Will Bob Kraft bench the NFL?

[Pats726]

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.

 

[JR4]

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

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.

 

[Scott37]

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.

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.

 

[JR4]

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!

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.

 

[dhamz]

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.

 

[Pats726]

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!

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

 

[flutie2phelan]

.... 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. .... 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.

.... 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.

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.

 

[JR4]

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.

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 )

 

[dhamz]

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.

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.

 

[JR4]

......
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.

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.

 

[spacecrime]

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. .

Exactly. People are trying to change the rules and screw owners like Kraft, who made business decisons based on a certain business model.

Bu this is the opposite of your original complaint, which was that Kraft was the one trying to change the rules.

You said:

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.

I think what people are saying is that the Patriots will be fine with or without a new CBA. The teams that will not be fine are the teams that are holding up the CBA for more money. They are cutting their own throats.

 

[spacecrime]

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.

A level playing field has nothing to do with any one team's revenues relative to another teams.

The level playing field is the cap, not the profit each team makes.

It doesn't matter how much Kraft or Bidwell put in their pockets. What matters is that each team be allowed to spend only a set amount on player salaries.

What you are championing is the right of other owners to increase their income based on marketing that others did and they didn't. Or by investing in a stadium.

Kraft builds a stadium and gets to keep parking fees. Bidwell has Arizona build a stadium for him. Since he doesn't get parking revenue, he says it isn't fair that Kraft can keep all of his. Spread it around. Does Bidwell want to pay prt of Krats expenses in running the parking lots. Oh, no. That's expenses. We're talking about sharing gross revenues.

That is what you are fighting for.

 

[maverick4]

re:

OK, JR4's last comment really makes me think he's Ron Borges or somebody who hates the Kraft family for pretty much no reason (and is trying to find one).

All this talk about splitting profits or redefining terms WILL NOT affect the competitive balance of the league. Each team still operates under the same salary cap. The issue is who gets to keep money generated from stadium services and sponsorships.

JR = Ron Junior!!

.

 

[hwc]

I have a simple solution. Just get Irsay and Bidwell to share the $400 million or so in revenues they have extorted from local taxpayers to build their new dome stadiums. That money provides a huge financial windfall to the owners that shows up as reduced expense, rather than increased revenue. However, at the end of the day, whether Kraft uses luxury box revenues to pay for a new stadium (with the added expense of debt to offset) or Irsay uses taxpayer revenues to pay for a new stadium (with no debt to offset), both owners benefit equally and the impact on the bottom line is the same. If you force Kraft to share his additional revenues, then Irsay should share his, too.

Make this completely fair proposal and we'll see who is really holding up the revenue sharing negotiations.

 

[mgteich]

The owners can pay of the debt on the stadium and then they can have a share of luxury box revenue.

If socialism wins, the Kraft should simply sell the team or move it. Kraft built this team and stadium with his own money. He passed on over $100M of cold hard cash to move the team to Hartford. If this is not acceptable to the league, then he should sell out and get his money back, with a bit of profit, and then PERHAPS he or his son can start again in a few years, getting his millions from the city to start and the rest from sharing from the rest of the teams.

Kraft is the very best example of what sport is SUPPOSED to be about. If he is trashed, I would not hold it against him if he left, and hats off to him for a GREAT, GREAT ride.

We say Belichick can do wrong. Perhaps and perhaps not. But given what has happened for the patriots in the 10 years before Kraft and in the last 10, the Kraft's can do no wrong.

mgteich

 

[PATSNUTme]

Exactly. People are trying to change the rules and screw owners like Kraft, who made business decisons based on a certain business model.

Bu this is the opposite of your original complaint, which was that Kraft was the one trying to change the rules.

You said:

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.

I think what people are saying is that the Patriots will be fine with or without a new CBA. The teams that will not be fine are the teams that are holding up the CBA for more money. They are cutting their own throats.

I want a new CBA as much as the next guy.

However, what you just said is hogwash. Five years ago, when Kraft was making a deal for the new stadium, he should have known that the lazy, unimagitive, trust fund owners of other teams would want a share of his additional revenues IF he happened to be sucessful.

Is that what you guys are saying????????

 

[mgteich]

And the poor other owners!!! They have lousy market that can't support a team or a stadium? First, if that is the case, they can move, as many, many team have in the past. It's OK to fail and succeed somewhere else. Perhaps the business plan of those teams and their execution was flawed. Why should they be bailed out by the other teams. This should only be done if a key market is involved and then loss of the team would affect TV revenue.
--------------------------------------------------
And Kraft should give up tens of millions because he has such a great market?????????
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huh??? The team was going to be moved because the cities and towns and business interests couldn't support a team. The Patriots were the #5 team in the area after the Sox, celtics, bruins and the BC Eagles football team. TV viewing and ad revenue were certainly not high compared to markets like Chicago, New York and Philly, and perhaps even St. Louis. Bob Kraft took hundreds of millions out of his own pocket, used his corporate experts to build infrastructure and manage, and hired the best staff. He then built one of the most successful franchises in the history of sport. And he built in the outskirts of Providence, RI, hardly a metropolitan capital.
----------------

And the whining socialists don't want Kraft to bring down the league. He won't bring down the league!! He may bring down a few teams that are grossly unprofitable and have no interest making their teams profitable except by taking money from the taxpayers and other teams. That's a good thing. It IS the unprofitable owners that are the problem!!!!
----------------------

All this being said, there are a few issues that need to be worked out, including increasing minimum salaries, minimum veteran salaries, and beefing up the pension/health system for current AND previous players

just my 2 cents
---------------------------
mgteich

 

[dhamz]

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.

You are talking about different things.

The salary cap keeps it competitive. MLB is the way it is because there is no cap. The Yankees and Red Sox can outspend everyone else. The NFL has a cap and Bob Kraft isn't looking to change that. He has said many many times that without the cap he would never even have bought the team. As long as their is a cap, no team will be able to stockplie players as in the old days when the 49ers had 2 of the 5 best QBs in the league on their roster for years.

The issues you are talking about are about other NFL owners wanting to be paid $ that other teams earned so they can improve their profits. I don't see how the same team can say it has no interest in making $ from selling the name of its own stadium and then turn around and say it is entitled to share in other team's naming rights. If they want naming rights $, they can get it themselves and have chosen not to do it.

 

[fgssand]

Let's look at it another way.
Negotiations break down, the cap is over and we enter into a system such as found in MLB.



Since we are one of the higher revenue teams, the Patroits, Redskins Cowboys and Texans will be the teams that end up ruling the NFL. Teams that have the highest net revenues will be able to sign the better players.

Then, maybe the owners that do not believe expenses should be counted along with profits will enjoy never being able to compete again.

I really think it is the greed of the lower revenue teams trying to get something for nothing that is killing this whoile thing. They are envious of the higher revenue teams and they do nothing and spend nothing to raise their own revenues. They continue to act as if they are entitled to the revenues gained from the efforts of the creative. They have cow town mentality as is to be expected from cities such as Buffalo or Jacksonville.

We have read that the Patriots are preparing for life with and without a CBA - so who knows. Either way, there will be professional football and the Patriots situation seems to indicate they will be on top in either scenario.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Does anyone know what the League rules are about accepting a new agreement -- do the owners have to agree by a simple majority, two-thirds, unanimously or what?