Pats726

The article was way too simplistic..as has been stated, the Krafts financed a stadium by themselves..that has to be taken into the equation.... you can't change rules of it all now.

JR4

This is about the next CBA not the old. Owners found a way to get
undesignated revenues ... ok ... I agree that wasn't against the rules
at that time. But that was the past. This is the new CBA.
Players want there share of what ever people can derive form their playing
on the field. So now there is a new way to generate revenue ... they want
their share of that also.

Some franchises can't generate the kind of revenue that NewEngland
or other franchises can.
Some say ... tough ... get creative.
But these franchises live in areas that it is not easy to generate revenues.
But the NFL depends on having teams to play each other. So you just
can't just say tough.
By distruting the wealth, sort of to speak, you get teams that stay
competitve. All teams can compete for coachs and give about the same
signing bonuses.
I don't think any fan wants to see a franchise buy it's way to a championship.
The CBA if done right will keep the level playing field. Bob Kraft being a
leader needs to lead the way in this effort even if it means less revenue
for New England Patriots.

Scott37

By making this change the NFL will take away any owner's incentive to build stadiums with private monies thus passing on increased revenues to the players and increased expenses to the general public (who may or may not be fans) in order to build stadiums.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

JR4

It seems the stumbling block right now is with the owners agreeing with
themselvs but if Players are also holding out then they need to inusre they are
not asking for too much.

dhamz

The article was an overly simplistic description of a complex business issue.

There are a ton of variables to be considered if you determine all revenue needs to be shared. Does that mean that all teams must do the same kind of agreements or at least make good faith efforts? The Pats make money by having Visa as the only card they take at Gillette. To share that $ shouldn't every other team have to make a similar agreement? Certainly most if not all of them could cut the same kind of deal with credit card companies for varying amounts. Some could probably get more than the Pats do.

Why would the Bengals be entitled to share a cent of stadium naming rights? They chose not to make any $ that way on their own when given the opportunity. Why should they not have to sell the rights to their stadium if they want to share in Philly's $ from Lincoln Financial? Naming rights to Soldier Field, Lambeau, etc. all should have to be sold before there is even a word about sharing that kind of revenue is spoken.

Pats726

Greedy players don't enter into it at all?? I agree..Borgesh!!!!

flutie2phelan

Right, Tom!

A year ago i posted in favor of enlarging the players' percentage of designated revenues. Even then it was clear that the stumbling block would be the demand of both the union and some owners that the definition itself of designated revenues be widened.

I now think that the only reasonable and fair way to end the stand-off is for the CBA to be extended some agreed number of years ... without any changes to either the respective percentages or the composition of designated revenues. Currently it is , and it has been, a good deal for everyone involved. All have prospered. Keep it that way. Keep it as is.

Same percentages ... same make-up of the pot. Improve other terms, if desired. Otherwise, simply a linear extension.

__________________

JR4

Won't it depending on how the new CBA is written?
If teams can reduce their obligation by amount owed to provide new facilties
to generate new revenues then the incentive will still be there.

(acually reduce by aount of interest paid on principle for new facilites may
be better )

dhamz

All reports I read for SB week had the players asking for 65% of all revenues and the owners offerring 57%.

I'm sure that 8% higher the players are asking for isn't any factor at all in why a CBA isn't done.

JR4

See this is where I think there is some near sightedness happening.
Your New England Patriots depends on a viable well run NFL consisting
of near equal teams to provide close competion.

You just can't say it is us and us alone that matters. If you take that
attitude then teams will become unable to compete you'll end up with
the MLB type senerio.

Now is the time to address the CBA with a little forsight and not wait 10
years down the road as the NFL morphs into the MLB.
Don't let weatlhy teams take over! and ruin the NFL competition.