Will Bob Kraft bench the NFL?

[JR4]

The hitch in this CBA thing apparently falls on the shoulders of
of a few wealthy Owners who won't declare the TOTAL renveues they
acutally receive ( group led by Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder and Bob Kraft).

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Commentary/Columns/2005/harkush2030.htm

Mr Kraft did a great thing for Patriots but if he brings the NFL to the bench
his sparkling repuatation may need some fixing up. This seems to be
bad that a small group of wealthy owners can do this.
Does this mean that really Bob Kraft's main motivating factor is the bottom line?
If for example instead of 90 Million he only gets 60 Million he will suffer?

So Bob you found ways to generate new revenues and were able not to
include them in total revenues declared. You wouldn't be getting those
revenues if weren't for the NFL and its Fans. Do the right thing Bob.
Don't bench the NFL!

Don't be one of those few incredibly greedy and selfish owners that
will ruin our game.

Maye PATs fans need to petition Kraft?

How many Fans know whats going on here?

 

[dhamz]

I don't think any of this is new to any fans. It has only been written a thousand times in the last year.

The slant of the article was extremely one sided. The issues from the Krafts/Jones/Snyeder's of the world include a lot more complex issues than simple wanting to keep their own revenue. One issue I have heard Kraft raise is shoudn't their debt be counted - ie shouldn't the fact that an owner paid for his revenue generating stadium be considered when compared to another owner who paid nothing for his tax payer funded revenue generating stadium? Should teams that do no marketing and make no attempt to contribute in these other revenue areas just be allowed to take from a pool created by the hard work of other teams?

 

[mikey]

Does anyone see the irony in all of this??

Since when did New England Patriots became a "high-revenue" team??

Since when do you put the Patriots in the same company of such glamor teams such as the Cowboys and Redskins??

But of course, the emergence of the Patriots coincided with their improbable but remarkable rise to the top of the league.

As for Kraft complaining about the NFL model, the irony is that if any person truly benefited from NFL share-the-wealth success, it is Kraft hiimself.

He went from a little-known businessman from Boston to one of the 300 richest men in America.

He now rubs shoulder with moguls and heads of state.

It would be interesting to see how events will eventualy unfold.

.

 

[JR4]

One issue I have heard Kraft raise is shoudn't their debt be counted - ie shouldn't the fact that an owner paid for his revenue generating stadium be considered when compared to another owner who paid nothing for his tax payer funded revenue generating stadium? Should teams that do no marketing and make no attempt to contribute in these other revenue areas just be allowed to take from a pool created by the hard work of other teams?

That doesn't quite fly. If owner X is getting 40% of 200Million
and that owner spends $$$ to increase the revenues to 300Million
then that owner is getting 40% of 300M ...his total. That owner makes more
money.
What these owners want is to get the 40% of the 200million PLUS the
100M from there ingenious ways.

Problem ... the only way they could make that extra 100M is because of
the Players ... they deserve their cut even if that ower was creative becaue
no matter how creative those owner are their increase profits are because
of the Players ... no players ... no increased revenues.

 

[PatsFan37]

This article takes a complex issue and boils it down to a simple lie: that total revenue sharing is a simple solution held back by owners with the most revenue.

The truth is that owners don't take home revenue because first they have to pay expenses. When owners lbuild stadiums, their expenses are far, far higher since they have to pay down several hundred million dollars of debt that has their signature on it. Articles like this glorify the other owners, the ones that lobby local taxpayers to subsidize a rich man's hobby -- calling them the 'poor' owners. Please. No one in this picture is poor.

Sharing profits is too complicated to manage within the CBA and the players would never agree to it. They want their money off the top line, not the bottom line. It's not their worry if the owners fail to profit.

So the owners with massive debt are forced to negotiate their way to a fair situation. That's the story the article doesn't tell.

 

[PATSNUTme]

The hitch in this CBA thing apparently falls on the shoulders of
of a few wealthy Owners who won't declare the TOTAL renveues they
acutally receive ( group led by Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder and Bob Kraft).

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Commentary/Columns/2005/harkush2030.htm

Mr Kraft did a great thing for Patriots but if he brings the NFL to the bench
his sparkling repuatation may need some fixing up. This seems to be
bad that a small group of wealthy owners can do this.
Does this mean that really Bob Kraft's main motivating factor is the bottom line?
If for example instead of 90 Million he only gets 60 Million he will suffer?

So Bob you found ways to generate new revenues and were able not to
include them in total revenues declared. You wouldn't be getting those
revenues if weren't for the NFL and its Fans. Do the right thing Bob.
Don't bench the NFL!

Don't be one of those few incredibly greedy and selfish owners that
will ruin our game.

Maye PATs fans need to petition Kraft?

How many Fans know whats going on here?

To fully inform those fans so they know "what's going on here'? BOB KRAFT BUILT GILLETTE WITH PRIVATE MONEY.

His debt sevice must be tremendous. Most of the owners had stadiums built with PUBLIC money. They sit on their asses and don't spend any time marketing to produce other revenue.

I can see Krafts point. Maybe a small amount of "other revenue" should be shared but Kraft should be alowed to subtract his debt service from that "other revenue."

Isn't that just plain fair?

 

[Pats67]

The hitch in this CBA thing apparently falls on the shoulders of
of a few wealthy Owners who won't declare the TOTAL renveues they
acutally receive ( group led by Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder and Bob Kraft).

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Commentary/Columns/2005/harkush2030.htm

Mr Kraft did a great thing for Patriots but if he brings the NFL to the bench
his sparkling repuatation may need some fixing up. This seems to be
bad that a small group of wealthy owners can do this.
Does this mean that really Bob Kraft's main motivating factor is the bottom line?
If for example instead of 90 Million he only gets 60 Million he will suffer?

So Bob you found ways to generate new revenues and were able not to
include them in total revenues declared. You wouldn't be getting those
revenues if weren't for the NFL and its Fans. Do the right thing Bob.
Don't bench the NFL!

Don't be one of those few incredibly greedy and selfish owners that
will ruin our game.

Maye PATs fans need to petition Kraft?

How many Fans know whats going on here?

Ron? Is that you, Ron?

 

[BradyisGod]

This article takes a complex issue and boils it down to a simple lie: that total revenue sharing is a simple solution held back by owners with the most revenue.

The truth is that owners don't take home revenue because first they have to pay expenses. When owners lbuild stadiums, their expenses are far, far higher since they have to pay down several hundred million dollars of debt that has their signature on it. Articles like this glorify the other owners, the ones that lobby local taxpayers to subsidize a rich man's hobby -- calling them the 'poor' owners. Please. No one in this picture is poor.

Sharing profits is too complicated to manage within the CBA and the players would never agree to it. They want their money off the top line, not the bottom line. It's not their worry if the owners fail to profit.

So the owners with massive debt are forced to negotiate their way to a fair situation. That's the story the article doesn't tell.

You got it dude!

Again, shoddy reporting at it's best.

 

[JR4]

To fully inform those fans so they know "what's going on here'? BOB KRAFT BUILT GILLETTE WITH PRIVATE MONEY.

His debt sevice must be tremendous. Most of the owners had stadiums built with PUBLIC money. They sit on their asses and don't spend any time marketing to produce other revenue.

I can see Krafts point. Maybe a small amount of "other revenue" should be shared but Kraft should be alowed to subtract his debt service from that "other revenue."

Isn't that just plain fair?

Not really. If Kraft when into this spending spree he should have done it with
the full knowledge that any ADDITIONAL renveues would be subject to the
CBA agreement. If he didn't like it and couldn't do it then he shouldn't have
done it to being with.
Instead of trying to wiggle out of something he should have known what he
was suppose to do. (I bet he kenw ). Some how they thought they
could get away with side stepping the rules and cutting the Players out
of their fair share.
Now he stands here willing to bench the NFL?

Why other owner don't do what Kraft has done? Maybe because they
decided to play by the rules set forth in the CBA and that means it is
not economically feasible to do what Kraft has done.

 

[groundgame]

The Kraft family built a privately financed $350,000,000 stadium which made sense financially ONLY if the income from the luxury boxes continued to be exempt from the sharing pie. The NFL can't come back after the fact, and change the rules due to the fact that a risky business investment plan, managed and executed in world class fashion, has turned out to be successful.

 

[PATSNUTme]

The Kraft family built a privately financed $350,000,000 stadium which made sense financially ONLY if the income from the luxury boxes continued to be exempt from the sharing pie. The NFL can't come back after the fact, and change the rules due to the fact that a risky business investment plan, managed and executed in world class fashion, has turned out to be successful.

You nailed it.

If I inherited a store or got gov money to operated my store and then didn't do anything increase my revenues, would I be entitited to the revenues of a guy who took major risk and busted his butt to increase his revenues?

I don't think so.

The "greedy" owners are the ones who had everything handed to them and did nothing to increase their own revenues.

 

[shatch62]

What the hell are you talking about

Why other owner don't do what Kraft has done? Maybe because they
decided to play by the rules set forth in the CBA and that means it is
not economically feasible to do what Kraft has done.

When exactly did Kraft not play by the rules? The current CBA states that he needs to share the “Designated Gross Revenues†which is what he - and all owners - currently do.

Teams share much of the NFL's revenue, including what it makes from television contracts, ticket sales and merchandise. What's not included is money from such things as luxury suites, stadium naming rights, parking and local advertising.

The union wants to include that money into the “Designated Gross Revenuesâ€.

I have no problem with that but DEBT needs to be factored in. KRAFT used his own money to build the stadium. Most owners don't. That needs to be factored into the equated into the formula.

Kraft has played by the rules to date so get off your high horse.
He is currently paying the NFL back on the loan they gave him to build the stadium.

"The NFL has approved stadium loans to the New England Patriots, Philadelphia Eagles and Denver Broncos under a new program designed to help owners fund the cost of new venues. For the Patriots, the loan means the league will pay up to half the cost of the stadium now expected to cost $285 million. The league's maximum investment will be $150 million. The loan will be repaid over 15 years from club seat revenue that would have gone to the visiting team. If Robert Kraft, team owner, sells the team before the loan is repaid, he is responsible for repaying the full amount himself.

The league is expected to loan up to $44 million to the Broncos and up to $55 million for the Eagles. "
http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/NewEnglandPatriots/newindex.htm

That needs to be factored in somehow

 

[JR4]

When exactly did Kraft not play by the rules? The current CBA states that he needs to share the “Designated Gross Revenues†which is what he - and all owners - currently do.

Teams share much of the NFL's revenue, including what it makes from television contracts, ticket sales and merchandise. What's not included is money from such things as luxury suites, stadium naming rights, parking and local advertising.

The union wants to include that money into the “Designated Gross Revenuesâ€.

I have no problem with that but DEBT needs to be factored in. KRAFT used his own money to build the stadium. Most owners don't. That needs to be factored into the equated into the formula.

Kraft has played by the rules to date so get off your high horse.
He is currently paying the NFL back on the loan they gave him to build the stadium.

"The NFL has approved stadium loans to the New England Patriots, Philadelphia Eagles and Denver Broncos under a new program designed to help owners fund the cost of new venues. For the Patriots, the loan means the league will pay up to half the cost of the stadium now expected to cost $285 million. The league's maximum investment will be $150 million. The loan will be repaid over 15 years from club seat revenue that would have gone to the visiting team. If Robert Kraft, team owner, sells the team before the loan is repaid, he is responsible for repaying the full amount himself.

The league is expected to loan up to $44 million to the Broncos and up to $55 million for the Eagles. "
http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/NewEnglandPatriots/newindex.htm

That needs to be factored in somehow

First of all I didn't say he HAS (past tense) not played by the rules.

The issues is why the owners can not agree to the NEW CBA.
I agree debit need to be factored in but these previouly not included
revenues need to be addressed. Owners whoes market can't not
generate these kinds of extra goodies needs to be taken into consideration.

All of this mean less Money for some very wealthy franchises. At present they
seem stalemated and no one wants to give in. So will Fans and Players suffer
because the NFL gets benched? I really hope not. If Kraft has any input
and can bend at all he should, if he can. Get the deal done.

You can't tell me these owners like Kraft and Snyder and Jones aren't making
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Don't tell me they can barely repay their loans. I don't buy it. And neither does the Players association. I can't even being to imagine the ways Kraft
is making money because of he owns the Patriots and name recognition.
Ways not even close to being directly assoicated to NFL activities.
Get it done Bob ... don't bench the NFL!

 

[dhamz]

Not really. If Kraft when into this spending spree he should have done it with
the full knowledge that any ADDITIONAL renveues would be subject to the
CBA agreement. If he didn't like it and couldn't do it then he shouldn't have
done it to being with.
Instead of trying to wiggle out of something he should have known what he
was suppose to do. (I bet he kenw ). Some how they thought they
could get away with side stepping the rules and cutting the Players out
of their fair share.
Now he stands here willing to bench the NFL?

Why other owner don't do what Kraft has done? Maybe because they
decided to play by the rules set forth in the CBA and that means it is
not economically feasible to do what Kraft has done.

So if I understand your point:

Bob Kraft was the owner of one of the worst organizations in the NFL. It was a low revenue team with quite probably the worst stadium in the league. What he did was turn it into possibly the most successful franchise in the sport - one that is now a high revenue team. He did it by making sound football decisions, building a great revenue generating stadium with his own $, and by using his own marketing skills to make successful business arrangements such as the deal with Visa.

This you say is wrong.

What you consider the correct way to have done things would have been for Kraft to sit around, do nothing, and whine that he deserves the money Jerry Jones earned by running his organization successfully.

That makes sense to me.

 

[BradyisGod]

It's so sad when the uneducated get passionate about something.

Bob Kraft is known as one of the smartest minds in business, and one of the shrewedest negotiators. Do you really think he would let it come to the destruction of the NFL?

If you don't buy that "they can barely repay their loans", you may be right. But lets be clear. Most companies on this earth, or at least in the US are running extremely thin when it comes to cash flow. Most of what comes in the front door, is going out the back, except for a tiny bit which is kept for profitability and growth. So before you go accusing Kraft of being greedy, you should probably take a look at the books. Because it's probably a lot less profitable than you think.

PS...If Kraft is making money on name recognition, that is something that is completely separate and apart from the team. So that shouldn't be subject to any NFL levees either.

 

[JR4]

So if I understand your point:

Bob Kraft was the owner of one of the worst organizations in the NFL. It was a low revenue team with quite probably the worst stadium in the league. What he did was turn it into possibly the most successful franchise in the sport - one that is now a high revenue team. He did it by making sound football decisions, building a great revenue generating stadium with his own $, and by using his own marketing skills to make successful business arrangements such as the deal with Visa.

This you say is wrong.

What you consider the correct way to have done things would have been for Kraft to sit around, do nothing, and whine that he deserves the money Jerry Jones earned by running his organization successfully.

That makes sense to me.

Once again I am not taking about the PAST! I am talking about what is
holding up the new CBA and why owners can't get the deal done.

 

[dhamz]

Once again I am not taking about the PAST!

If Kraft when into this spending spree he should have done it with the full knowledge that any ADDITIONAL renveues would be subject to the CBA agreement. If he didn't like it and couldn't do it then he shouldn't have done it to being with.

So that quote isn't about the past?

 

[spacecrime]

Not really. If Kraft when into this spending spree he should have done it with
the full knowledge that any ADDITIONAL renveues would be subject to the
CBA agreement. If he didn't like it and couldn't do it then he shouldn't have
done it to being with.
Instead of trying to wiggle out of something he should have known what he
was suppose to do. (I bet he kenw ). Some how they thought they
could get away with side stepping the rules and cutting the Players out
of their fair share.

You have it backwards. Kraft went into this with his eyes open and knew what would be subject to the CBA and how much he would have to spend.

If the CBA was left the way it was, Kraft would have no problem at all.

He is not trying to wiggle out of the CBA. The owners who are trying to change the CBA are tying to wiggle out of THEIR agreement.

Some teams are in fact trying to side step the rules. I am in 100% agreement with you that NO ONE should be allowed to sidestep the rules. LEAVE THEM THE WAY THEY WERE, THE WAY EVERYONE AGREED TO.

I think both sides are in agreement here. No manipulating the rules for personal benefit. Leave them as they are.

The players have a percentage of the profits based on agreed upon revenues. Kraft planned on this when he built his stdium, exactly as you said he sould.

He is not trying to reduce the percentage to cheat the players. I agree with you 100% that that would be unfair. If Kraft tried to lower the percentage I would be opposed.

The flip side is that the players also agreed to a percentage. If they try to wiggle of of that and change the rules AFTER stadiums are built and long term business plans are made, that is jsut as bad as if the owners try to lower it.

It isn't right for the owners to take already agreed upon money from the players OR for the players to take already agreed upon money from the owners.

Fair is fair. Rules apply to both sides. I think that is what people meant when they said the article was one-sided.

 

[PromisedLand]

I don't think any of this is new to any fans. It has only been written a thousand times in the last year.

The slant of the article was extremely one sided. The issues from the Krafts/Jones/Snyeder's of the world include a lot more complex issues than simple wanting to keep their own revenue. One issue I have heard Kraft raise is shoudn't their debt be counted - ie shouldn't the fact that an owner paid for his revenue generating stadium be considered when compared to another owner who paid nothing for his tax payer funded revenue generating stadium? Should teams that do no marketing and make no attempt to contribute in these other revenue areas just be allowed to take from a pool created by the hard work of other teams?

Kraft's concern is a valid one but one which is easily addressed: revenues should be reduced by net interest paid (i.e. interest paid less interest received). (This is a standard accounting principle although it is usually applied on the expense side of the income statement rather than the revenue side.)

 

[marty]

Once again I am not taking about the PAST! I am talking about what is
holding up the new CBA and why owners can't get the deal done.

I have a problem with your feeling that it's only Kraft and the other "rich" owners that could bench the NFL. I believe the other half of the CBA discusion includes the players who want 60% of the owners profits? How do you not include the players as possibly being responsible for "benching the NFL"? Sounds rather "Borgesh" to me!