Will Bob Kraft bench the NFL?
The hitch in this CBA thing apparently falls on the shoulders of
of a few wealthy Owners who won't declare the TOTAL renveues they
acutally receive ( group led by Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder and Bob Kraft).
Mr Kraft did a great thing for Patriots but if he brings the NFL to the bench
his sparkling repuatation may need some fixing up. This seems to be
bad that a small group of wealthy owners can do this.
Does this mean that really Bob Kraft's main motivating factor is the bottom line?
If for example instead of 90 Million he only gets 60 Million he will suffer?
So Bob you found ways to generate new revenues and were able not to
include them in total revenues declared. You wouldn't be getting those
revenues if weren't for the NFL and its Fans. Do the right thing Bob.
Don't bench the NFL!
Don't be one of those few incredibly greedy and selfish owners that
will ruin our game.
Maye PATs fans need to petition Kraft?
How many Fans know whats going on here?
I don't think any of this is new to any fans. It has only been written a thousand times in the last year.
The slant of the article was extremely one sided. The issues from the Krafts/Jones/Snyeder's of the world include a lot more complex issues than simple wanting to keep their own revenue. One issue I have heard Kraft raise is shoudn't their debt be counted - ie shouldn't the fact that an owner paid for his revenue generating stadium be considered when compared to another owner who paid nothing for his tax payer funded revenue generating stadium? Should teams that do no marketing and make no attempt to contribute in these other revenue areas just be allowed to take from a pool created by the hard work of other teams?
Does anyone see the irony in all of this??
Since when did New England Patriots became a "high-revenue" team??
Since when do you put the Patriots in the same company of such glamor teams such as the Cowboys and Redskins??
But of course, the emergence of the Patriots coincided with their improbable but remarkable rise to the top of the league.
As for Kraft complaining about the NFL model, the irony is that if any person truly benefited from NFL share-the-wealth success, it is Kraft hiimself.
He went from a little-known businessman from Boston to one of the 300 richest men in America.
He now rubs shoulder with moguls and heads of state.
It would be interesting to see how events will eventualy unfold.
and that owner spends $$$ to increase the revenues to 300Million
then that owner is getting 40% of 300M ...his total. That owner makes more
What these owners want is to get the 40% of the 200million PLUS the
100M from there ingenious ways.
Problem ... the only way they could make that extra 100M is because of
the Players ... they deserve their cut even if that ower was creative becaue
no matter how creative those owner are their increase profits are because
of the Players ... no players ... no increased revenues.
This article takes a complex issue and boils it down to a simple lie: that total revenue sharing is a simple solution held back by owners with the most revenue.
The truth is that owners don't take home revenue because first they have to pay expenses. When owners lbuild stadiums, their expenses are far, far higher since they have to pay down several hundred million dollars of debt that has their signature on it. Articles like this glorify the other owners, the ones that lobby local taxpayers to subsidize a rich man's hobby -- calling them the 'poor' owners. Please. No one in this picture is poor.
Sharing profits is too complicated to manage within the CBA and the players would never agree to it. They want their money off the top line, not the bottom line. It's not their worry if the owners fail to profit.
So the owners with massive debt are forced to negotiate their way to a fair situation. That's the story the article doesn't tell.
His debt sevice must be tremendous. Most of the owners had stadiums built with PUBLIC money. They sit on their asses and don't spend any time marketing to produce other revenue.
I can see Krafts point. Maybe a small amount of "other revenue" should be shared but Kraft should be alowed to subtract his debt service from that "other revenue."
Isn't that just plain fair?
Again, shoddy reporting at it's best.
the full knowledge that any ADDITIONAL renveues would be subject to the
CBA agreement. If he didn't like it and couldn't do it then he shouldn't have
done it to being with.
Instead of trying to wiggle out of something he should have known what he
was suppose to do. (I bet he kenw ). Some how they thought they
could get away with side stepping the rules and cutting the Players out
of their fair share.
Now he stands here willing to bench the NFL?
Why other owner don't do what Kraft has done? Maybe because they
decided to play by the rules set forth in the CBA and that means it is
not economically feasible to do what Kraft has done.
The Kraft family built a privately financed $350,000,000 stadium which made sense financially ONLY if the income from the luxury boxes continued to be exempt from the sharing pie. The NFL can't come back after the fact, and change the rules due to the fact that a risky business investment plan, managed and executed in world class fashion, has turned out to be successful.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:31 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 © Copyright 2000-2012. PatsFans.com Is a Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties. This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
The opinions posted in this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our staff at PatsFans.com or USA Today.
We are not affiliated with the New England Patriots™ or the NFL™. The Photo Used In the header was taken by Ian Logue.
© Copyright 2000-2012. PatsFans.com Is a Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.
This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC