CBA first talk not going well

[MoLewisrocks]

I don't think it works this way. When taxpapers pay for a stadium, the owners don't get to keep all the income generated by the stadium.

I think Kraft's statement on the uncapped year was part of a united position/posture ownership has now decided to adopt on the issue...that's it's scarier/more risky for a handful of teams and all the players than it is for the majority of the leagues owners, or the league as a collective. To counter the unions prior stand that it would be a panacea for players...

And as for the taxpayer funded stadiums, teams may not get all the year round revenue from them but most are getting all of the in season revenue as well as naming rights fees (if they can find someone in this business environment...) and paying little or none of the costs of constructing or maintaining/operating them. Irsay even gets to keep the parking fees in season... It's causing angst already in Indy as the commission running the stadium underestimated stadium operating expenses and the potential for a down economy. But that is not effecting Irsay. He even got bought out of his RCA Dome lease ($30M) to pave the way for the city to tear down something he didn't own... That's where he got the bonus money to extend Freeney and Sanders from. He had to sell his personal memorabelia collection back in 2004 to fund much of Peyton's $34.5M up front signing bonus.

And some of these new mega-stadiums will hold 100K fans as well as providing increased luxury box capacity - our overall capacity is 60K. Which is why we already have the most expensive ticket prices in the league. Even in KC where they have been feeling the revenue crunch at Arrowhead the tax payer renovations have included sufficient additional luxury box accommodations to put them back in the top half of revenue teams by this season. They've had tons of cap and little cash the last few seasons. That is about to change in 2009...

Snyder has been making $20-25M more in annual net revenue than we are all along. Jones was also making more before the new stadium even opens, and he will now probably out revenue Snyder even if he can't immediately find a naming rights sponsor. The Giants and JETS may as well in their new stadium (although both are currently struggling to sell PSL's and if the Giants can't the JETS are doomed...). Teams like AZ and Houston have the capacity to if they get consistently better on the field and learn to harness that success off it.

Ever notice how few double digit bonus checks Robert writes in any given year? He did that not to just to manage the cap but to manage his own cash over cap spending. Guys here routinely get split signing and option bonuses and they are managed/staggered so that no more than a couple of guys are taking home double digit checks in any given season. Whether the cap goes away or not, Robert will have roughly the same balance in his checkbook with which to sign bonus checks. That's why he developed the land around his stadium, to eventually increase the revenue stream. But given his construction costs and now an economic downturn he's not going to see tremendous net returns from that investment (that Mike Vrabel thinks the NFLPA members should get 60% of too) for some time...

 

[Pats726]

No, it sounded like he was definitely in favor of it. The context of his statement was that an uncapped year might be necessary for the long-term health of the NFL.

"It's not scary at all to us,'' Patriots owner Robert Kraft said of the possibility of playing without a salary cap next year. "There are a lot of pluses to it. It's definitely not a doomsday scenario, and it might have to happen to get things right. I hope it's the vehicle to get us a deal. I hope it's the ultimate hammer.''

The NFL now has the very real threat of a work stoppage in 2011. - Don Banks - SI.com

NFL teams bearing down for major changes for '10 and '11 seasons

and elsewhere.

It took me 15 seconds to find this with Google. I'm sure the rest of his statement is online somewhere.

Saying it's not scary or saying it's the ultimate hammer is NOT at all the same with saying he's in FAVOR of that. nice try.

 

[Tunescribe]

I don't give a flying hoot about Goodell and/or his demise. I do care that the formula that has created the contemporary NFL somehow remains intact and, more selfishly, I really care that Tom Brady, having already lost one season of his "prime" to injury doesn't lose another to a strike. Those things I care about.

I assume you are referring to the "formula" that Goodell continues to alter and tinker with. Let's also hope that Brady doesn't lose another season to injury during an 18th regular-season game played in Singapore.

 

[Pats726]

I assume you are referring to the "formula" that Goodell continues to alter and tinker with. Let's also hope that Brady doesn't lose another season to injury during an 18th regular-season game played in Singapore.

I agree..the formula that has worked is 16 games..4 preseason and many OTHER things in that yearly cycle...Goodell is bound and determined to take that formula that works and alter it and..in many cases take that balance and throw it out the window. THAT he is doing this is NOT good for the NFL or football. THAT is why I believe o many want him out...gone!

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I agree..the formula that has worked is 16 games..4 preseason and many OTHER things in that yearly cycle...Goodell is bound and determined to take that formula that works and alter it and..in many cases take that balance and throw it out the window. THAT he is doing this is NOT good for the NFL or football. THAT is why I believe o many want him out...gone!

But the only votes that count in that regard are the 32 owners he works for. Truth be told at the end of the day while they will pay lip service to the integrity of the game or the safety of it's players or the development of fringe talent, even among the relative purists within that group the bottom line is their bottom line. And if 2 more regular season games and several more opportunities to showcase their product outside the confines will net them another 10-15% revenue stream increase to haggle over...

they'll be down with Goodell. And while fans lament some of the fining and suspensions, that is not only the tradeoff Goodell gets for increasing the bottom line, owners subconsciously perfer someone else play the bad cop and take them directly off the hot seat where discipline is concerned. Because most struggle to do something that impacts their short term prognosis and few trust the rest to do much of anything that will (or the NFLPA to allow them to).

You keep looking at this from a hardcore fans perspective. Understand they don't really worry about what we think because they know by and large they have us by the short hairs. They are looking to expand their casual fanbase...globally. And in the entertainment industry which is what professional sports truly is expanding your audience is the ultimate goal.

 

[DaBruinz]

Nobody's walking, people need money. I'm glad the talks aren't going well. Kraft even said it himself that he wants an uncapped year. In fact, this is the best chance of re-signing guys like Wilfork, Mankins and whoever else I'm forgetting. The point is, money won't be an issue if next season is uncapped (at least for the Patriots).

The Pats will have near 55 million going into next off-season. How could they not re-sign Wilfork and Mankins? Also, one has to remember that there are other major stipulations that go in for an uncapped year. For instance, The final 4 teams are only allowed to sign their own free agents and then 1 free agent after that for every one they lose. And there is another stipulation for the next 4 teams, but I forget what that is..

The money, for the Pats, isn't the issue. Its the OVERALL money that the owners are taking issue with. The cap is going up way too quickly. One of the reasons there was an extra amount just added in was because teams didn't use up all their cap space last year. And that gets rolled forward and divided through out the league.

They also just signed the deal with Comcast...

The players got a lot the last time around and didn't give up enough. The owners, rightly, want to rebalance it. Personally, the players should be happy with 55% of the total.. But they are greedy and they don't take care of their own after they retire.. yet they want the owners to do that as well.

There are a LOT of issues including expanding the schedule, games in other countries, the ridiculous contracts of the top 5 picks, and the injury reporting. The Players are going to have to give something since they didn't really give anything the last time around.

 

[DaBruinz]

Do we all understand that there is an agreement in place for the 2010 season, with rules that address such issues as the cap and the 2010 draft? I don't see why we would be speculated about a strike or walkout for the 2010 season, both of which ar specifically prohibited by the agreement that will be in place. I find this speculation extremely premature, especially since there has not yet been even one meeting between the parties.

Personally, if the owners want the players to take less because they are not doing well, I think the owners will need to demonstrate their financial condition. Of course, the players want the same percentage or more, or the same percentage to be applied to more types of revenue. There is revenue excluded when the owners discuss revenue.

The owners could lock the players out of the 2010 season if they don't want an uncapped year. Also, the Union stated previously that if the cap goes, its never coming back. Which is incentive to NOT have an uncapped year.

You can think the speculation in premature, but that doesn't mean it is.

Also, its well known that the financials of Jacksonville, Buffalo and other places are very bad in comparison to other places like Washington, Dallas, and New England.

And the owners, to my knowledge, included ALL the revenue in the previous CBA. Which is why it jumped so much.

 

[mgteich]

Believe as you will. You believe that the owners could lock players out of the 2010 season in violation of the CBA. So? The owners could lock players out of the 2009 season in violation of the CBA. The owners agree to an uncapped season in 2010 if there is no further agreement. The players agreed not to strike in 2010 during the last year opf the aaCBA. There is no reason to believe that owners or the players will violate their agreement except your own speculation.

The owners could lock the players out of the 2010 season if they don't want an uncapped year. Also, the Union stated previously that if the cap goes, its never coming back. Which is incentive to NOT have an uncapped year.

You can think the speculation in premature, but that doesn't mean it is.

Also, its well known that the financials of Jacksonville, Buffalo and other places are very bad in comparison to other places like Washington, Dallas, and New England.

And the owners, to my knowledge, included ALL the revenue in the previous CBA. Which is why it jumped so much.

 

[spacecrime]

Saying it's not scary or saying it's the ultimate hammer is NOT at all the same with saying he's in FAVOR of that. nice try.

Well, you are confusing what someone wants with what they are willing to do if they think it is the right thing to do. No, he doesn't want an uncapped year, but yes, he sees it as likely necessary for the future health of the league and will do what he feels should be done without hesitation or qualms.

Believe what you will, but if you think he will do anything to prevent an uncapped year, you ought to read his statement in full again.

 

[Pats726]

Well, you are confusing what someone wants with what they are willing to do if they think it is the right thing to do. No, he doesn't want an uncapped year, but yes, he sees it as likely necessary for the future health of the league and will do what he feels should be done without hesitation or qualms.

Believe what you will, but if you think he will do anything to prevent an uncapped year, you ought to read his statement in full again.

Actually I am not the one confused...if you had read posts earlier you would have seen how one poster claimed that Kraft WANTED an uncapped year. I know Kraft NEVER said that and my words were correct; he never did say that. I fully understood what Kraft said and do now..
Below is the poster's total post----"Kraft even said it himself that he wants an uncapped year."...There is the quote and I challenged that and you were correct in adding in all of what he said..but nowhere did Kraft say he WANTED that. He speculated IF there was one and had words about that but wanting it?? NO. Just trying to bring clarity.

Nobody's walking, people need money. I'm glad the talks aren't going well. Kraft even said it himself that he wants an uncapped year. In fact, this is the best chance of re-signing guys like Wilfork, Mankins and whoever else I'm forgetting. The point is, money won't be an issue if next season is uncapped (at least for the Patriots).

 

[Pats726]

But the only votes that count in that regard are the 32 owners he works for. Truth be told at the end of the day while they will pay lip service to the integrity of the game or the safety of it's players or the development of fringe talent, even among the relative purists within that group the bottom line is their bottom line. And if 2 more regular season games and several more opportunities to showcase their product outside the confines will net them another 10-15% revenue stream increase to haggle over...

they'll be down with Goodell. And while fans lament some of the fining and suspensions, that is not only the tradeoff Goodell gets for increasing the bottom line, owners subconsciously perfer someone else play the bad cop and take them directly off the hot seat where discipline is concerned. Because most struggle to do something that impacts their short term prognosis and few trust the rest to do much of anything that will (or the NFLPA to allow them to).

You keep looking at this from a hardcore fans perspective. Understand they don't really worry about what we think because they know by and large they have us by the short hairs. They are looking to expand their casual fanbase...globally. And in the entertainment industry which is what professional sports truly is expanding your audience is the ultimate goal.

Sadly...all true...Of course Goodell is driven by the owners and I think more greed...Or is it?? I think that is the point of Smith's wanting to see the books...is it really greed or the bottom line?? And I think that is a bit different. You are right about lip service and all that..so true. And yes...it is quite true MOST owners do not want to play the bad cop at all...but someone does need to..and although it's taken too far in my opinion...they do want that as they can not police themselves. It is true..I tend to have more of a purist's point of view..and one who has followed the game for decades. BUT..that is my background and you are correct Goodell could not care less about those who have been fans for a long lifetime. They want the casual fan..and that is frankly all they really care about LCD. But I was a big fan of three sports...and I now really am of only one...and I never would have thought that would be the case 30 years ago. and longer....losing interest in baseball slowly...and basketball a bit later. I do not like the changes that have occured in those sports and although I was a hardcore fan...moved on.

 

[spacecrime]

Actually I am not the one confused...if you had read posts earlier you would have seen how one poster claimed that Kraft WANTED an uncapped year. I know Kraft NEVER said that and my words were correct; he never did say that. I fully understood what Kraft said and do now..
Below is the poster's total post----"Kraft even said it himself that he wants an uncapped year."...There is the quote and I challenged that and you were correct in adding in all of what he said..but nowhere did Kraft say he WANTED that. He speculated IF there was one and had words about that but wanting it?? NO. Just trying to bring clarity.

Maybe we are reading different quotes, Kraft didn't say "if," he said he hopes an uncapped year is the vehicle that gets the owners a deal. Not sure how else you can parse his quote.

Kraft is not a man of empty threats; he doesn't bluff. He would have taken the Pats to CT had the Mass folks not backed off. And he is not only willing to go to an uncapped year, he "hopes it's the vehicle to get us a deal." No ifs, ands or buts.

"It's not scary at all to us,'' Patriots owner Robert Kraft said of the possibility of playing without a salary cap next year. "There are a lot of pluses to it. It's definitely not a doomsday scenario, and it might have to happen to get things right. I hope it's the vehicle to get us a deal. I hope it's the ultimate hammer.''

 

[spacecrime]

You keep looking at this from a hardcore fans perspective. Understand they don't really worry about what we think because they know by and large they have us by the short hairs. They are looking to expand their casual fanbase.

Just like MNF. They had Dennis Miller and stupid sideline announcers talking about stupid story lines about the players, not the game. Drove (and still drives) hard core fans nuts.

But they don't care, just as you said. We are going to watch the game no matter what. It is the non-fan they are trying to attract, and the non-fan doesn't want to hear a former QB talk about the nuances of reading pass-run by the MLB. BOR-ING. Now a story about how a player from Minnesota owns a restaurant famous for grits, not THAT'S interesting.

Only good thing is the more fans, the more games.

I'm ready for a 20-game season with a DL instead of IR. With more use of the bench like in teh NBA. Strategy of resting your starters in the fourth quarter to keep them fresh for games later in the season.

Goodell just isn't going far enough with his measly 18 games.

 

[Pats726]

Maybe we are reading different quotes, Kraft didn't say "if," he said he hopes an uncapped year is the vehicle that gets the owners a deal. Not sure how else you can parse his quote.

Again..nowhere did Kraft say he wanted an uncapped year...NOWHERE....you even said that as well.....THAT is what you said..so you agree....or do you????

No, he doesn't want an uncapped year, but yes, he sees it as likely necessary for the future health of the league and will do what he feels should be done without hesitation or qualms.

"It's not scary at all to us,'' Patriots owner Robert Kraft said of the possibility of playing without a salary cap next year. "There are a lot of pluses to it. It's definitely not a doomsday scenario, and it might have to happen to get things right. I hope it's the vehicle to get us a deal. I hope it's the ultimate hammer.''

Where is the word WANT in that quote??? It MIGHT have to happen to get things right...MIGHT...NOT want...MIGHT have to happen to get it right. IF there is an uncapped year...IF...There is NO want at all in what he said. He is saying IF there is an uncapped year then THAT might be the vehicle to get a deal done. Nowhere does he say he wants it to get to that point. Nowhere....He's saying IF it gets to that point with no deal then the uncapped year IS the ultimate hammer.
Do you not think he would really want a deal before that?? If you REALLY believe that then I do not think you know anything about Kraft.

Kraft is not a man of empty threats; he doesn't bluff. He would have taken the Pats to CT had the Mass folks not backed off.
And he is not only willing to go to an uncapped year, he "hopes it's the vehicle to get us a deal." No ifs, ands or buts. Believe what you will, but if you think he will do anything to prevent an uncapped year, you ought to read his statement in full again.

No kidding Kraft was going to Conn..and given what he faced he had really no choice...
The only BUT is you pulled that quote out of context..,BUT that is OK..Believe what you will...
Saying you want an uncapped year and saying IF there is no deal that the uncapped year might be the ultimate hammer to get the deal done are two very different things.

 

[Synovia]

The owners could lock the players out of the 2010 season if they don't want an uncapped year. Also, the Union stated previously that if the cap goes, its never coming back. Which is incentive to NOT have an uncapped year.

If the cap goes, so does the salary floor.


yeah, the Pats, Redskins, Giants, will probably spend $150M+ if theres no cap, but the Bills, Chiefs, Seahawks, etc, will probably end up with $50M payrolls. I'm not sure that losing the cap is good for the union.

 

[Pats726]

If the cap goes, so does the salary floor.


yeah, the Pats, Redskins, Giants, will probably spend $150M+ if theres no cap, but the Bills, Chiefs, Seahawks, etc, will probably end up with $50M payrolls. I'm not sure that losing the cap is good for the union.

I think you are correct totally with this. Calling it "uncapped" is not describing it properly and I think the players do not realize that without a cap..there is also no floor, no minimum that teams will have to spend. Thus some teams could spend a lot less..and possibly make a LOT of money.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Also, the Union stated previously that if the cap goes, its never coming back. Which is incentive to NOT have an uncapped year.

Talk is cheap, particularly talk from a union that has a history of caving when push comes to shove. Those words are for the purpose of creating a bargaining position and nothing more, IMO.

 

[spacecrime]

Again..nowhere did Kraft say he wanted an uncapped year...NOWHERE....you even said that as well.....THAT is what you said..so you agree....or do you????


Where is the word WANT in that quote??? It MIGHT have to happen to get things right...MIGHT...NOT want...MIGHT have to happen to get it right. IF there is an uncapped year...IF...There is NO want at all in what he said. He is saying IF there is an uncapped year then THAT might be the vehicle to get a deal done. Nowhere does he say he wants it to get to that point. Nowhere....He's saying IF it gets to that point with no deal then the uncapped year IS the ultimate hammer.
Do you not think he would really want a deal before that?? If you REALLY believe that then I do not think you know anything about Kraft.
No kidding Kraft was going to Conn..and given what he faced he had really no choice...
The only BUT is you pulled that quote out of context..,BUT that is OK..Believe what you will...
Saying you want an uncapped year and saying IF there is no deal that the uncapped year might be the ultimate hammer to get the deal done are two very different things.

About as different as the Pats-showing-interest-in-Lenon thread. When you split hairs that finely you can make anything mean anything you want.

We'll know soon enough Kraft's feelings on an uncapped year by what he does or does not do to avoid one or help bring one about.

Actions show what people want more than words, anyway.

 

[spacecrime]

yeah, the Pats, Redskins, Giants, will probably spend $150M+ if theres no cap,

Hopefully not the Pats (because after winning the superbowl they will be restricted in signing new FAs)

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

The Pats will have near 55 million going into next off-season. How could they not re-sign Wilfork and Mankins? Also, one has to remember that there are other major stipulations that go in for an uncapped year. For instance, The final 4 teams are only allowed to sign their own free agents and then 1 free agent after that for every one they lose. And there is another stipulation for the next 4 teams, but I forget what that is..

Are you saying that the Pats will have 55 million in cap space next season? The reason why I thought an uncapped year would benefit the Pats is because everybody is freaking out that the Pats won't be able to sign Wilfork, Mankins and Seymour if there is a salary cap in 2010. I keep reading speculation from mediots that the Pats will have a hard time keeping their own free agents (which I find to be a load of crap, especially if 2010 is uncapped).

Regarding your second point, I have read about that rule too and I find it extremely stupid and flawed. In fact, what happens if players demand so much money that the bottom or mediocre teams can't afford? They have to sign somewhere. The whole point of being a free agent is being able to sign anywhere you choose. Also, their are always loopholes to the rules in the NFL. For example, you know how the Raiders were always complaining about the Broncos being able to sign anybody they want even when they had little to no salary cap. With that said, playoff teams will find a way to sign the free agents they want. Here's one example I wrote in an earlier post. Say Pierre Woods is the starting OLB this season and he doesn't do very well. The Pats want to upgrade the position so they let him walk in 2010 free agency and replace him with someone like Peppers, Merriman or Ware (highly unlikely).