After a Saturday night war of words, negotiators in baseball's labor dispute spoke to each other in more civil tones yesterday. Management negotiators even made a new proposal on the key issues of revenue sharing and a luxury tax on payrolls.þþBut the two sides remained significantly apart on one critical element in each plan as well as on numbers in the plans, raising the specter of a strike beginning Friday.þþÿWhile they made some small movements in those areas,ÿ Donald Fehr, the executive director of the union, said of the issues, ÿthe tax thresholds remain very, very low and constitute a big problem for us at this point.ÿþþFehr referred to the payroll threshold that would trigger the tax. The clubs raised their proposed thresholds from $102 million each year to $107 million for each of the first three years and to $111 million for the fourth year. They lowered the tax rates, which are based on each time a team exceeds the threshold, to 35, 40, 45 and 50 percent from 37.5, 42.5, 47.5 and 50.þþThe union has proposed thresholds of $125 million, $135 million and $145 million for the three years they are willing to have the tax, with tax rates ranging from 15 percent to 40 percent. They strongly oppose a tax in the fourth year. ÿThat's a very, very important issue for the players,ÿ Fehr told reporters on a conference call.þþIt's also a very important issue for the clubs to have a tax in the fourth year, and that is one of the critical hurdles the negotiators will have to overcome to avoid a strike Friday, which is the players' deadline.þþThe two sides also disagree on phasing in the revenue-sharing plan. The clubs lowered the amount of money they want to transfer annually from high-revenue clubs to clubs with lower revenue to $263 million from $268 million. The players have proposed $242 million, but only in the fourth year. That amount would be phased in at lower amounts the first three years.þþIt was the union's phase-in proposal that ignited angry words from each side to reporters in conference calls Saturday night. þþRob Manfred, the clubs' chief labor lawyer, called the proposal regressive and did not back off his assessment yesterday. When it was mentioned to him during a conference call that despite that assessment, the clubs moved toward the players with their new proposal, Manfred said, ÿIf they can't manage to make a proposal that corrects the directional problem they had, we will not continue moving toward them.ÿþþFehr indicated that the players would not back off the phase-in part of the plan. ÿPhase-ins are going to be an integral part of this deal,ÿ he said.þþIn describing the union's new phase-in revenue-sharing proposal Saturday night, Manfred noted that the amount of money that would be transferred the first year from wealthy clubs to poorer teams would be flat compared with the amount of money, $169 million, that was moved last year.þþThe actual amount that would be transferred, based on 2001 revenue, would be $172.3 million, but within that similar sum, the wealthier clubs would be hit much harder because of the method under which the money would be collected and distributed.þþLast year's revenue-sharing plan was based on a split pool. Of the money collected, 25 percent was divided equally among the teams below the average net local revenue and the rest was divided equally among all 30 teams.þþIn these negotiations, the clubs wanted a straight pool plan under which all the money placed in the pool would be divided equally among the 30 teams. Under that formula, the clubs that paid out the most money last year would pay out more this year, and the same clubs would basically also have to pay the highest payroll taxes, which they did not have to pay last year.þþBased on the union's proposal, which phases in part of the revenue-sharing element, the Yankees would have to pay $47 million, compared with $28 million last year. Other clubs that would pay more include Seattle, up to $25 million from $19 million; the Mets, up to $20.5 million from $16 million; Boston, up to $20 million from $16 million; and Cleveland, up to $15 million from $13 million. þþUnder the clubs' plan, the payouts would be even higher. The Yankees, for example, would pay about $78 million based on 2001 revenue and 2002 payroll.þþÿNobody, not even the Yankees, can absorb that kind of hit to their financial structure at once,ÿ Fehr said.þþManfred was asked if even the union's plan would represent a significant increase in the burden on those clubs. ÿOver the term of the last agreement,ÿ he replied, ÿthe balance that was struck provided a benefit to highest-revenue teams and the cost of that burden was borne by the middle of the industry. Now we're looking for a plan under which all teams would share an equal burden.ÿ He then added, ÿTo focus on an individual group of clubs is not a union issue and it's not a media issue.ÿþþFehr disagreed. ÿThat's the old canard about how the players shouldn't care how the owners share their money,ÿ he said. ÿBut the revenue-sharing proposals determine how players are paid. It's merely another attempt to gain public-relations points.ÿþþ
Source: NY Times
