Welcome to PatsFans.com

Will Bob Kraft bench the NFL?

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by JR4, Feb 11, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JR4

    JR4 In the Starting Line-up PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,733
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    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?
  2. dhamz

    dhamz Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    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?
  3. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    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.

    .
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2006
  4. JR4

    JR4 In the Starting Line-up PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,733
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    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.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2006
  5. PatsFan37

    PatsFan37 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    #37 Jersey

    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.
  6. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,133
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    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?
  7. Pats67

    Pats67 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Ron? Is that you, Ron?
  8. BradyisGod

    BradyisGod Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    You got it dude!

    Again, shoddy reporting at it's best.
  9. JR4

    JR4 In the Starting Line-up PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,733
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    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.
  10. groundgame

    groundgame Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    991
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  11. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,133
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    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.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2006
  12. shatch62

    shatch62 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    What the hell are you talking about

    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
  13. JR4

    JR4 In the Starting Line-up PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,733
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0


    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!
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2006
  14. dhamz

    dhamz Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    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.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2006
  15. BradyisGod

    BradyisGod Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  16. JR4

    JR4 In the Starting Line-up PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,733
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    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.
  17. dhamz

    dhamz Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    So that quote isn't about the past?
  18. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    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.
  19. PromisedLand

    PromisedLand Virtual Internet Person

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,372
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.)
  20. marty

    marty Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    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! :rolleyes:
  21. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

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

    The article was way too simplistic..as has been stated, the Krafts financed a stadium by themselves..that has to be taken into the equation.... you can't change rules of it all now.
  22. JR4

    JR4 In the Starting Line-up PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,733
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    This is about the next CBA not the old. Owners found a way to get
    undesignated revenues ... ok ... I agree that wasn't against the rules
    at that time. But that was the past. This is the new CBA.
    Players want there share of what ever people can derive form their playing
    on the field. So now there is a new way to generate revenue ... they want
    their share of that also.

    Some franchises can't generate the kind of revenue that NewEngland
    or other franchises can.
    Some say ... tough ... get creative.
    But these franchises live in areas that it is not easy to generate revenues.
    But the NFL depends on having teams to play each other. So you just
    can't just say tough.
    By distruting the wealth, sort of to speak, you get teams that stay
    competitve. All teams can compete for coachs and give about the same
    signing bonuses.
    I don't think any fan wants to see a franchise buy it's way to a championship.
    The CBA if done right will keep the level playing field. Bob Kraft being a
    leader needs to lead the way in this effort even if it means less revenue
    for New England Patriots.
  23. Scott37

    Scott37 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    By making this change the NFL will take away any owner's incentive to build stadiums with private monies thus passing on increased revenues to the players and increased expenses to the general public (who may or may not be fans) in order to build stadiums.
  24. JR4

    JR4 In the Starting Line-up PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,733
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    It seems the stumbling block right now is with the owners agreeing with
    themselvs but if Players are also holding out then they need to inusre they are
    not asking for too much.
  25. dhamz

    dhamz Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    The article was an overly simplistic description of a complex business issue.

    There are a ton of variables to be considered if you determine all revenue needs to be shared. Does that mean that all teams must do the same kind of agreements or at least make good faith efforts? The Pats make money by having Visa as the only card they take at Gillette. To share that $ shouldn't every other team have to make a similar agreement? Certainly most if not all of them could cut the same kind of deal with credit card companies for varying amounts. Some could probably get more than the Pats do.

    Why would the Bengals be entitled to share a cent of stadium naming rights? They chose not to make any $ that way on their own when given the opportunity. Why should they not have to sell the rights to their stadium if they want to share in Philly's $ from Lincoln Financial? Naming rights to Soldier Field, Lambeau, etc. all should have to be sold before there is even a word about sharing that kind of revenue is spoken.
  26. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

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

    Greedy players don't enter into it at all?? I agree..Borgesh!!!!
  27. flutie2phelan

    flutie2phelan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,148
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Right, Tom!

    A year ago i posted in favor of enlarging the players' percentage of designated revenues. Even then it was clear that the stumbling block would be the demand of both the union and some owners that the definition itself of designated revenues be widened.

    I now think that the only reasonable and fair way to end the stand-off is for the CBA to be extended some agreed number of years ... without any changes to either the respective percentages or the composition of designated revenues. Currently it is , and it has been, a good deal for everyone involved. All have prospered. Keep it that way. Keep it as is.

    Same percentages ... same make-up of the pot. Improve other terms, if desired. Otherwise, simply a linear extension.
  28. JR4

    JR4 In the Starting Line-up PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,733
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Won't it depending on how the new CBA is written?
    If teams can reduce their obligation by amount owed to provide new facilties
    to generate new revenues then the incentive will still be there.

    (acually reduce by aount of interest paid on principle for new facilites may
    be better )
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2006
  29. dhamz

    dhamz Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    All reports I read for SB week had the players asking for 65% of all revenues and the owners offerring 57%.

    I'm sure that 8% higher the players are asking for isn't any factor at all in why a CBA isn't done.
  30. JR4

    JR4 In the Starting Line-up PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,733
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    See this is where I think there is some near sightedness happening.
    Your New England Patriots depends on a viable well run NFL consisting
    of near equal teams to provide close competion.

    You just can't say it is us and us alone that matters. If you take that
    attitude then teams will become unable to compete you'll end up with
    the MLB type senerio.

    Now is the time to address the CBA with a little forsight and not wait 10
    years down the road as the NFL morphs into the MLB.
    Don't let weatlhy teams take over! and ruin the NFL competition.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page