Welcome to PatsFans.com

Is our ownership being jerks?

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by primetime, Mar 4, 2006.

  1. primetime

    primetime Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Messages:
    5,105
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +253 / 22 / -10

    #18 Jersey

    Why do I feel betrayed by the Krafts being one of the "haves" that are refusing to budge on this relatively small sum of shared revenue? It wasn't so long ago that the Patriots were a team rumored to be moving to every empty market in the country because New England couldn't support a team and the ownership was a total laughingstock. Now our owners are amongst the ones willing to risk lockouts over a small amount of revenue? I'm not sure if I can stand behind the Krafts on this one.
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,580
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +450 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    No they aren't. The Krafts put their asses and wallets on the line when they built the new stadium. Why should Al Davis share in the profits now when the only way he can make money is by screwing cities out of tax dollars. The owners already share plenty.
  3. SCPatBoy

    SCPatBoy Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Come on. Kraft was looking to move because Boston and Politics was being ridiculous with him. Kraft was always willing to pay for the new stadium himself, Mass was just making it difficult. Contrast that where all these teams force the taxpayers to pay for a large portion of new stadiums. These are some of the same teams that want Kraft and others to give them some of there revenues without taking into consideration the financial debt and liabilities Kraft encurred with Gillette. These other teams just want to sit back and get there $85 million from TV revenue and also get a nice chunk from owners like Kraft because he had a vision and risked his own personal assets for it. That is lazy...like food stamps and welfare. I have no sympathy for these low revenue owners and don't blame Kraft one bit for his stance!
  4. old 55

    old 55 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +27 / 0 / -2

    #87 Jersey

    sorry but I'm with the Krafts

    The Krafts have taken on debt in building their own stadium without the sweetheart deal that they would have had in Hartford and many other NFL teams have.

    I believe they feel that they would be at a disadvantage in sharing more revenues.

    They know their business and it appears that they are protecting their interests.

    I believe in Kraft before Upshaw any day.
  5. primetime

    primetime Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Messages:
    5,105
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +253 / 22 / -10

    #18 Jersey

    Yeah, but alot of the owners who have lower revenues come from smaller, less successful markets than the Boston area. Is it really fair to expect a small market team like the Colts, or one publicly traded like the Packers, to compare to a Boston-area juggernaut? Teams that toil away in mediocrity don't get to be one of these top twelve or whatever. I'm sure that if it wasn't for our recent strings of success on the field, we wouldn't be the economic model of the league right now.
  6. arrellbee

    arrellbee Rookie

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    That is certainly a possible way to look at it.

    Just a couple things to think about:
    It is apparently not just Kraft that is refusing to pony up the 'relatively small sum' - there must also be at least 8 other owners balking also. So maybe there is some respectable reason ?? Who knows.

    Also, we may not have any way to really make a judgement as to whether the 'relatively small sum' might be a straw that would break the golden goose's back. Yes there are 100's of millions of dollars in overall gross revenue. But the players are already getting over HALF of the GROSS revenue. That's a pretty big chunk. And remember it's GROSS revenue. Out of their share, which is less than half of the gross revenues, the owners have to pay ALL of the expenses of running the team. You can probably think of the many many expenses that they have plus, of course, money that has to go to pay off debt. Who knows. It's obvious that if the players got 100% of the gross revenues that it doesn't work !! But where is that dividing line where it goes from workable to not workable ?? Is 56.2% about at that line ? Who knows. But the owners refusing to agree to 60% is probably giving us a hint that it's pretty close.
  7. BionicPatriot

    BionicPatriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,542
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0


    bingo. Kraft made a huge risk by paying, with his OWN money for a stadium. Just because other owners can't generate money and suck as business men is not Krafts fault.
  8. hwc

    hwc On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,706
    Likes Received:
    115
    Ratings:
    +255 / 5 / -2

    It's a lot more complicated than that. Don't fall for the PR spin being leaked by Upshaw and the agents union.

    It's not even clear to me that the ownership lines are drawn along big revenue/small revenue issues.

    If you want to boil it down to the essence: there is no agreement because a sufficiently large number of owners believe that the combination of dollar amounts and salary cap rules demanded by the union will threaten the financial health of their companies. That tells me that the agents union demands are probably too high.

    Many of those owners would probably go for a large dollar amount to the agents union IF there were sufficiently stringent rules to make the cap system pay as you go without some of the bonus/backloading abuses. But Upshaw and the agents don't want that either. They want maximum dollars AND a system that encourages free agency excesses that punish financially prudent franchises.

    The whole thing is complicated by the fact that agreeing to an extension this weekend gives the worst abusers of the "cash over cap" issues a "get out of jail free card" -- something that certainly sticks in the craw of the owners. For example, owners who were hurting their own teams to get under the cap had to sit by while the Colts ignored the cap and signed Reggie Wayne to a contract with a $5.8 million cap number in 2006. How do you think Kraft (who can't even make an offer to David Givens and stay under this weekend's cap) feels about that? How does he feel about giving the Colts a "get out of jail free card" when the Colts are threatening to sue the NFL because they don't like the cap mess they have created for themselves by spending like drunken sailors?
  9. Patriotic Fervor

    Patriotic Fervor Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,416
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Yeah, but alot of the owners who have lower revenues come from smaller, less successful markets than the Boston area. Is it really fair to expect a small market team like the Colts, or one publicly traded like the Packers, to compare to a Boston-area juggernaut?

    Fair? FAIR?!?!?

    Then why did that financial genius Bob Irsay hightail out of Baltimore in the middle of the night and land himself and his team into that major metropolitan area known as Indianapolis? Did he see the vast sums of money he could make out there with his product? Perhaps he saw rube politicians that would be easier to hornswoggle taxpayer money out of? Was he motivated by altruism, or something else?

    Any business that's been run the way that one has cannot invoke the fairness argument.

    The Packers are publically owned and traded. The city owns them. Over the years that franchise has been run more intelligently that a lot of the teams in the league. But the perhaps that paradigm is changing. They attracted the likes of Reggie White with more than a money offer. Perhaps that doesn't work today. I don't know. But given it's past, this team, perhaps more than any other, should have an appreciation for what the Krafts have done, and are doing.

    Teams that toil away in mediocrity don't get to be one of these top twelve or whatever.

    Mediocre teams are usually mediocre for a reason. In any organization, mediocrity starts at the top. You want answers to the mediocrity question? That's the place the start looking.

    I'm sure that if it wasn't for our recent strings of success on the field, we wouldn't be the economic model of the league right now.

    Oh, you're sure, are you? They are the economic model of professional sports right now because they have a very successful, dynamic management structure. Would they have had those strings of success if, say, Dom Capers (just to use a name) were at the helm on the field? Would this team, as presently construed, replicate those said strings under the management style of, say, Bidwell of Arizona?

    You may have your own ideas about these things, but don't mistake equality of outcome with equality of opportunity. These teams you're mentioning have had plenty of opportunity to take advantage of the league's desire for equality of outcome, but few have done much of anything to maximize those opportunities in their own venues for the benefit of not only their own team, but the league in general.

    A parasite will succeed at the expense of it's host only so long before it is expelled, or kills the host. If some of these people don't grasp that basic fact of life, they'll kill the carefully crafted stucture that's enabled them to get filthy rich without doing a damn thing.

    Then where will they be?

    Much more importantly, where will we, the fans, be?
  10. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    HWC, you are a true genius.

    There is also the issue that the stadium, loaded with debt that it is, is a totally separate corporation. That rents its space to two separate professional franchises in two sports. If one wants revenue from that, then it should only be for revenue from football games, and after debts are paid. Kraft didn't go sucking up to the union or the taxpayers for the stadium, he has a right to say leave it alone.

    Additionally, some of these "low revenue" teams are the most profitable teams in the league. If you want sharing, make it profit sharing. Kraft will bury the thing in the red ink of the debt and will collect from Cinci et al, instead of the other way around.
  11. Murphys95

    Murphys95 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I think you've answered your own question. The Patriots struggled to sell out their games prior to Bob Kraft's arrival. Home games were routinely blacked-out in the early 80's. Heck, the Pats couldn't sell out the home opener following their first Super Bowl appearance. Without Kraft we fans wouldn't have a fraction of the bandwagon we do now.

    Oh, and don't forget, there were two lockouts under previous ownership (Sullivan).
  12. smg93

    smg93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,809
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    First time posting but have been part of the site for a while. I just wanted to reply to this subject because I think it's ridiculous that the "small" market teams want to force more successful franchises to share the wealth when they have not demonstrated a real need for the additional revenue. Much of the small market argument would have been better served if these teams were actually losing money and in danger of losing their franchises. That is not the case however even under the present scenario of sharing 80% of the currently defined Gross Revenue. Not one of these teams is unprofitable because of the huge TV contracts that they have gained and lets not forget that Robert Kraft was an integral member of the owners committee that negotiated the contracts for the benefit of all NFL teams.

    While I started out with the small market vs. big market theme of the day, I really want to make an even more important point about the definition of small versus big. The original question from Primetime actually contained the answer to the question. I quote from the passage:

    "It wasn't so long ago that the Patriots were a team rumored to be moving to every empty market in the country because New England couldn't support a team and the ownership was a total laughingstock."

    This is the whole point of the higher revenue generating teams. The Pats in the 90's before the Kraft's came in (was it Kiam or the Sullivan's they bought the franchise from?) were one of the so called small market teams. You mention that yourself in your question. But because the Kraft's were willing to take great risks including:

    1. Building a new stadium to replace a fast aging one

    2. Drafting players like Bledsoe (who had a great arm but I always thought had poor decision making skills) who brought attention to the team

    3. Hiring Parcells who made all of us believers that the PATS would no longer forever have to be known as the Patsies

    4. Hiring Belicheck (at a loss of a 2nd Round Draft Pick to the Jets no less) and his staff who subsequently won 3 of the last 4 Superbowls.

    they have been able to generate attention from a nationwide audience which made the Pats a "big market" team. The Pats designation as a "have" is directly related to great decision making combined with a little bit of good luck. But then again I have always been a proponent of making one's own luck.

    My point is we were a small market football team because there were very few people who really loved the Pats. In fact even after the first SB win against the Rams, there were rumblings that the Red Sox were still garnering a majority of the interest in New England Pro Sports. The Kraft's have turned this market around and they should be able to reap the benefits. After all, when they did buy the team I didn't see many people line up to send them money to help them alleviate some of the risk that they were taking. As it stands right now, much of the profit is going to both the players and other owners already because TV revenues, sales of tickets, jerseys and caps are all taken into account during gross revenue calculations. Do you really think that if NE wasn't winning, we'd be selling all of those caps and jerseys? I don't think so, yet even that success is shared with all 32 owners under the current system.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to sharing. It has introduced a great sense of parity and keeps the NFL show exciting and relatively unpredictable each week. But someone has to draw the line when that infringes upon the ability to be innovative when it comes to generating new sources of income. Think of it this way, if the Government taxed all of us 60% of our income (not take home pay mind you but all the money you earned) every year for the good of the state, how many of us would continue to bust our butt when it would be relatively simple to sit on welfare and wait for handouts?

    If places like Pittsburgh want to make more money all they need to do is raise ticket and concession prices by 10%. They will still sell out every home game guaranteed. When Rooney says he doesn't want to burden his fans with higher costs, that's fine. All that will happen is he will make less money than he is now. But what he implicitly says when he asks for a share of local revenues is that he wants to make nearly as much money as NE but instead of charging his fans higher prices, he will instead take it from the NE fans since they pay more money for a seat or concessions in their stadium. I'm sorry, but I'm not here to pay higher prices just so that I can save some fan in Pittsburgh some money. It just doesn't work for me.

    I apologize for the novel, but this whole CBA mess is idiotic. Both the players and the owners have a good thing going already under the current system. They both should realize that and stop aggravating all of us fans.
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2006
  13. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    BINGO!! We have bingo!! We can't allow the low revenue teams to escape from the reality that revenue is only one part of the equation...what about costs..expenses AND the delta in this all profits!!!! Yes, these low revenue so called poor teams are sometimes MORE profitable than so called rich high revenue teams. They wish to do nothing business wise to promote the team get more money and risk their profits at all...so why not continue doing nothing and hoodwink high revenue teams to get more money. Poor low revenue teams..what a ploy!! ANd many buy this nonsensical argument and miss what is really going on. How come Green Bay is in the top ten of revenue generation?? If the smallest by far of any city can do it these other low revenue teams can!! THAT simple. Throw in all the stadium deals etc..and it is a more complex thing, but don't be sold on this low revenue ploy. It doesn't make it at all. Now it seems these small revenue teams are going to be sure the CBA doesn't get done... good for them!! They will be the BIG losers if there is no CBA..so good for them...no sympathy at all and even less in the future.
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,900
    Likes Received:
    162
    Ratings:
    +223 / 6 / -7

    Seems to me these negotiations are moving along quite well. Already, with plenty of time left (since, let's face it, they wouldn't cancel the season for many, many months), it seems like all sides are pretty close. Of course, the small remaining differences could blow up, but right now both the union leaders and the owners deserve a lot of credit.
  15. Bill's Girl

    Bill's Girl Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,207
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Not only that BF, but Gillette is only one of 3 PRIVATELY financed stadiums in the NFL. I believe the other two are Miami and Washington. So, there are 29 other teams that are getting public, tax payer money. I think THIS money should be taken into consideration before a revenue sharing figure is reached.

    I am not a fan of revenue sharing, it is like welfare for the NFL. When the Krafts bought the team we were one of the "have-nots" and over time they have built this team into what it is today. This did not happen overnight, nor did it happen by sheer dumb-luck. This is a result of hard work and a comittment to winning. I'm sorry, but I don't see why the Krafts have to share the Patriots revenue with other teams that are to inept to run an NFL franchise.

    I thought the problem with negotiations had to do with how much of the NFL revenue would go to the players, rather than revenue sharing with other franchises???

    Please don't blame the greatest owner in the NFL if a compromise is not reached.

    Also, someone mentioned a lockout being the result of a deal NOT being reached, the result would be the lower cap number fot '06 and an uncapped '07. However an agreement can be reached after this to determine the cap for '07.
  16. wcda

    wcda Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  17. Bill's Girl

    Bill's Girl Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,207
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

  18. Brady'sButtBoy

    Brady'sButtBoy Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,776
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +14 / 3 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    There is one problem with siding with Kraft because of all the well reasoned positions presented here - if no new CBA deal is reached, Kraft will suffer along with the so called small market teams reviled in this thread. Without a new CBA the NFL will lose the competitive on-field balance it has exploited to achieve its high popularity. Combine that with growing fan resentment during the next two years as over and over again each side spews at the other when nuclear winter options like 6yrs before UFA and no UFA signings for the top four teams are encountered and the NFL will fall from grace just like every other sport has when they've been overcome by greed and fail to compromise.

    In fact, because Kraft has to pay off his own stadium the Patriots could suffer the most from a general decline in league popularity, leaving the Pats looking like the Cardinals since Kraft would not be able to spend very much on players because he's being strangled but his stadium debt. So don't be so sure an uncapped picture looks good for anyone.....
  19. aabtec

    aabtec Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    What a moronic comments. Did you buy the team ? Did you put your money up to build the stadium ? Don't stand behind the Krafts. Don't post here. Go post on the Bills forum or Jacksonville or St, Louis. Just leave. Don't let the door hit in the ***** on the way. Moron.
  20. sarge

    sarge Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    First off, it is apparently always easy for the "have nots" to decide what the "haves" should do with there money.

    Secondly, you are right about the Pats financial situation. In one article I read, they were the lowest revenue team in the league. Then Robert Kraft bought the team, and now they are near the top.

    He worked for his money. And now you suggest the owners who refuse to put in the hard work and EARN THEIR OWN MONEY should be allowed to collect what amounts to a welfare check from those who do work?

    Given the fact that when Kraft bought the team they were dead last in the league in total revenue, and the fact that he went into debt without having the taxpayers finance his stadium, the low revenue teams will get 0 sympathy from me. Kraft took the worse organization in the league revenue wise and turned it into a top 5 organization.

    If the low revenue teams need more revenue, I have a novel idea for them. GO OUT AND EARN IT!

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>