« I think we negotiated from the point of view that there is a false premise that the agreement… to pay proportional wages. It`s just not right, » Arizona Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick said Tuesday on Arizona Sports 98.7. And it`s so imprecise that it`s always made me angry. I know that`s the position of the players. I think they are strongly influenced by external forces to take that position. But it was built around the idea that we would come back to play baseball under normal circumstances. The players will probably prevail in this regard, to the frustration of the owners, who believe that the players` union must negotiate the salary. The owners waited for the players to compromise on this issue, but the players refused to do so in each of their proposals, and the language of the agreement seems to favor the players. The « Resuming the Game » section of the agreement sets out three criteria: no restrictions for fans attending matches; no travel restrictions across the U.S.
and Canada; no unacceptable health or safety risk to players, staff or fans. In response, Bruce Meyer, senior director of the players` association, sent an SMS to the Post: as much of the season was still in the air, MLB and MLBPA reached an agreement that seemed to find all this at the time. In exchange for an advance of salary and insurance on the time of service, the MLBPA agreed not to take legal action in the event of a season cancellation. He also agreed on proportional salaries in case the season was to be shortened, so an 81-game season would pay 50 percent of the usual salaries to players. Meanwhile, the post also reports: that Yankees president Randy Levine argues that three conditions must be clarified before fan games can resume and players can receive their proportional salaries: 1) if there are « mass gathering bans » that prevent fans in stadiums, 2) if people « go to Canada for 14 days » and/or 3) the commissioner must « certify that it is certain to go to a ball. » At this stage, none of these conditions are met. Therefore, Mr. Levine concluded, any proposal to play games without these conditions being met requires a renegotiation of wages. It is not « my opinion » but « what the text of the agreement says. » Baseball`s last chance to get a real deal ended with a 33-5 vote against MLB`s proposal by MLBpa. Apparently, with no other option, Manfred played the card he had been in hand for weeks: impose a season, even if it meant risking a case of maladministration. Owners say it would include pay cuts, since less money would be made from games without fans. Players say salaries are set and that both parties would discuss what could be done to make fanless games a more financially viable offer.
In this context, the players say they would have considered a salary cut if the owners had provided sufficient financial documentation to support such a request. The owners say they are there. « Like I said, our players are patriots, and they`re all smart and careful enough to make decisions that are in the best interests of them and their families, and we respect all those choices, » Levine said. « However, they must make their decisions on the basis of what the March agreement actually provides and which has been signed by both parties. Personally, I have checked all the documents and negotiating notes of the dispute over the wage renegotiation provision, and they are simply clear that that does not say what Scott Boras and Tony Clark said. Meanwhile, angels are a permanent example of what can happen if language is not explicit in an agreement.