mgteich

Sure, we'd prefer to have the system allow suicide every three years by WASH, TENN and others. Sure, we restructure almost every contract every year, and no cash over cap restrictions help the patriots. But in the end these items don't affect the profitability of the patriots.

What Kraft is furious about (and has been for at least a year) is that teams like Cinci sit back and collect revenue, with no marketing budget and no incentive to bother to increase revenue, and are very profitable, without any work. Kraft doesn't like raising ticket proces, only to share the dollars with those who choose not to collect from their fans. He doesn't want to extend this kind of nonsense to additional sources of revenue, like naming rights, with those who choose not to raise the revenue themselves. He doesn't want to consider sources of revenue that he doesn't use now, only to share the revenue.

mgteich

CT_Pats_Fan

I'd love to know what ticket prices, parking costs, and concession prices are in some other markets. If owners share everything, then each franchise should charge the same dough.

The folks receiving it (owners AND players) call it "revenue sharing."

The folks paying it (us) should call it "cost sharing".

If they want it equal, make it equal.

Pats726

A great post on the money

Chris

is this just your opinion about what you think kraft is thinkin? or is this from an article?

PatsSteve1

[QUOTE=CT_Pats_Fan]I'd love to know what ticket prices, parking costs, and concession prices are in some other markets. If owners share everything, then each franchise should charge the same dough.

* If an owner doesn't own the stadium his team plays in, it's likely he has no control on these prices, nor does he get all the money from parking, concessions or stadium naming rights.

shirtsleeve

How about this for the solution?

Kraft's situation is unique, but to make it fit the model, revenue sharing has a couple of caveats to get approved:

First, owners who must share local revenue are allowed to pay debts first.

Second, any team who has a profit to revenue ratio greater than the team required to share, forfeits any shared local funds. These moneys must be reimbursed to the team forced to share ( this would satisfy any owner like Kraft who believe that the low revenue teams must do more to increase their own, before sharing occurs, and would satisfy the players, for the cheap teams in the league would have to increase salaries to qualify for sharing, and satisfy the league and fans who want parity). Under this plan, lets say Kraft has local revenue of $300mm. He has $50mm in debt payments. leaving 250. He makes 25 mil profit on this sum. for 10%. So Kraft would only share from the 250 with teams with a less than 10% profit to revenue ratio. Say goodby, Cinci, Ariz, and all the other whiners who try to suck things dry. They are outta luck and Kraft keeps their share.

Workable plan?

patpatriot

shirtsleeve, that is brilliant. Let's get that baby off to Dallas ASAP!