ESPN: Kraft says a Deal is "Possible"

[PatsWickedPissah]

Are you saying that it is wrong for an owner of a business to pay himself a salary?

Au contraire

I'm saying that the Union needn't get their panties all atwist in situations where an owner pays himself a several million dollar salary, especially given the salary and expenses (healthcare, meals, lodging, financial and other free advice services) of employees.

 

[Deus Irae]

Are you saying that it is wrong for an owner of a business to pay himself a salary?

If you're claiming a (just an example) $20 million profit, and not noting that you paid yourself $5 million in salary on top of the $20 million, you should expect some twisted panties on the other side. Brown paying himself a "GM bonus" is a scumbag move.

 

[BradyManny]

It's really beginning to sound like the NFLPA was the one who never had any intention of negotiating... The league has made substantial concessions on the financial data it is willing to make available to the union. They won't even look at it because they want to see each teams books so they can then spin their unwillingness to negotiate as a somehow noble cause...

You are leaving out the fact that it was the owners who opted out - it is the owners who want to pay the players' less.

The owners initiated the process. The players were entered into negotiations without any desire to do so.

If I was the absolute best in the entire world at what I did, and what I did was a very specific field to begin with (like professional football), and I was completely and 100% irreplaceable at my job (as the NFL players are), and my employer told me I was going to need a paycut, my response - and I assume the response of anyone in this situation - would be "No." My mindset would not jump to negotiation.

The reality is, the players are the only party in this negotiation so far that understands that one side cannot exist without the other. The owner's "lockout insurance" with the TV deals has prevented them from seeing that reality. Now that is called into question, that might make things a little different.

 

[lamafist]

The owners' taking a salary isn't really an issue. I believe the poster who brought it up did so as an (unlikely) example of how easy it is to disguise profit by trumping up expenses. A more likely scenario involves owners giving sweetheart deals to their other business holdings, like, say, Kraft overpaying the real estate arm of his holding group for the land for Patriot Place. The NFL Network is a huge source of potential odd accounting arrangements -- are teams getting full compensation for any stadium licensing rights they retain from the house network?

Essentially, what this comes down to, is that the NFL is trying to justify asking for the players to take a collective billion-dollar pay-cut by saying that under the previous CBA, their decline in profitability hurt their ability to reinvest in the growth of of their franchises and the NFL -- and they're asking the NFLPA to take their word that it's necessary.

The problem is that the owners can't agree on how much more information to provide. I'd imagine that Kraft would readily hand over his books -- considering the way he's grown the NE Patriots from one of the league's least valuable teams to one of its most, he probably carries around his financial statements in his wallet the way a guy would pictures of his supermodel girlfriend or a big fish he caught. It's the teams like the Browns, Bengals, Bills, Niners, Lions, etc. who haven't done much to maximize other revenue streams that are dragging collective profitability numbers down who don't want the teams' books released, because it will become apparent that they haven't been attempting to reinvest in the growth of their franchises since long before the last CBA was signed.

Essentially, what you have are deadbeat owners who want a handout from the league to do what the Snyders, Krafts, Jones and Johnsons have been doing all along, and the non-deadbeat owners don't want to pony it up by bringing more revenue streams into the profit sharing system, so instead, the owners, collectively, are trying to head off internal arguments by getting the money back from the players.

 

[Deus Irae]

The owners' taking a salary isn't really an issue. I believe the poster who brought it up did so as an (unlikely) example of how easy it is to disguise profit by trumping up expenses. A more likely scenario involves owners giving sweetheart deals to their other business holdings, like, say, Kraft overpaying the real estate arm of his holding group for the land for Patriot Place. The NFL Network is a huge source of potential odd accounting arrangements -- are teams getting full compensation for any stadium licensing rights they retain from the house network?

It's not "unlikely". It's been proven, in court, to have happened. Mike Brown took a GM "Bonus", and Braman gave himself a $7.5 million salary.

 

[lamafist]

Another point worth noting is that if talks break down and the league and its players end up taking this to the courts, the owners will have to disclose all of this financial information during the discovery process.

This raises the question of why the owners would risk tanking the negotiations over something they'd be forced to do anyway if the negotiations get tanked.

Turns out this isn't really a negotiation over whether the owners will give the players the information they're asking for so much as it is a stare-down over how much its going to cost the owners to not have to disclose it. So far the owners have offered to lower the cool billion dollars their asking for by $200 million, and that's not going to cut it.

 

[lamafist]

It's not "unlikely". It's been proven, in court, to have happened. Mike Brown took a GM "Bonus", and Braman gave himself a $7.5 million salary.

Huh.

When was this, exactly -- I mean, didn't Braman sell the Eagles like 10 years ago?

 

[Deus Irae]

Huh.

When was this, exactly -- I mean, didn't Braman sell the Eagles like 10 years ago?

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/740935-espn-kraft-says-deal-possible.html#post2498369

As for Braman's selling of the team, I'm not sure how Braman doing it more than 10 years ago changes something that's definitely happened to an "unlikely example".

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

If you're claiming a (just an example) $20 million profit, and not noting that you paid yourself $5 million in salary on top of the $20 million, you should expect some twisted panties on the other side. Brown paying himself a "GM bonus" is a scumbag move.

I disagree about the panties, but not about the scumbag.

A let's say $300M business that nets less than 10% after tax profit margin is not even close to out of line. It would not be outrageous to 'pay' the chief honcho & owner a few million. Especially considering that several employees (players) could make far more. Even adding back the $5M salary to profitability STILL makes it well under a very modest 10% margin.

That said, since it's the owners who assert that they need another Billion of the gross revenue, I don't fault the Union for taking the position of wanting this personal ownership and family info as there could well be a couple egregious examples where the difference between a claimed business "loss" and modest profitability could be owner compensation, owner over the top expenses and relatives making big bucks on the payroll. (I don't mean you Jonathan Kraft) But given the preceding paragraph's example, the public has no idea what business profit margins are and I don't trust the Union NOT to make mountains out of molehills using selected snips of this info.

 

[Deus Irae]

I disagree about the panties, but not about the scumbag.

A let's say $300M business that nets less than 10% after tax profit margin is not even close to out of line. It would not be outrageous to 'pay' the chief honcho & owner a few million. Especially considering that several employees (players) could make far more. Even adding back the $5M salary to profitability STILL makes it well under a very modest 10% margin.

That said, since it's the owners who assert that they need another Billion of the gross revenue, I don't fault the Union for taking the position of wanting this personal ownership and family info as there could well be a couple egregious examples where the difference between a claimed business "loss" and modest profitability could be owner compensation, owner over the top expenses and relatives making big bucks on the payroll. (I don't mean you Jonathan Kraft) But given the preceding paragraph's example, the public has no idea what business profit margins are and I don't trust the Union NOT to make mountains out of molehills using selected snips of this info.

It's not outrageous to pay it, PWP. It is outrageous to pay it and then to hide it when you're in a revenue sharing system.

What really annoys me about this CBA situation is that I generally hate the modern unions because, like so many other ideas that had their good points, they've become perverted parodies of what they once were, yet I'm basically being forced to side with them because the owners can't get their crap together and bargain honestly.

 

[lamafist]

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/740935-espn-kraft-says-deal-possible.html#post2498369

As for Braman's selling of the team, I'm not sure how Braman doing it more than 10 years ago changes something that's definitely happened to an "unlikely example".

I'm not trying to argue with you, dude. Clearly, it's happened, and I was wrong to say it was 'unlikely.'

And I brought up that Braman sold his team ~10 years ago because that would put it pre-salary cap and pre-modern-CBA. I don't believe the players were guaranteed any particular cut, and I don't know to what extent the league's revenue sharing was in place, so the context for it would be entirely different.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm not trying to argue with you, dude. Clearly, it's happened, and I was wrong to say it was 'unlikely.'

That's all I was trying to get across. My apologies for coming off too snide.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

It's not outrageous to pay it, PWP. It is outrageous to pay it and then to hide it when you're in a revenue sharing system.

What really annoys me about this CBA situation is that I generally hate the modern unions because, like so many other ideas that had their good points, they've become perverted parodies of what they once were, yet I'm basically being forced to side with them because the owners can't get their crap together and bargain honestly.

I have nothing to disagree with here.
As I'd said previously I did not disagree about the 'scumbag'.

 

[lamafist]

I disagree about the panties, but not about the scumbag.

A let's say $300M business that nets less than 10% after tax profit margin is not even close to out of line. It would not be outrageous to 'pay' the chief honcho & owner a few million. Especially considering that several employees (players) could make far more. Even adding back the $5M salary to profitability STILL makes it well under a very modest 10% margin.

That said, since it's the owners who assert that they need another Billion of the gross revenue, I don't fault the Union for taking the position of wanting this personal ownership and family info as there could well be a couple egregious examples where the difference between a claimed business "loss" and modest profitability could be owner compensation, owner over the top expenses and relatives making big bucks on the payroll. (I don't mean you Jonathan Kraft) But given the preceding paragraph's example, the public has no idea what business profit margins are and I don't trust the Union NOT to make mountains out of molehills using selected snips of this info.

The issue is much larger than whether some of the owners are taking large salaries themselves or for their son-in-laws or whatnot.

The league is claiming that the owners, who already get a billion off the top, need a billion more each year to invest in continuing the NFL's growth. Non-maximized revenue streams matter just as much as trumped up costs.

The Cowboys are able to bring in $420 million in revenue compared to the Lions' $210. Teams like the Lions, Bengals, Cardinals, and Vikings simply haven't grown their revenue the way that the other team have over the past 10 years, and it doesn't just come down to teams winning and losing. Bob Kraft had already turned the Pats around from one of the league's worst to one of it's top 10 earners before the Pats started winning SB's.

If there are franchises that haven't been investing in their own growth and have consistently left money on the table during the last two CBA's, why should the players be expected to pony up a billion dollars for them now?

 

[groundgame]

Another point worth noting is that if talks break down and the league and its players end up taking this to the courts, the owners will have to disclose all of this financial information during the discovery process.

This raises the question of why the owners would risk tanking the negotiations over something they'd be forced to do anyway if the negotiations get tanked.

It is not a slam dunk that all Plaintiff info requests in the discovery process are granted. Therefore, there is a risk for the Player's Union if they play that card. Because it would be insane for both parties to go the ugly route, I'd look for a Friday settelement whereby Owners cave-in from $800M to approx. $400M on exempt money, with all the other side pieces falling-in together at the same time.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Missing the NFL negotiations, Bob Kraft was on an overseas boondoggle with the Governor.

As Patrick leaves Israel, no business deals announced - Political Intelligence - A national political and campaign blog from The Boston Globe - Boston.com

"Business men and women traveling with Governor Deval Patrick
said they came away with serious prospects and strong relationships, but no deals to announce, as the Israeli portion of the state's trade mission ended today."

Love the way Globe journalists garbled Kraft's excuse...

"Life is about execution. You always get people who are fancy talkers," Kraft told the group. But "you can't meet you're (sic) payroll with chit-chat."


As a selfish fan I just wish that Kraft with his reputation as a conciliator was directly involved in the NFLPA negotiations instead of wasting time with the Gov.

 

[lamafist]

Missing the NFL negotiations, Bob Kraft was on an overseas boondoggle with the Governor.

As Patrick leaves Israel, no business deals announced - Political Intelligence - A national political and campaign blog from The Boston Globe - Boston.com

"Business men and women traveling with Governor Deval Patrick
said they came away with serious prospects and strong relationships, but no deals to announce, as the Israeli portion of the state's trade mission ended today."

Love the way Globe journalists garbled Kraft's excuse...

"Life is about execution. You always get people who are fancy talkers," Kraft told the group. But "you can't meet you're (sic) payroll with chit-chat."


As a selfish fan I just wish that Kraft with his reputation as a conciliator was directly involved in the NFLPA negotiations instead of wasting time with the Gov.

This trip was Kraft's idea and Kraft's baby. He sees a flourishing, modern Israeli economy as a vital ingredient to stability and peace in the region.

I agree that as a selfish fan, I wish Kraft were at the negotiating table, but I can't really fault his priorities.