Will Bob Kraft bench the NFL?

[dhamz]

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?

3/4 is what is needed

 

[wcda]

I learned something new. All the time I thought the problem was with the owers in the low market areas wanting a bigger split of the revenues from the owners of the more profitable teams. That it had nothing to do with players shares.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

If for example instead of 90 Million he only gets 60 Million he will suffer?

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?

30 million, so he takes 30 million less than he would have made. Read your statement again, would anyone on this earth (bill gates included) take 30 million less for anything? You really can't fault him for that

"Bob Hope would- Rocky Balboa (well maybe)

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'm glad there are at least some smart fans like PatsNUTme who have followed this close enough to understand that owners who bilk and blackmail public taxpayers into financing their own stadiums should not be allowed to additionally profit from guys like Bob Kraft who built stadiums with private financing.

The players union doesn't care where the money comes from - they just want more. This is an issue between the owners and unless they get too greedy there should be a compromise somewhere, somehow.

Kraft built his stadium and financed it with the knowledge that it would generate revenues and pay for itself that way.

Now the other owners and the players union want to change the rules on him.

I'd prefer not to penalize a guy like Kraft who did the right and responsible thing.

I'd prefer not to reward owners who did the sleazy thing by blackmailing their communities into building their stadium for them.

In the end all will likely have to compromise.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I'm glad there are at least some smart fans like PatsNUTme who have followed this close enough to understand that owners who bilk and blackmail public taxpayers into financing their own stadiums should not be allowed to additionally profit from guys like Bob Kraft who built stadiums with private financing.

The players union doesn't care where the money comes from - they just want more. This is an issue between the owners and unless they get too greedy there should be a compromise somewhere, somehow.

Kraft built his stadium and financed it with the knowledge that it would generate revenues and pay for itself that way.

Now the other owners and the players union want to change the rules on him.

I'd prefer not to penalize a guy like Kraft who did the right and responsible thing.

I'd prefer not to reward owners who did the sleazy thing by blackmailing their communities into building their stadium for them.

In the end all will likely have to compromise.

No one has every called me smart before. Smart-ass yes, but not smart.:singing:

 

[flutie2phelan]

.... This is an issue between the owners and unless they get too greedy there should be a compromise somewhere, somehow.

Kraft built his stadium and financed it with the knowledge that it would generate revenues and pay for itself that way.

Now the other owners and the players union want to change the rules on him.

I'd prefer not to penalize a guy like Kraft who did the right and responsible thing.

I'd prefer not to reward owners who did the sleazy thing by blackmailing their communities into building their stadium for them.

In the end all will likely have to compromise.

Funny how "compromise" often becomes an objective ... and a value ... unto itself. (Cf., the MidEast "peace process").

Too bad ... when right has to compromise with wrong.

So i hope the minority owners will just plain refuse to budge. Keep the existing defined revenues ... keep the existing percentages.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Funny how "compromise" often becomes an objective ... and a value ... unto itself. (Cf., the MidEast "peace process").

Too bad ... when right has to compromise with wrong.

So i hope the minority owners will just plain refuse to budge. Keep the existing defined revenues ... keep the existing percentages.

I know what you're saying - but one shouldn't hold the "good" hostage for the "perfect" - and nor should one cut off one's nose to spite their face.

I don't think its unfair for the players union to ask to share in non-television profits - but they need to be reasonable. I also don't have a problem with a certain amount of revenue sharing between teams.

But if everyone sticks to their "principled" positions, the resulting work stoppage won't be in anyone's interest, most of all the fans.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

JR -
Just stop already. Your hypothesizng is ludicrous.

When Kraft build the stadium, there was absolutely NOTHING in the CBA about additional revenue generated by the stadium beyond the gate receipts. The current CBA specifically states that luxury suites, parking revenues and concessions are revenues that the teams get to keep. They also get to keep revenues generated from local advertising and from local tv.

Now, you are saying that Kraft should have been a psychic and known that 4 years after the completion of his privately funded stadium, he was going to get shafted by the league for privately funding the stadium and not sticking it doubly to taxpayers?

Also, why should Kraft be penalized for having a marketing group of 20 people that markets the hell out of the Patriots and has increased their revenues when you have teams like Indy who can't even fill a stadium when they have the 2nd best record in the league. Or the highest scoring offense. Also, Indy has a very small marketing staff. Why should Kraft be responsible for Arizona employing only 1 marketing person and the Cardinals not generating the interest and revenue that they could through a good marketing campaign.

Your argument is worse that Gene Upshaw's argument that the Patriots don't spend enough of their cap money because they only had $79 million allocated in salaries. Yet, as we all know, that number is bogus. The Patriots used all their cap space. Hell, Dallas, which only had a 66 million in salaries, still used most of its cap space. Upshaw was dumb becasue most people KNOW that salaries do not equal salary cap.

 

[DaBruinz]

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!

First off, a new CBA can be passed with 23 or 24 owners. Since there is such an impasse, that tells me that its more than just the 3 owners being mentioned. For you to be dumb enough to even attempt to lay the entire thing at Kraft's feet just tells me how much you truly don't know and don't understand about the situation. Please stop commenting on it or go out and read some other sources and not just some BS rumor mill garbage article that clearly is lopsided to owners like Bidwell and Irsay.

 

[fgssand]

JR -
Just stop already. Your hypothesizng is ludicrous.

When Kraft build the stadium, there was absolutely NOTHING in the CBA about additional revenue generated by the stadium beyond the gate receipts. The current CBA specifically states that luxury suites, parking revenues and concessions are revenues that the teams get to keep. They also get to keep revenues generated from local advertising and from local tv.

Now, you are saying that Kraft should have been a psychic and known that 4 years after the completion of his privately funded stadium, he was going to get shafted by the league for privately funding the stadium and not sticking it doubly to taxpayers?

Also, why should Kraft be penalized for having a marketing group of 20 people that markets the hell out of the Patriots and has increased their revenues when you have teams like Indy who can't even fill a stadium when they have the 2nd best record in the league. Or the highest scoring offense. Also, Indy has a very small marketing staff. Why should Kraft be responsible for Arizona employing only 1 marketing person and the Cardinals not generating the interest and revenue that they could through a good marketing campaign.

Your argument is worse that Gene Upshaw's argument that the Patriots don't spend enough of their cap money because they only had $79 million allocated in salaries. Yet, as we all know, that number is bogus. The Patriots used all their cap space. Hell, Dallas, which only had a 66 million in salaries, still used most of its cap space. Upshaw was dumb becasue most people KNOW that salaries do not equal salary cap.

Excellent response, I agree with everything you have stated here. Kraft followed the rules and found a way to prosper by putting a boatload of his own money into play, then outmanaging and outsmarting his competition. As a result people want to take shots at and money from his organization? Bullspit, Kraft is entitled to every penny and we, as fans and followers deserve the opportunity to embrace and enjoy what our dollars spent supporting this team brings us.

I am all for sharing revenues with the players (most of the players deserve every penny they make) and I embrace the system that assures a competitive balence amongst the smaller versus large markets. But fair is fair and it seems everybodys hand is out to grab the assests, but nobody seems willing to share the expense involved in priming that money pump.

 

[DaBruinz]

A few things that some people are obviously clueless about.

1) One of Kraft's biggest hang-ups is that he doesn't want a rehash of what happened in MLB. Where team owners like the Royals and Twins would go cheap on their payrolls and pocket the extra cash and not develop their team. He points to team owners like Irsay and Bidwell who have done little to increase the marketing of their teams. In fact, Kraft called out Bidwell for only having 1 marketing guy who worked out of a converted broom closet.

2) The RICHER owners have said they would be willing to include more from the revenues that aren't currently included in the Sal Cap figuring, but only at a reduction of the %. They would want to reduce the % so that the total amount of increase in the salary cap would be around 10-12% from the current level. Lets talk concrete numbers.

The revenue that went into the league sal cap pool was 4.24 billion last year. The players got 64.5% of that which, when divided up was 85.5 million per team.

Now, if the league was to include ALL the money from the GROSS revenues from the teams, you would be talking about 6-7 BILLION. Lets call it 6 billion for the sake of the example. The league is talking about the player cut starting at 56%. Which would be 3.36 BILLION. That would be 105 MILLION per team. Which is a 24.5 million increase over last year. The player's union has already said that wasn't acceptable. They didn't want the % to change. If they were to get the 64.5%, you'd be talking about 3.87 billion. That would 120.9375 MILLION per team. Or an increase of 41% in revenues spent on the players.

That is just INSANE. And for Upshaw to think its FAIR is also ludicrous. He's also stupid to think that such a large increase would help teams like Arizona put quality on the field.

You already have teams like the Cardinals and Eagles sitting on millions in unused sal cap space. There is nothing, currently, that says they can't do that. But it also means that any unused money goes right into the till of those teams.

ADDED : BTW, at 3.87 billion to the players, the owners would be getting 2.13 billion. That would be a little over 66 million per team to pay the rest of their costs. The estimates are that the Patriots pulled in over 300 million in revenues from the concessions, luxury suites and other such monies that they don't have to share currently. What you are saying is that Kraft should give up 234 MILLION dollars to support teams like Arizona and Indy.

There is a LOT more going on that what that porrly written article that started this thread has mentioned. Such as more than just 3 or 4 "RICH" owners holding the process up.

 

[italian pat patriot]

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.

correct: this is a point that is absolutely the most important one and it create also a big, very big, difference of course...

 

[DaBruinz]

This is about the next CBA not the old. Owners found a way to get
undesignated revenues ...

Where do you come up with this BS. The revenues were designated. They were designated as being revenue that the teams didn't have to share.

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.

The players are already getting their share. It amounted to over 2.4 billion last year. If they included the entire amount with the % that they are demanding (which they aren't entitled to since they are employees, not owners) then they would be getting close to 4 billion (or more) of the gross revenue. Remember, this is the GROSS revenue. This is the money BEFORE teams pay taxes, their other employees and other debt.

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.

Oh really? That's funny because, since you missed it, Phoenix Arizona is the FASTEST growing city in the country. By double digit % points I believe. The Cardinals are one of the worst marketed franchises around. To me, that is a sign of the quality of the marketing. Not the ignorant idea that its not easy to generate revenues.

But the NFL depends on having teams to play each other. So you just
can't just say tough.

Yes you can. Especially when you have teams and the management staff of those teams consistently underperforming.

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.

And you don't think that will happen with a 41% increase in the revenue that players would be getting? You are really naive, aren't you.

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.

So, let me get this straight. Kraft and the Patriots should go into the red because teams like the Cardinals stink at marketing and team management and can't produce the revenue that the Patriots produce. And, since the players would be taking 64.5% of the GROSS revenue now, Kraft would be making significantly less money because he'd have significantly less money to pay to the people who work in the stadium and in the parkinglots, in the front offices and such.. Well, that is, until he raised parking prices and ticket prices again. As well as the cost of the luxury boxes and concessions. At least until people stopped going. Like ANY business, the people who suffer the most during labor strife are the 2 sides involved, but the customers who use the services that the 2 sides supply.

But, JR, you keep believing your simplistic and naive view on things.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

JR -
The probelm is that YOUR scenario is the one that leads to the MLB scenario. YOu have a lot of things miscontrued and backwards.

 

[sdaniels7114]

I don't see what the problem is with the MLB scenerio. We'd still be one of the 'haves' and would therefore win more championships. It kinda seems like most of the people here on this thread are against the Pats winning more SB's

I also figure that ol' Bob is pretty much the smartest guy in any room he happens to enter, so I'm not too particularly worried about him taking care of things. Its not like he hasn't played the brinksmanship game before, or am I the only one who remembers the hard-hats with the Pats logo on 'em?

I'd be for each team sharing the same percentage of THEIR total revenue with THEIR players. The way I see it is if that happens Richard Seymore ain't going nowhere. How could that be bad for us?


Edit: I have no problem with the Pats being known as the New York Yankees of Football, I just wish it was the other way around.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I don't see what the problem is with the MLB scenerio. We'd still be one of the 'haves' and would therefore win more championships. It kinda seems like most of the people here on this thread are against the Pats winning more SB's

I also figure that ol' Bob is pretty much the smartest guy in any room he happens to enter, so I'm not too particularly worried about him taking care of things. Its not like he hasn't played the brinksmanship game before, or am I the only one who remembers the hard-hats with the Pats logo on 'em?

I'd be for each team sharing the same percentage of THEIR total revenue with THEIR players. The way I see it is if that happens Richard Seymore ain't going nowhere. How could that be bad for us?


Edit: I have no problem with the Pats being known as the New York Yankees of Football, I just wish it was the other way around.

I don't want a MLB type system. I do want a new CBA and a decent salary cap. It's made the NFL product far superior than MLB.

However, to take gross revenues without deducting for expenses is absurd.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

How many Fans know whats going on here?

I kept thinking about jumping into this thread but the rest of you handled it so well....

I guess the answer to JR4's original question would be all but one.

 

[JR4]

I kept thinking about jumping into this thread but the rest of you handled it so well....

I guess the answer to JR4's original question would be all but one.

You are probably right.

 

[shmessy]

I kept thinking about jumping into this thread but the rest of you handled it so well....

I guess the answer to JR4's original question would be all but one.

JR4 responded: "You are probably right."
_____________--

OK, I just read the entire thread and was going to pile on, but it looks like JR4 has already fallen on his sword.

Therefore I decline to take a penalty flag for a late hit out of bounds. (But boy was I loadin' up!)

 

[DaBruinz]

JR -
I find it pretty funny that when people start using numbers to show that the Player's position is an absurd one that you just seem to drop the subject.

How is it that you ignore the idea that its more than just 3 or 4 owners who are holding up the CBA extension process amongst the owners?

Or that you drop the subject when you get questioned about your suppositions?

Or that you refuse to acknowledge when your suppositions get proben wrong.