he hopes there is a baseball strike as well, because, "That way, the current big-leaguers would be gone, replaced by hungry, younger players who take the field because they love the game." Finding something to fill the sports section won't be a problem because high school football season in Texas starts Friday, managing editor David Arkin told The Associated Press Saturday night. "Ordinarily, we'd have to be trying to find more space for football coverage. Some people will miss baseball, but football rules here. Now, we've got more room for football, and I think our readers are going to be fired up about that," Arkin said. The idea about the newspaper's strike of baseball arose a week ago, he said. "Several of us were just sitting around last Saturday night after deadline. We disagreed with it (a strike) and someone said, `why don't we ask our readers,'" Arkin said. So sports editor Tom Waddill and Arkin wrote columns asking how the readers felt about a newspaper boycott of sports coverage. "We're a small paper and ordinarily don't get such a response, but the first day we were pretty much overwhelmed," Arkin said. Huntsville, 70 miles north of Houston, has a population of 35,000. The newspaper's circulation is 7,000, Arkin said. I don't think I agree with this stance. Newspapers are a media outlet that are supposed to report the news without any form of a slant (except for editorials, of course). Isn't it the duty of the Sports section of a newspaper to report all sports news, regardless of the opinion of the staff and public? Of course, since a poll was taken and the consumers (i.e. readers) chose to not have baseball coverage in their newspapers, I guess its ok. But for the minority that still wants baseball coverage, this is unfair. Some people depend on newspapers as their lone source of info (no internet, no cable tv) and to not have baseball coverage is unfair for them. personally, i like the idea of a "preemptive fan strike" on baseball, but i think that should be each fan's individual choice, not one made by the media for the fans. If I want to strike against baseball, I would just not read the baseball coverage in the paper! Any thoughts?
The newspaper is a private enterprise. They don't have to cover anything they don't want to, including baseball. If this is what they have decided to do then more power to them. That's America. Just because you do not cover something does not mean you are giving a slant on it. Perhaps they have no sportswriters who could comment on the subject objectively in the face of a strike. In that case they are being responsible in refraining from coverage.
Sure they don't have to do anything they don't want to. But by not printing the news, are they not shirking their responsiblities as a news source for the city? As I said earlier, there may be baseball fans that rely on this paper as their sole source of information and they are no longer getting this information. The consumers may not be getting the product they're paying for (info about baseball) but by refraining from coverage, i believe the newspaper heads are putting their personal slant on the news... the reason they're not reporting on baseball is because they are upset about the impending baseball strike, just like the rest of us. However, in their job, is it not their duty to put the practice of providing information ahead of putting their feelings about their disgust with baseball's executives? not reporting on baseball and sportswriters not writing about baseball are two different ideas. To merely print box scores and statistics on a daily basis is all I am asking for. If sports editors don't want to write columns about baseball, the union, the strike, or the players, that's perfectly fine. But to refrain from printing scores and stats seems unfair to me. by the way, please don't take my arguments as anything but mere boredeom and desire to play devil's advocate... i actually like the idea of a newspaper taking a strike against baseball... its somewhat similar to Bucky Godbolt's (AM Sports Radio host in Austin) baseball strike which started August 1, which consists of him saying "No comment" whenever any baseball topic is discussed by callers. But, he has a co-host that talks baseball when callers want the opportunity to do so. In Huntsville, some people don't have the choice. If I lived in Huntsville and had no internet connection, cable tv, or other news source, i'd be going batty right now! sure i'm upset about the strike, but i'm still a fan of the game itself and want to know the outcomes of games played.
I see your point, and I don't totally disagree with you. Do I think it is poor form? Yeah (actually it's kida silly). Is it shirking responsibility? Not at all. I'd feel differently if the newspaper had gotten complaints from their readership.
