Bob Kraft on CBA - New England Patriots Forums

OldEnglandPatriot · 03-21-2006, 09:22 AM

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but its not referenced at all in the thread debating whether the new CBA is good or bad for the Pats...

Robert Kraft was on 'NFL Total Access' this morning (repeated from last night) in the wake of Tagliabue's retirement. He mentioned the new CBA briefly, and (to paraphrase) he said it wasn't necessarily good for the Patriots or what the Patriots would have wanted, but it was right for the league as a whole to get it done.

So there you go, from the horse's mouth.

flutie2phelan · 03-21-2006, 09:31 AM

Thanks for the info.

It can't give you a warm and fuzzy feeling all over ...

to subsidize your competitors to the tune of 5 million dollars a year.

***mgteich*** · 03-21-2006, 10:12 AM

I thought the number was $3M and that the trade was not to add to the sources of revenue (just TV and seats). Sometimes to have a viable monopoly, you have to keep your competitors happen. It isn't really a monopoly, but there is a waiver of anti-trust laws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flutie2phelan

Thanks for the info.

It can't give you a warm and fuzzy feeling all over ...

to subsidize your competitors to the tune of 5 million dollars a year.

***patchick*** · 03-21-2006, 10:39 AM

While the CBA does seem like a mixed bag at best for the Patriots, surely this particular statement is utterly meaningless. If Kraft actually thought he'd gotten the best of the deal, would he be dancing around singing "Na, na na na, I've gone and fleeced ya"? You always end a negotiation by letting the other parties believe they've won.

flutie2phelan · 03-21-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

I thought the number was $3M and that the trade was not to add to the sources of revenue (just TV and seats). Sometimes to have a viable monopoly, you have to keep your competitors happen. It isn't really a monopoly, but there is a waiver of anti-trust laws.

Top 5 teams ... pay 3 million apiece. Right you are again, Mark.

In another nearby thread i point out that the Krafts led the surrender negotiations
for business reasons ... forgoing probable football advantage.
So, all of us agree that it made business sense to give in.

This thread, however, and Bob K's own words ... emphasize that he doesn't necessarily enjoy the experience!

jct · 03-21-2006, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchick

While the CBA does seem like a mixed bag at best for the Patriots, surely this particular statement is utterly meaningless. If Kraft actually thought he'd gotten the best of the deal, would he be dancing around singing "Na, na na na, I've gone and fleeced ya"? You always end a negotiation by letting the other parties believe they've won.

What you said was correct, but we have not yet seen any upside for NE.
(Labor peace helps all 32 teams)
Maybe our upside will come in strategically resigning (this year) some key players due to hit FA next year.

***jczxohn1*** · 03-21-2006, 08:02 PM

Unmentioned by Kraftwas the caveat that he wanted. A stick to force underperforming organizations to get busy. The payoff to poor teams is only for teams who spend up to the cap, but cannot afford "money over the cap" expenditures. Hence teams who spend between the minimum and the cap don't qualify. While the CBA didn't exactly help the Patriots, it increased their influence in the league, which should be a good thing in the long run.