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

[patfanken]

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.

Townsie, you sound like the guy who things things like the stock market and housing markets are never going to correct. the facts are that net profits are not what they should be given the kind of revenue that is coming in. The GB books are a good indication of that. Operation costs have shot up the last few years further mitigating net profits.

I don't think you are suggesting that the owners should just put their heads in the sand and keeping the status quo until several teams DO start to fail. Ownership is doing the right thing now. The old CBA HAS to change for the league to have long term viability. Player's income has risen beyond reason in the last half decade. When Tom Brady came into the league the top QB's were making $5MM/yr In one single generation the QB cost have gone up 4X's....and that goes pretty much across the board. G's are commanding salaries that were unthinkable for QBs just a few years ago.

Now I believe the players have a right to try and get the most they can get....but right now it looks to me like they are DEMANDING to get it. They want to be "partners", yet aren't willing to take any of the risk.

So again, what WOULD be a fair deal for both sides, or do you think the old CBA was good enough.

 

[DaBruinz]

The Basic points of the last offer are public knowledge now. You must have seen. You tell me what was so bad about the deal that was so horrible that the players couldn't at LEAST have gone back to the table. The owners gave up the 18 game season, time off in the OTA's and (here's the one that was a real shocker) gave up control to an independent 3rd party on drug test failures. That's just off the top of my head, but those are 3 HUGE gains for the players.

Again Townsie, you tell me what was so horrible?

BTW - if you already have done this ....nevermind. I'm only on page 3 of this thread.

PFK - What the players most objected to was the rollback of the salary cap number to the 2008 number of $114 million. Of course, they ignored the INCREASE in benefits to $27 million per team because it didn't fit in their bargaining. Also, I believe that there was a major change to the overages. Previously extra/unused money was rolled into the next year. I believe that any extra/unused money would go directly to the owners and the players would not see a benefit.

There were a couple of other points that I mentioned that wouldn't provide a cash benefit to the players, but it would save them on expenses.

The owners last offer wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Howerver, it wasn't as bad as the players made it out to be. Nor was it as good as the owners claimed.

 

[patfanken]

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.

I agree with you on this point - Its just that the old CBA doesn't work for ownership for all the reasons I've given in prior posts. However saying that the players are asking for more is just not true.

BTW on page 6 with hopes of catching up

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

The players were looking for more benefits at the owners expense. Which is taking money out of the owners pockets and giving it, indirectly, to the players.

That is still asking for more money. It is just indirect.

 

[DaBruinz]

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?

The players have stated in the past that ALL revenue streams associated with the NFL should be included in the CBA. And that would include things like Patriot Place, since it has the Patriots name and is next to the stadium. You can look it up on you-tube. One of the players did a series of videos for his brethren and it included that.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

How do you know the players didn't ask for more? Have you seen any of their offers or counter-offers? Or are you just parroting DeMaurice Smith and forgetting the old addage of "How do you tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving"????

 

[Gainzo]

Haven't read the thread but it must be nice to be Jonathan Kraft. Who cares what he says?

 

[patfanken]

PFK - What the players most objected to was the rollback of the salary cap number to the 2008 number of $114 million. Of course, they ignored the INCREASE in benefits to $27 million per team because it didn't fit in their bargaining. Also, I believe that there was a major change to the overages. Previously extra/unused money was rolled into the next year. I believe that any extra/unused money would go directly to the owners and the players would not see a benefit.

There were a couple of other points that I mentioned that wouldn't provide a cash benefit to the players, but it would save them on expenses.

The owners last offer wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Howerver, it wasn't as bad as the players made it out to be. Nor was it as good as the owners claimed.

My biggest objection to what the players did was leaving the bargaining table with an offer on the table that they never bothered to counter, and to run to the courts. All it showed me was that they WEREN'T bargaining in good faith...perhaps they never were.

That being said, I recognize that if the players wanted to "win" this conflict the courts were the right way to go. However, this shouldn't be about "winning". The players can win the lawsuit, but ultimately lose and lose big if it hurts the league.

Somehow, and I don't see it happening, BOTH sides need to get back in a room, without lawyers, and work out a compromise so that both sides can claim victory and we can get back to wondering about who we can get in FA, But with the players and their non existent leadership seem fully committed to having this settled in the courts, for the first time, I forsee this really dragging into the summer.

Even though I'm firmly on the owners side in this, I almost hope they don't get their stay and the league year can start.

 

[Observer]

So again, what WOULD be a fair deal for both sides, or do you think the old CBA was good enough.

Unless the owners demonstrate otherwise, I am going to assume that the old CBA that worked for many years was good enough.

 

[lurker1965]

I forgot to bring this up when I heard him on WEEI last week, but Jonathan Kraft - and this isn't the first time - desperately needs to take a lesson from his father and be careful about what he says in the media.... I hope he manages to rein his son in.

Good cop, bad cop.

 

[Ring 6]

Unless the owners demonstrate otherwise, I am going to assume that the old CBA that worked for many years was good enough.

Wouldn't opting out be a clear demonstration that it wasnt good enough for them?

 

[townes]

Wouldn't opting out be a clear demonstration that it wasnt good enough for them?

It would have to be because that's the only defense of them that has been offered to this point. No-one can make a factual argument for them so "because they say so" will have to do.



To all those saying the players asked for more and then try to cite negotiations AFTER the owners opted out------that was never the point or the argument and no-one knows who has really offered what in those negotiations. The players were satisfied with the current agreement and willing to continue with it, the owners want more and opted out for it, they killed the game and they deserve all the blame for it.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

Unless the owners demonstrate otherwise, I am going to assume that the old CBA that worked for many years was good enough.

So, record revenues accompanied with declining profits doesn't do it for you? You are waiting for team ownership to start bleeding before you address the problem? I guess you've never owned a business. The objective is to improve your bottom line yearly, not diminish it. You obviously have no problem as long as the players (and some fans) are fat, dumb, and happy it seems.

 

[patfanken]

Unless the owners demonstrate I am going to assume that the old CBA that worked for many years was good enough.

So you are in the camp who believes the old CBA is good enough and until you see three or 4 teams go under, there is no need to change?. Great BTW- If you are ever looking for investors for a business you are starting up....don't bother coming to me.

 

[patfanken]

It would have to be because that's the only defense of them that has been offered to this point. No-one can make a factual argument for them so "because they say so" will have to do.

Actually you can. The books of the Packers are public record. They show that given the enormous revenue stream actual profits were minimal in comparison. And GB is one of the league's premier franchises with a national fan base.

I'll try asking you some stuff and hope for better results, now that the draft is over.

Since you are so firmly on the players side, here are a few questions I'd be very interested in knowing your answer.

1. Do you think that when the owners and players eventually DO end up sitting down, should the discussion be on getting a new CBA or settling the law suit?

2. Given what how you see the conflict, what do you think would be the basis of a fair deal to get this behind us. Feel free to use the last deal the NFL gave the players as a basis

3. Do you really think the players negotiated fairly, or was going to the courts the goal all along?....and why

4. As to the money, which in the end is ALL this is about, right now the players get is about 60% of the total revenue. They want 50% How would you solve the impass

Thanks I look forward to your reply

 

[townes]

Actually you can. The books of the Packers are public record. They show that given the enormous revenue stream actual profits were minimal in comparison. And GB is one of the league's premier franchises with a national fan base.

I'll try asking you some stuff and hope for better results, now that the draft is over.

Since you are so firmly on the players side, here are a few questions I'd be very interested in knowing your answer.

1. Do you think that when the owners and players eventually DO end up sitting down, should the discussion be on getting a new CBA or settling the law suit?

2. Given what how you see the conflict, what do you think would be the basis of a fair deal to get this behind us. Feel free to use the last deal the NFL gave the players as a basis

3. Do you really think the players negotiated fairly, or was going to the courts the goal all along?....and why

4. As to the money, which in the end is ALL this is about, right now the players get is about 60% of the total revenue. They want 50% How would you solve the impass

Thanks I look forward to your reply

Ken, I will answer each of these when I get the chance, i'm not blowing you off I work 12-14 hours a night and i have a bunch of other stuff going on right now as well.

I'll quickly do what i can before heading to work.

1) If the Packers books are representative of the league then they should show them and end the dispute, telling the players to trust them after the scumbag deals they made with Direct TV and the networks simply doesn't fly as the owners clearly cannot be trusted. The players said they would make concessions if warranted and I believe them.


2) A new CBA, the lawsuit won't end because the agreement is under court supervision and has been for years because of the owners behavior. If they end the lawsuit the players will win and the worst case scenario that everyone dreads will come into play, and at that point the owners will be at the players mercy on a new deal as they will be in a deep deep hole. The owners should use this period prior to the ruling to get a new deal while there is some uncertainty, if they wait they will lose as they always do.

3) I'm jumping over a point and will get back to it. The owners never had any intention of dealing and forced the players into the courts, i believe the players would have agreed to a fair deal but one was never offered and the owners made clear they were going to push it and try to break the players, that backfired.


*I will think about a fair deal again but I am pretty sure I outlined what I thought was fair earlier in this thread and it had the players making serious concessions but the owners giving up on capping the split so that the % remained constant whether revenues went up or down, the owners want the players to take less if there is less but alswo demand they take no more if revenues go up beyond a certain point, and asking people to share the risk but not the benefits is garbage.


Time to work, i will try to finish answering later.

 

[Synovia]

1) If the Packers books are representative of the league then they should show them and end the dispute, telling the players to trust them after the scumbag deals they made with Direct TV and the networks simply doesn't fly as the owners clearly cannot be trusted. The players said they would make concessions if warranted and I believe them..

This is a lot like the Obama birth certificate thing:

The teams HAVE shown their books. The players basically want receipts. There's no amount of evidence thats going to get one side to believe the other.

 

[Synovia]

2) A new CBA, the lawsuit won't end because the agreement is under court supervision and has been for years because of the owners behavior. If they end the lawsuit the players will win and the worst case scenario that everyone dreads will come into play, and at that point the owners will be at the players mercy on a new deal as they will be in a deep deep hole. The owners should use this period prior to the ruling to get a new deal while there is some uncertainty, if they wait they will lose as they always do.

3) I'm jumping over a point and will get back to it. The owners never had any intention of dealing and forced the players into the courts, i believe the players would have agreed to a fair deal but one was never offered and the owners made clear they were going to push it and try to break the players, that backfired.

I don't mean to be an ass here, but I'm going to. Do you think about this stuff before you write it? Or is it just inane stream of thought?


YOu really think the owners, who had no chance in court, and never win in court, never had any intention of dealing, because they wanted this to go to court? Are you high?

 

[DaBruinz]

Ken, I will answer each of these when I get the chance, i'm not blowing you off I work 12-14 hours a night and i have a bunch of other stuff going on right now as well.

I'll quickly do what i can before heading to work.

1) If the Packers books are representative of the league then they should show them and end the dispute, telling the players to trust them after the scumbag deals they made with Direct TV and the networks simply doesn't fly as the owners clearly cannot be trusted. The players said they would make concessions if warranted and I believe them.

Yes. The deals were so bad that the league would actually have to pay money back to the networks in the event of games being cancelled. Something they didn't have to do previously..

You only feel they were "scum bag" deals because the player's portion would be put into an escrow that the players couldn't touch until the labor dispute was resolved while the owners would have free reign over their share.

2) A new CBA, the lawsuit won't end because the agreement is under court supervision and has been for years because of the owners behavior. If they end the lawsuit the players will win and the worst case scenario that everyone dreads will come into play, and at that point the owners will be at the players mercy on a new deal as they will be in a deep deep hole. The owners should use this period prior to the ruling to get a new deal while there is some uncertainty, if they wait they will lose as they always do.

You just continue to show you don't know what you are talking about. If the players decided to drop their lawsuit, then whatever agreement they reached with the owners would take precedent. And it would, more than likely, remove the courts from the supervision process.

3) I'm jumping over a point and will get back to it. The owners never had any intention of dealing and forced the players into the courts, i believe the players would have agreed to a fair deal but one was never offered and the owners made clear they were going to push it and try to break the players, that backfired.

This is utter BS on your part. The owners gave the players multiple different offers. The players never once sent their own offer to the owners other than the "status quo".

The players could have started negotiations anytime in the last 2 years after it became know that the owners were opting out. The players did nothing. They just sat back and blamed the owners.

As for the players agreeing to a fair deal, if you believe that then you are more gullible than the blonds in 90% of the blong jokes.

I find it amazing that the players were so quick to make know the owners offer, but I've yet to see a SINGLE shred of evidence that the players made any sort of legitimate counter offer.

*I will think about a fair deal again but I am pretty sure I outlined what I thought was fair earlier in this thread and it had the players making serious concessions but the owners giving up on capping the split so that the % remained constant whether revenues went up or down, the owners want the players to take less if there is less but alswo demand they take no more if revenues go up beyond a certain point, and asking people to share the risk but not the benefits is garbage.


Time to work, i will try to finish answering later.

The players haven't shared any of the risk with their CBA. Not an ounce. And they continue to show they don't want any of the risk. Why you'd think otherwise is beyond me.

 

[AzPatsFan]

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.

It doesn't matter.

The owners made a bad deal, even though several owners warned them of that and even included an option out clause.

The owners who said so were right. In the last deal the owners gave too much.

Of course the players want to keep what they got. But in the final analysis, the guys who write the paychecks aren't going to write them until there are pay cuts. When the Players chose DeMaurice Smith a lawyer, he does what lawyers do, he went to court.

Changing the subject and trying to bring down the way this sport conducts business because it is patently obvious that all sports league do some things in an indefensible antitrust legal way, merely tries to scare the owners into not going there. But the owners have gone there, so it accomplishes nothing, and is merely a distraction.

Every legal and costly Pyhrric victory, only cost the owners some more money, and gives them less to use to write Player's paychecks. No court can force them to write paychecks large or small. No one can force the owners to write paychecks larger than they feel they can continue to write.

So we fans will lose a season before sanity returns to the remaining players willing to play for lower sums.

Ask the NHL players how their owners would never dare to hold out over a whole season, to get costs in control through cutting salaries....