primetime

Why do I feel betrayed by the Krafts being one of the "haves" that are refusing to budge on this relatively small sum of shared revenue? It wasn't so long ago that the Patriots were a team rumored to be moving to every empty market in the country because New England couldn't support a team and the ownership was a total laughingstock. Now our owners are amongst the ones willing to risk lockouts over a small amount of revenue? I'm not sure if I can stand behind the Krafts on this one.

BelichickFan

No they aren't. The Krafts put their asses and wallets on the line when they built the new stadium. Why should Al Davis share in the profits now when the only way he can make money is by screwing cities out of tax dollars. The owners already share plenty.

SCPatBoy

Come on. Kraft was looking to move because Boston and Politics was being ridiculous with him. Kraft was always willing to pay for the new stadium himself, Mass was just making it difficult. Contrast that where all these teams force the taxpayers to pay for a large portion of new stadiums. These are some of the same teams that want Kraft and others to give them some of there revenues without taking into consideration the financial debt and liabilities Kraft encurred with Gillette. These other teams just want to sit back and get there $85 million from TV revenue and also get a nice chunk from owners like Kraft because he had a vision and risked his own personal assets for it. That is lazy...like food stamps and welfare. I have no sympathy for these low revenue owners and don't blame Kraft one bit for his stance!

old 55

The Krafts have taken on debt in building their own stadium without the sweetheart deal that they would have had in Hartford and many other NFL teams have.

I believe they feel that they would be at a disadvantage in sharing more revenues.

They know their business and it appears that they are protecting their interests.

I believe in Kraft before Upshaw any day.

primetime

Yeah, but alot of the owners who have lower revenues come from smaller, less successful markets than the Boston area. Is it really fair to expect a small market team like the Colts, or one publicly traded like the Packers, to compare to a Boston-area juggernaut? Teams that toil away in mediocrity don't get to be one of these top twelve or whatever. I'm sure that if it wasn't for our recent strings of success on the field, we wouldn't be the economic model of the league right now.

arrellbee

That is certainly a possible way to look at it.

Just a couple things to think about:
It is apparently not just Kraft that is refusing to pony up the 'relatively small sum' - there must also be at least 8 other owners balking also. So maybe there is some respectable reason ?? Who knows.

Also, we may not have any way to really make a judgement as to whether the 'relatively small sum' might be a straw that would break the golden goose's back. Yes there are 100's of millions of dollars in overall gross revenue. But the players are already getting over HALF of the GROSS revenue. That's a pretty big chunk. And remember it's GROSS revenue. Out of their share, which is less than half of the gross revenues, the owners have to pay ALL of the expenses of running the team. You can probably think of the many many expenses that they have plus, of course, money that has to go to pay off debt. Who knows. It's obvious that if the players got 100% of the gross revenues that it doesn't work !! But where is that dividing line where it goes from workable to not workable ?? Is 56.2% about at that line ? Who knows. But the owners refusing to agree to 60% is probably giving us a hint that it's pretty close.

BionicPatriot

bingo. Kraft made a huge risk by paying, with his OWN money for a stadium. Just because other owners can't generate money and suck as business men is not Krafts fault.

__________________
Defense, defense, defense

hwc

It's a lot more complicated than that. Don't fall for the PR spin being leaked by Upshaw and the agents union.

It's not even clear to me that the ownership lines are drawn along big revenue/small revenue issues.

If you want to boil it down to the essence: there is no agreement because a sufficiently large number of owners believe that the combination of dollar amounts and salary cap rules demanded by the union will threaten the financial health of their companies. That tells me that the agents union demands are probably too high.

Many of those owners would probably go for a large dollar amount to the agents union IF there were sufficiently stringent rules to make the cap system pay as you go without some of the bonus/backloading abuses. But Upshaw and the agents don't want that either. They want maximum dollars AND a system that encourages free agency excesses that punish financially prudent franchises.

The whole thing is complicated by the fact that agreeing to an extension this weekend gives the worst abusers of the "cash over cap" issues a "get out of jail free card" -- something that certainly sticks in the craw of the owners. For example, owners who were hurting their own teams to get under the cap had to sit by while the Colts ignored the cap and signed Reggie Wayne to a contract with a $5.8 million cap number in 2006. How do you think Kraft (who can't even make an offer to David Givens and stay under this weekend's cap) feels about that? How does he feel about giving the Colts a "get out of jail free card" when the Colts are threatening to sue the NFL because they don't like the cap mess they have created for themselves by spending like drunken sailors?

Patriotic Fervor

Yeah, but alot of the owners who have lower revenues come from smaller, less successful markets than the Boston area. Is it really fair to expect a small market team like the Colts, or one publicly traded like the Packers, to compare to a Boston-area juggernaut?

Fair? FAIR?!?!?

Then why did that financial genius Bob Irsay hightail out of Baltimore in the middle of the night and land himself and his team into that major metropolitan area known as Indianapolis? Did he see the vast sums of money he could make out there with his product? Perhaps he saw rube politicians that would be easier to hornswoggle taxpayer money out of? Was he motivated by altruism, or something else?

Any business that's been run the way that one has cannot invoke the fairness argument.

The Packers are publically owned and traded. The city owns them. Over the years that franchise has been run more intelligently that a lot of the teams in the league. But the perhaps that paradigm is changing. They attracted the likes of Reggie White with more than a money offer. Perhaps that doesn't work today. I don't know. But given it's past, this team, perhaps more than any other, should have an appreciation for what the Krafts have done, and are doing.

Teams that toil away in mediocrity don't get to be one of these top twelve or whatever.

Mediocre teams are usually mediocre for a reason. In any organization, mediocrity starts at the top. You want answers to the mediocrity question? That's the place the start looking.

I'm sure that if it wasn't for our recent strings of success on the field, we wouldn't be the economic model of the league right now.

Oh, you're sure, are you? They are the economic model of professional sports right now because they have a very successful, dynamic management structure. Would they have had those strings of success if, say, Dom Capers (just to use a name) were at the helm on the field? Would this team, as presently construed, replicate those said strings under the management style of, say, Bidwell of Arizona?

You may have your own ideas about these things, but don't mistake equality of outcome with equality of opportunity. These teams you're mentioning have had plenty of opportunity to take advantage of the league's desire for equality of outcome, but few have done much of anything to maximize those opportunities in their own venues for the benefit of not only their own team, but the league in general.

A parasite will succeed at the expense of it's host only so long before it is expelled, or kills the host. If some of these people don't grasp that basic fact of life, they'll kill the carefully crafted stucture that's enabled them to get filthy rich without doing a damn thing.

Then where will they be?

Much more importantly, where will we, the fans, be?

__________________
....and that's the way I see it!

shirtsleeve

HWC, you are a true genius.

There is also the issue that the stadium, loaded with debt that it is, is a totally separate corporation. That rents its space to two separate professional franchises in two sports. If one wants revenue from that, then it should only be for revenue from football games, and after debts are paid. Kraft didn't go sucking up to the union or the taxpayers for the stadium, he has a right to say leave it alone.

Additionally, some of these "low revenue" teams are the most profitable teams in the league. If you want sharing, make it profit sharing. Kraft will bury the thing in the red ink of the debt and will collect from Cinci et al, instead of the other way around.