If the Owners vote to repudiate the labor agreement

[MoLewisrocks]

Before anyone predicts the demise of the Colts, just remember - they will be opening a new state of the art stadium courtesy of the good people who eat out and pay taxes in the state of Indiana. So they won't exactly be a have not any longer. They would still suffer to some extent though because Irsay doesn't have any other source of income beyond team ownership and they remain a small market team geographically.

What would eventually happen is franchise values would drop dramatically once not part of a collective, especially in the second teir, and owners without deep pockets and exceptional marketing opportunities and the skill to develop them would end up selling to the Paul Allen level billionaires of the world in the union's hope that some of that wealth would then be funneled to players. Basically you would end up with a league teeming with Daniel Snyder clone owners just frantically outbidding each other for talent. And unless the Krafts want to run/underwrite that kind of business, we would be adversely impacted eventually too.

Right now it's borderline which system would favor us, but that is primarily because of the inability to reach concensus on revenue sharing and the definition of revenue. But long term it's not. The Krafts want the predictability and bankability (relative stability of investment) as well as the opportunity to succeed by out performing and out managing the competition rather than being forced to outspend it that the capped and collectively bargained NFL has provided.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Because not everyone lives in a large market, and part of the success of the NFL is that just about everyone in the entire country has someone to root for that isn't a completely futile endeavor. This is combined with the fact that 99.99% of football players are from this country, and often small towns. Even though football has turned into such a media-driven/big town sport, it retains that hometown element that sports without a salary cap can never match.

I mean, yeah, it's a badge of honor to be a Royals fan because they never win, but is that really how you keep a league relevant and fun to watch for as many as possible?

but why should Bob Kraft and, more to the point, Patriots Season ticket holders have to subsidize that "badge of honor" and "hometown" element? if they want it, do what the Fans did in Green Bay and buy the team and then support it with jammed stadiums and anciallary purchases?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I like the cap because Belichick, Pioli and Kraft have been brilliant in exploiting it.

i don't think they've exploited the cap so much as they've maxed their potential under it. the people who are exploiting the cap are wilson and brown and small market teams like the colts and titans and jags and others.

 

[tobias funke]

I don't think the Patriots are hurting for money, and I don't think they would be even if they weren't raising prices this year. Does anyone?

Sorry, but I guess I don't really care if they have to help subsidize the smaller markets. Hopefully at some point, they won't have to, but right now it makes for a better product in my opinion.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Before anyone predicts the demise of the Colts, just remember - they will be opening a new state of the art stadium courtesy of the good people who eat out and pay taxes in the state of Indiana. So they won't exactly be a have not any longer. They would still suffer to some extent though because Irsay doesn't have any other source of income beyond team ownership and they remain a small market team geographically.

What would eventually happen is franchise values would drop dramatically once not part of a collective, especially in the second teir, and owners without deep pockets and exceptional marketing opportunities and the skill to develop them would end up selling to the Paul Allen level billionaires of the world in the union's hope that some of that wealth would then be funneled to players. Basically you would end up with a league teeming with Daniel Snyder clone owners just frantically outbidding each other for talent. And unless the Krafts want to run/underwrite that kind of business, we would be adversely impacted eventually too.

Right now it's borderline which system would favor us, but that is primarily because of the inability to reach concensus on revenue sharing and the definition of revenue. But long term it's not. The Krafts want the predictability and bankability (relative stability of investment) as well as the opportunity to succeed by out performing and out managing the competition rather than being forced to outspend it that the capped and collectively bargained NFL has provided.

well-argued, but i disagree with you on several points.

the people of indiana can do whatever they want with their hard-earned tax dollars, but without the cap, indy would definitely not have a team for which the people would be willing to make that decision. and, without the cap, such a team is not sustainable in that market. i'm not going to shed any tears for Irsay and Polian et al if they can't succeed in a new environment. they've kicked too many people going up to expect sympathy going down.

as far as the patriots being harmed by a no-cap world, i think you're wrong. the new england market is one of the largest and most lucrative in the US, so the patriots will do just fine.

as for Dan Snyder, a lot of people don't like him but if you ask folks in Washington, he's quite well-regarded (if not loved) there and done a lot of good for that community.

Paul Allen is hardly a bad owner.

and, what's wrong with 20 franchises outbidding each other for talent? a free market will eventually correct any dumb or rapacious behavior that turns out to be counterproductive.

as for your point on the patriots, bob kraft has been a genius at adapting his economics and management to the current situation. he'll do just fine if the rules change. in fact, his will be one of the franchises to prosper.

(i've probably overstated my position, but i'm so happy to have something besides Spygate to write about that I'll leave it as is.)

 

[tobias funke]

Kraft said he never would have bought the team if there wasn't a salary cap, FWIW.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

but the team he bought was at the bottom of the barrel in the NFL. he took advantage of the cap to build a franchise that fit the great market in which it was located...

 

[mgteich]

There's a certain team in New England whose owners are chiefly repsonsible for the deal. No agreement, no NFL. It's that simple. There would end up being 1-3 new leagues formed. It would be a disaster for the NFL as we know it.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

well-argued, but i disagree with you on several points.

the people of indiana can do whatever they want with their hard-earned tax dollars, but without the cap, indy would definitely not have a team for which the people would be willing to make that decision. and, without the cap, such a team is not sustainable in that market. i'm not going to shed any tears for Irsay and Polian et al if they can't succeed in a new environment. they've kicked too many people going up to expect sympathy going down.

I have no empathy for Indy, nor did I express any. Just pointing out that their demise is no more eminent in an uncapped league than any mid tier revenue team, which is what the new stadium will make them - debt service free unlike ours. It's built, opens this fall, and it will sustain them at least through Manning's tenure - which is likely the tenure that they were looking to sustain anyway. Once that time passes Irsay can revert to form and move the team to a city or owner who will sustain it or end the Irsay chapter of NFL history.

as far as the patriots being harmed by a no-cap world, i think you're wrong. the new england market is one of the largest and most lucrative in the US, so the patriots will do just fine.

I guess you don't get it. Bob Kraft doesn't want to succeed by outspending his competitors. An uncapped league isn't the only thing that awaits if the owners opt out. There are cap and contract provisions under an expiring CBA that will make extending and retaining our best players difficult. There are provisions that restrict the FA market for playoff teams prior to the uncapped season of 2010. And absent the CBA no anti trust provisions and collectively bargained rules or regulations including no draft...and a potential labor stoppage. Bob has lots of debt service between the stadium and new construction. Brady isn't crossing the picket line, either.

as for Dan Snyder, a lot of people don't like him but if you ask folks in Washington, he's quite well-regarded (if not loved) there and done a lot of good for that community.

Paul Allen is hardly a bad owner.

and, what's wrong with 20 franchises outbidding each other for talent? a free market will eventually correct any dumb or rapacious behavior that turns out to be counterproductive.

Didn't in baseball, so they had to go to a luxury tax which Bob ain't gonna be comfortable paying either. Particularly if the premier players he is now competing for are demanding guaranteed contracts. Billionaire hobby owners who want to win a Lombardi probably won't care since their ownership is often fleeting fancy.

as for your point on the patriots, bob kraft has been a genius at adapting his economics and management to the current situation. he'll do just fine if the rules change. in fact, his will be one of the franchises to prosper.

But as some do remember to point out, he might not have been in a position to had it not been for the favorable system that was in place when he acquired the franchise.

(i've probably overstated my position, but i'm so happy to have something besides Spygate to write about that I'll leave it as is.)

I agree on youknowwhat-gate. That said, as well as the Krafts have managed in the cap and revenue sharing era, they do not welcome it's demise. Only Snyder and perhaps Jerry Jones honestly do, but that is partly rooted in huberis. I actually don't think the Krafts would retain the team into the next generation if the model changes dramatically. It's been a labor of love for Bob as a fan, but it's also a business, and if he feels he can't run it profitably and efficiently absent stability and predictability, he will opt out. Not in the immediate futue, but a decade or less down the road. His state of the art stadium will be obsolete by then seating 78,000 with the highest ticket prices in the league even operating with a cap. And absent the loan programs he was eligible for as part of a collective, he won't be building another with private funds any time soon. Especially in the post Belioli-Brady era. And that is the only way they get built in this region.

 

[Deus Irae]

If the owners repudiate the labor agreement, a new one will arise in its place. Neither side can afford any other result. Owners need the players, but the players are useless without the owners. Furthermore, this theory about multiple leagues hasn't exactly shown any life to it in the past 35 years. Football is more extreme than the other sports in that the careers are so much shorter. It's why the owners will win any labor impasse if they just hang together.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Update:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...oys/stories/022608dmspocowbriefs.3af6996.html

INDIANAPOLIS – Dallas Cowboys owner and general manager Jerry Jones believes there is a good chance ownership will opt out of the current labor agreement with the NFL Players Association by the November deadline.
Jones did not give the Cowboys' opinion of the deal. Several owners, however, such as Denver's Pat Bowlen and New England's Robert Kraft, have expressed dissatisfaction.
Twenty-four of 32 votes would be needed to keep the collective bargaining agreement in place.