Opinion: Jonathan Kraft not representing the Krafts well during labor battle

[townes]

In my opinion, Smith is the biggest obstacle in this entire process.

Imo greed is the biggest obstacle in this process.

 

[townes]

I'm not defending anyone. I'm just stating the fact that the people who actually know how much revenue is being generated, don't believe the increase in player salary/benefit costs are comensurate with the current revenue.

And your argument goes both ways, the players deserve more because they want more? But instead of negotiating they go to court. They refused to review the financial information that the owners were willing to provide, they waited to doomsday to provide any real counter offer and even then their efforts seemed half hearted. Both sides are to blame, but if I was forced to pick it a side it wouldn't be in favor of the players.

Once again, the players never asked for more, and once again you are citing something anecdotal and expecting us to take it as factual. You also have the course of negotiating events completely backwards, as it was the owners who behaved the way you describe and not the players.

 

[mgcolby]

And Smith, as a lawyer, is going to take the harder line in public but he still sounded like a total **** and was far more belligerent than i thought he should have been. It really sucks that both sides are as dug in as they appear to be. Once the ruling is in on the stay they should have the Players Executive committee sit down with the owners executive committee and they should go long and hard to hammer out a deal that will be fair to all and stand the test of time. I believe many of the owners know they have a good thing and I believe players like Brady and Manning have no desire at all to take down the game as it is generally structured, however the course of events is taking things down an extreme road with serious consequences, and somewhere common sense and the common good should become the determining factor.

This I can agree with.

 

[Synovia]

Once again, the players never asked for more, .

Sure they did. Thats why the percentage went up in the last CBA.



A lot of the reason for the opt-out isn't between the players and the teams, its between the big-market owners, and guys like Ralph Wilson in Buffalo.

Kraft puts a lot of money into his franchise to maximize revenue, and then has to give a big chunk of it to Ralph Wilson because Ralph Wilson won't even accept the 10s of millions of dollars sponsors have offered him for naming rights on the Buffalo stadium.

Players probably don't give a **** about that though.


One thing the players have tried to grab though is the revenue from Patriot Place...which I think is absolutely absurd. He paid for those buildings out of his own pocket. He accepted all the risk.

 

[townes]

One thing the players have tried to grab though is the revenue from Patriot Place...which I think is absolutely absurd. He paid for those buildings out of his own pocket. He accepted all the risk.

Not true. Mike Vrabel said they should get a share and imo was way off base, the players have absolutely no right to any of those revenues and ha had no serious basis for claiming they did. The comments were made after the last CBA was done and the player's have never moved in any way to include those revenues in their deal, and they would have had to renegotiate the CBA to do so.

 

[Synovia]

Record ratings, record TV deals, and record revenues, and increasing revenue streams, trying to conflate the NFL economy with the economy as a whole is absurd.

Record Salary Cap, Record Salary Floor, Record Player medical costs, record medical/concussion research expenses.


See how easy that is?

 

[mgcolby]

Once again, the players never asked for more, and once again you are citing something anecdotal and expecting us to take it as factual. You also have the course of negotiating events completely backwards, as it was the owners who behaved the way you describe and not the players.

I've stayed out of this debate and away from this board since the arguing and side taking began and this conversation has reminded me why. As far as I can tell through media reports, the same place I assume you get all of your info, the players have not negotiated in good faith at any point in this process. From the beginning they banked on a lockout and the court system.

What was said that wasn't factual? Ah don't bother I'm done with this idiotic issue.

 

[Synovia]

Not true. Mike Vrabel said they should get a share and imo was way off base, .

So whats not true. Is Mike Vrabel not one of the players?

 

[townes]

Sure they did. Thats why the percentage went up in the last CBA.



A lot of the reason for the opt-out isn't between the players and the teams, its between the big-market owners, and guys like Ralph Wilson in Buffalo.

Kraft puts a lot of money into his franchise to maximize revenue, and then has to give a big chunk of it to Ralph Wilson because Ralph Wilson won't even accept the 10s of millions of dollars sponsors have offered him for naming rights on the Buffalo stadium.

Players probably don't give a **** about that though.

The claim that the players were looking for more money since the last CBA is what is not true.

I agree that the argument is really between the owners and that really isn't the player's business.

 

[townes]

So whats not true. Is Mike Vrabel not one of the players?

What's not true is the claim the players were asking for that in a deal, one player's comments don't reflect the negotiating position of the NFLPA, and they didn't opt out and there is no evidence they ever asked for such an increase in their revenue stream.


Do Rashard Mendenhall's comments reflect the stance of the player's as well?

 

[dhamz]

The "players have never asked for more" is straight out of the Dee Smith semantics playbook and references only the revenue split that makes up the salary cap #. Asking for increased healthcare coverage and retirement benefits is the textbook definition of asking for more in labor negotiations.

 

[Synovia]

What's not true is the claim the players were asking for that in a deal, one player's comments don't reflect the negotiating position of the NFLPA, and they didn't opt out and there is no evidence they ever asked for such an increase in their revenue stream.


Do Rashard Mendenhall's comments reflect the stance of the player's as well?

I didn't say the players union, now did I?


Why? Because THERE IS NO PLAYERS UNION, and as such, any player making demands has about just as much authority as any other.

Players were asking for that, which is exactly what I said.

 

[Deus Irae]

The "players have never asked for more" is straight out of the Dee Smith semantics playbook and references only the revenue split that makes up the salary cap #. Asking for increased healthcare coverage and retirement benefits is the textbook definition of asking for more in labor negotiations.

The players wanted to keep playing under the old deal. The players offered to play again this year under the rules of the old deal.

Sorry but, no matter how you try to spin it, that's not asking for more.

 

[townes]

I didn't say the players union, now did I?


Why? Because THERE IS NO PLAYERS UNION, and as such, any player making demands has about just as much authority as any other.

Players were asking for that, which is exactly what I said.

"Players?"


Tell us who the other one was, otherwise you should stick to "Vrabel," or "player," because it wasn't the "players," and to say it was suggests the collective, obviously.


You must be pretty desperate to try and go this route.

 

[townes]

The "players have never asked for more" is straight out of the Dee Smith semantics playbook and references only the revenue split that makes up the salary cap #. Asking for increased healthcare coverage and retirement benefits is the textbook definition of asking for more in labor negotiations.

Once again, the players were fine with the way it was, they didn't opt out and ask for more. You guys can keep on making stuff up but it certainly doesn't help your argument, rather it shows just how weak it is.

 

[Synovia]

The players wanted to keep playing under the old deal. The players offered to play again this year under the rules of the old deal.

Sorry but, no matter how you try to spin it, that's not asking for more.

You do realize that the revenue the players receive goes up every year under the old CBA, right? I think "Yeah, we'll accept another raise , despite the owners claims that its breaking the league" isn't all that far from asking for more.


In the grand scheme, does it matter? Either the percentage the players are getting is breaking the establishment/its ability to further the game, or its not. We don't know either way, and to pretend otherwise is silly.

It doesn't matter whether or not the players asked for more if the consequence of letting the CBA run its length was to put half the franchises out of business.

 

[townes]

You do realize that the revenue the players receive goes up every year under the old CBA, right? I think "Yeah, we'll accept another raise , despite the owners claims that its breaking the league" isn't all that far from asking for more.


In the grand scheme, does it matter? Either the percentage the players are getting is breaking the establishment/its ability to further the game, or its not. We don't know either way, and to pretend otherwise is silly.

It doesn't matter whether or not the players asked for more if the consequence of letting the CBA run its length was to put half the franchises out of business.

The percentage agreed upon stayed constant.


If you are right the owners and those who support them should be able to show quite easily that half the league is in peril of going under. Go for it, can't wait to see the facts that support this claim.

 

[Synovia]

"Players?"


Tell us who the other one was, otherwise you should stick to "Vrabel," or "player," because it wasn't the "players," and to say it was suggests the collective, obviously.


You must be pretty desperate to try and go this route.

Vrable was a union rep (while there was a union). I'm sure he didn't come up with that idea himself.

 

[Synovia]

The percentage agreed upon stayed constant.
.

Yeah, it did. But what was included in that percentage changed.


If a bully takes 57% of your lunch money one year, then the next year takes 57% of your (lunch money+bus fare), is he still taking the same amount of money?

 

[BronxPatsFan80]

I am not surprised that Jonathan Kraft came across that way on the radio. I used to work for a law firm representing the Pats organization and Jonathan's reputation among the attorneys was that he was an incredibly arrogant a@@ . . . (at least that was his reputation per the grapevine for what it's worth) . . .