Will Bob Kraft bench the NFL?

[shirtsleeve]

Time to throw myself to the lions here. Not that I disagree with most of what is written here (sorry JR4, but your sword is yours to fall on by yourself).

I thought that the Razor and all of its revenues are out of range for revenue sharing. The stadium is a separate business, totally independent of the team, no? So tix (partially), concessions, etc. are out of reach? The Team is not one of the wealthy ones for this reason, no? Because Kraft used his own money to develop this new independent business, what justification can the NFLPA, the league or anyone else use to try to rape him? He hosts far more than football at the stadium. He charges rent for a lease to the Team. The Team pays the rent by ticket sales. The Team makes very little off of tickets. Kraft makes a boatload. I kinda thought that was what this country was all about. From what I understood about how their business is conducted, The Team is all but non profit. The Stadium makes the cake. He beat the system, at great personal risk, with the absolute NEED to consistantly to field a superior product to stay afloat. No?

 

[mgteich]

Well said!

If socialism of team stadium revenues comes, perhaps Kraft will need to incorporate the stadium as a separate business, with a contract with the Patriots and other teams that play there.

Time to throw myself to the lions here. Not that I disagree with most of what is written here (sorry JR4, but your sword is yours to fall on by yourself).

I thought that the Razor and all of its revenues are out of range for revenue sharing. The stadium is a separate business, totally independent of the team, no? So tix (partially), concessions, etc. are out of reach? The Team is not one of the wealthy ones for this reason, no? Because Kraft used his own money to develop this new independent business, what justification can the NFLPA, the league or anyone else use to try to rape him? He hosts far more than football at the stadium. He charges rent for a lease to the Team. The Team pays the rent by ticket sales. The Team makes very little off of tickets. Kraft makes a boatload. I kinda thought that was what this country was all about. From what I understood about how their business is conducted, The Team is all but non profit. The Stadium makes the cake. He beat the system, at great personal risk, with the absolute NEED to consistantly to field a superior product to stay afloat. No?

 

[JR4]

Well said!

If socialism of team stadium revenues comes, perhaps Kraft will need to incorporate the stadium as a separate business, with a contract with the Patriots and other teams that play there.

mgteich, you and shirtsleeve are not seeing things from the players
perspective.
You got your "Bob Kraft Altruistic Good Guy" glasses on.

Socialism? Bull ... what does Socialism have to do with anything
in this Multi Billion dollar enterprise called the NFL ?????????
It is just a word used to try and degrade the rights of players and other owners in this current CBA strife.

I wasn't going to respond to shirtsleeves erronus statements but
your assertion that he was right has successfully provoked me even
if it wasn't the goal.

I believe the position of players and owners not in the Kraft Group is that
ANY revenues derrived because the Players play the game should be part
of the designated revenues subject to the shared percentage.

In other words a good test is this question ...
.. If there were no players playing would you still get that revenue?
If the answer is yes ... then it is all yours. So when Bob Kraft rents out the
stadium for a rock concert the answer to that question is Yes ... so its all his.

If Players wanted to push things to the extreme they could contend even the
rock concert money is not possible with out them. Why? ....
because with out us, you wouldn't have built that stadimum.
So anything that stadium produces is because of us and we want our share.

Even the new Giant Mall they are building could be seen as derrived because
of Players playing. Would that Mall still be a success if the Players moved away or had never played there?
Although these are extreme points of view they could be subject for debate.

Luxury Seats, club house, tickets, concessions, NFL merchandise sold at the
stadum, in stores, over the internet ... etc

ALL such revenues were made possible by the PALYERS playing the game.

Without the players there would be no such related revenues.
Please take off your Management good guy glasses.

Simply put:
Players want their share of what ever revenues were made possible because of them. This is not socialism.

This is not a unique phenomena. Singers, actors, authors,
pattent holders .... and on and on want there share of revenues they made
possible for others to derirve. This is not socialism.
If you call this socialism then Labor Unions and Ownership is a socialistic
system.

And please ... Bob Kraft IS making tons of money so lets no get on this
thing about poor Bob Kraft has to recover %$#@#$)(* dollars.
He will get much much more than what he put in even if he gives the
players their share of what they believe they are entitled to get.

Besides what he has paid has no bearing on deciding what
revenues players are entitled to receive.
That is unless you have your "Bob Kraft Altruistic Good Guy" glasses on.

 

[mgteich]

Socialism refers to the small owners wanting more and more money from the large owners, including bailouts, and for the successful owners to pay a larger and larger share of all players pay.

The players will get a very large increase in revenue. In the end, the amount will be negotiated. Whether the percentage is higher or whether more types of revenue are included is not what will drive the final number.

I suggest that stadium should be sold to an independent company, with annual charges to the Patriots.

You believe tha Green Bay players have a right to Patriot pro shop revenue. I disagree,

 

[JR4]

Socialism refers to the small owners wanting more and more money from the large owners, including bailouts, and for the successful owners to pay a larger and larger share of all players pay.

that is not socialism

The players will get a very large increase in revenue. In the end, the amount will be negotiated. Whether the percentage is higher or whether more types of revenue are included is not what will drive the final number.

I suggest that stadium should be sold to an independent company, with annual charges to the Patriots.

You believe tha Green Bay players have a right to Patriot pro shop revenue. I disagree,

this wording a way to make something sound bad that is not

"You believe that Green Bay players have a right to Patriot pro shop revenue. "

if you want to put that way then you must also say
You believe that
* Patriot players have a right to Green Bay pro shop revenue.
and
* Patriot players have a right to Jets pro shop revenue.
and
* Jets players have a right to Green Bay pro shop revenue.
and
* Patriot players have a right to Bills pro shop revenue.
and......
on and on ..... for every team.

I think your wording here only serves to cloud the issue.

Again Simply put

Players want their share of what ever revenues were made possible because of them. This is not socialism.


"I suggest that stadium should be sold to an independent company, with annual charges to the Patriots."

Why do this?

 

[AzPatsFan]

Well said!

If socialism of team stadium revenues comes, perhaps Kraft will need to incorporate the stadium as a separate business, with a contract with the Patriots and other teams that play there.

What mkes you suspect that the financial setup is different? Kraft owned the previous Stadium, when he did not own the Patriots. I would expect that the Revolution, the Stadium (and perhaps sub-businesses, like the parking lots) and the Patriots are ALL separate companies, all owned wholly or principally by Kraft et al. They would be if I owned the "organization".

 

[DaBruinz]

"You believe that Green Bay players have a right to Patriot pro shop revenue. "

if you want to put that way then you must also say
You believe that
* Patriot players have a right to Green Bay pro shop revenue.
and
* Patriot players have a right to Jets pro shop revenue.
and
* Jets players have a right to Green Bay pro shop revenue.
and
* Patriot players have a right to Bills pro shop revenue.
and......
on and on ..... for every team.

I think your wording here only serves to cloud the issue.

Again Simply put

Players want their share of what ever revenues were made possible because of them. This is not socialism.


"I suggest that stadium should be sold to an independent company, with annual charges to the Patriots."

Why do this?

Again, you ignore the FACT that the players ARE getting their share of the revenues.

 

[JR4]

Again, you ignore the FACT that the players ARE getting their share of the revenues.

Again, you ignor there are non shared revenues that they believe they are
entitiled to receive. Are you really Bob Kraft?

 

[PATSNUTme]

I was going to post about beating dead horse but couldn't find a smiley for that. But BS, may be appropriate.:singing:

 

[pats-blue]

mgteich, you and shirtsleeve are not seeing things from the players
perspective.
You got your "Bob Kraft Altruistic Good Guy" glasses on.

Socialism? Bull ... what does Socialism have to do with anything
in this Multi Billion dollar enterprise called the NFL ?????????
It is just a word used to try and degrade the rights of players and other owners in this current CBA strife.

I wasn't going to respond to shirtsleeves erronus statements but
your assertion that he was right has successfully provoked me even
if it wasn't the goal.

I believe the position of players and owners not in the Kraft Group is that
ANY revenues derrived because the Players play the game should be part
of the designated revenues subject to the shared percentage.

In other words a good test is this question ...
.. If there were no players playing would you still get that revenue?
If the answer is yes ... then it is all yours. So when Bob Kraft rents out the
stadium for a rock concert the answer to that question is Yes ... so its all his.

If Players wanted to push things to the extreme they could contend even the
rock concert money is not possible with out them. Why? ....
because with out us, you wouldn't have built that stadimum.
So anything that stadium produces is because of us and we want our share.

Even the new Giant Mall they are building could be seen as derrived because
of Players playing. Would that Mall still be a success if the Players moved away or had never played there?
Although these are extreme points of view they could be subject for debate.

Luxury Seats, club house, tickets, concessions, NFL merchandise sold at the
stadum, in stores, over the internet ... etc

ALL such revenues were made possible by the PALYERS playing the game.

Without the players there would be no such related revenues.
Please take off your Management good guy glasses.

Simply put:
Players want their share of what ever revenues were made possible because of them. This is not socialism.

This is not a unique phenomena. Singers, actors, authors,
pattent holders .... and on and on want there share of revenues they made
possible for others to derirve. This is not socialism.
If you call this socialism then Labor Unions and Ownership is a socialistic
system.

And please ... Bob Kraft IS making tons of money so lets no get on this
thing about poor Bob Kraft has to recover %$#@#$)(* dollars.
He will get much much more than what he put in even if he gives the
players their share of what they believe they are entitled to get.

Besides what he has paid has no bearing on deciding what
revenues players are entitled to receive.
That is unless you have your "Bob Kraft Altruistic Good Guy" glasses on.

OK, My brother works for Microsoft. So you are saying that he should make more $$ since without him MS doesn't succeed. See last time I checked Bill Gates was the richest man in the world and while he may still be very smart, almost everything MS does now is done by employees of MS.

I should tell my brother to reference this thread in his next contract negotiations with his boss at MS. I can tell you right now that MS does not pay 65% of it gross revenue to its employees, not even close.


Got to love it when people defend millionaire players that sucked up college scholarships that they didn't deserve all because they could play football. Add to that when it becomes a crime to be a successful owner of a football team. Last time I checked the OWNER of a company usually made the most money. You also don't take into account the players want GROSS revenues and that will come out of the everyday WORKERS not making MILLIONS at the stadium and team support staff.

 

[flutie2phelan]

....
The players will get a very large increase in revenue. In the end, the amount will be negotiated. Whether the percentage is higher or whether more types of revenue are included is not what will drive the final number.

Mark, this is at least the second time you have asserted that the player pool certainly will grow a lot.

Why are you so sure of that ... especially, given that NHL players have just taken 20% pay cuts ... after an entire year without any income?

 

[JR4]

OK, My brother works for Microsoft. So you are saying that he should make more $$ since without him MS doesn't succeed. See last time I checked Bill Gates was the richest man in the world and while he may still be very smart, almost everything MS does now is done by employees of MS.

I should tell my brother to reference this thread in his next contract negotiations with his boss at MS. I can tell you right now that MS does not pay 65% of it gross revenue to its employees, not even close.

comparing MS employees/contractors and the NFL players association is
not quite the same. Are MS employees currently organized as some sort of labor Union?

Got to love it when people defend millionaire players that sucked up college scholarships that they didn't deserve all because they could play football.

ah ... it seems from this statement that you have formed a bias
against football players.

Add to that when it becomes a crime to be a successful owner of a football team. Last time I checked the OWNER of a company usually made the most money.

who suggested it was a crime??????

You also don't take into account the players want GROSS revenues and that will come out of the everyday WORKERS not making MILLIONS at the stadium and team support staff.

if you can substantiate this claim ... I would like you to prove it to me.
I mean the owners could decide to take less money for themselves and
leave the "WORKERS" wages alone?

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[pats-blue]

OK, My brother works for Microsoft. So you are saying that he should make more $$ since without him MS doesn't succeed. See last time I checked Bill Gates was the richest man in the world and while he may still be very smart, almost everything MS does now is done by employees of MS.

I should tell my brother to reference this thread in his next contract negotiations with his boss at MS. I can tell you right now that MS does not pay 65% of it gross revenue to its employees, not even close.

comparing MS employees/contractors and the NFL players association is
not quite the same. Are MS employees currently organized as some sort of labor Union?
They do have a organization but not a union...but using your reasoning then what about ANY job with a union...do most of them get 65% of the gross revenue? I think you would be hard pressed to find any successful company with that kind of business plan. 54% for the workers is pretty darn good

Got to love it when people defend millionaire players that sucked up college scholarships that they didn't deserve all because they could play football.

ah ... it seems from this statement that you have formed a bias
against football players. They are the "workers" I used to own my own business and guess what I made more money than my employees...quite a bit more. I risked a lot to start my business and I'm sorry I feel that Kraft and other owners deserve to make money as they are the OWNERS. Players make ludicrous amounts of money...good for them but calling the owners greedy and saying the other millionaires deserving of a larger share of the "business" than the owner is silly.

Add to that when it becomes a crime to be a successful owner of a football team. Last time I checked the OWNER of a company usually made the most money.

who suggested it was a crime??????

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

Ok you didn't call it a "crime" but it seems to me YOU have it out for the owners and begrudge them making money but it is OK for the players to make money?


You also don't take into account the players want GROSS revenues and that will come out of the everyday WORKERS not making MILLIONS at the stadium and team support staff.

if you can substantiate this claim ... I would like you to prove it to me.
I mean the owners could decide to take less money for themselves and
leave the "WORKERS" wages alone?
Yep your right the OWNERS should take less money. If the OWNERS want to make X amount of dollars than continue to employ a 20 person PR staff and DECREASE the money in your pocket even though you are the OWNER and put money into Bidwells pocket and maybe he can hire more than one PR person to promote AZ? I don't get where you think the players deserve more money and Kraft is "greedy". He is the OWNER. Now I am not a business owner anymore and I know that when I work for someone I pretty much expect that they will be making the big money even though I will be doing ALL of the work. How about you prove to me that it won't happen?

 

[mgteich]

There has been no suggestions that the player pool will decrease. All that has been written suggests that the Salary Cap will go up (player monies excluding pensions and benefits) and that veteran and all other minimums will increase. If the salary cap were to go from $82K last year to say $100M in 2006, the increase would be 22%, and that is just the first year increase, and doesn't include increases over the remaining years of the contract. I believe that this is possible with constant percentages and adding not much to types of included revenues. There was a large increase in TV revenue, which is defintely included.

If you are asking whether NFL players will do well after a one-year strike, or with no new CBA, then I agree that the players will lose. That is result of all sports strikes. The owners may lose also, but the players will definitely lose.

Mark, this is at least the second time you have asserted that the player pool certainly will grow a lot.

Why are you so sure of that ... especially, given that NHL players have just taken 20% pay cuts ... after an entire year without any income?

 

[PATSNUTme]

Now, that's beating a dead horse.

 

[sdaniels7114]

I don't know if its fair to say that these players brought in all the money. I'd be a fan of the team even if they $ucked. How do I know this? About a million 2-14 seasons. If I had to guess, I'd say I'm a fan of the Pats because my father was a fan when I was young and impressionable. Does that mean that Kraft owes my dad $5.00 every time I buy a team shirt?

 

[JR4]

I don't know if its fair to say that these players brought in all the money. I'd be a fan of the team even if they $ucked. How do I know this? About a million 2-14 seasons. If I had to guess, I'd say I'm a fan of the Pats because my father was a fan when I was young and impressionable. Does that mean that Kraft owes my dad $5.00 every time I buy a team shirt?

Do you mean you and Tens of thousands of fans would fill
the Blade if there were no Players playing? :-Q

Even if the team isn't a winning team ... there is a chance for something
good to happen even if it's only once in awhile.

Even if you are a fan because of your Dad ... I doubt you would attend the
games if there were no players playing the game.
Hopefully we never have to find out!

 

[shirtsleeve]

Socialism? Bull ... what does Socialism have to do with anything
in this Multi Billion dollar enterprise called the NFL ?????????
It is just a word used to try and degrade the rights of players and other owners in this current CBA strife.

I wasn't going to respond to shirtsleeves erronus statements but
your assertion that he was right has successfully provoked me even
if it wasn't the goal.

I believe the position of players and owners not in the Kraft Group is that
ANY revenues derrived because the Players play the game should be part
of the designated revenues subject to the shared percentage.

In other words a good test is this question ...
.. If there were no players playing would you still get that revenue?

Simply put:
Players want their share of what ever revenues were made possible because of them. This is not socialism.

This is not a unique phenomena. Singers, actors, authors,
pattent holders .... and on and on want there share of revenues they made
possible for others to derirve. This is not socialism.
If you call this socialism then Labor Unions and Ownership is a socialistic
system.


.

JR4, you miss the point. The NFL is a business. Kraft is a businessman. His job is to maximize his profits, not to distribute them. He has played by all the rules. He built a stadium totally with provate funds ( and yes, mgteich, I think that the stadium already is a separate incorporated business, which rents itself out to Pats for games,etc. as well as other other entities. Hence The Pats pay the rent with ticket sales, They pay the players off of TV, Pats merchandise, etc).

Any attempt to redistribute the wealth of a private individual or entity among those who help earn it, is indeed by definition a form of socialism. And the labor Unions are socialism in this form, too. This is not to say I support or do not support any of these mechanisms. Just defining the situation.

As far as the dispute in question, the NFLPA and other owners are mighty PO'd at Kraft and a couple of others. This is because Kraft took a huge shot (which may have ruined him) and built this provately funded stadium. But he has to pay off his investors in this project so they make a profit. And he is not an entirely altruistic person. He's gotta make money in this thing too. He has structured the team so that he spends almost all of the revenues from the Pats on players, coaches, staff, etc. with very little profit for himself. He consistently invests all of the salary cap money available on players. He pays his staff well. He takes little of all this available money. He invests it instead on building and maintaining a great team. Other owners rape these funds repeatedly for themselves. And cry when their team sux! They cant understand its their own fault for making bad business decisions.

And the players constantly want a raise. Cant blame them there. I want more money for what I do too. Hence the labor union and contracts.

But to confuse these issues is just plain wrong, and does Kraft a huge injustice. Kraft should tell the league to get bent. The union should push for a larger cap, but make it a fixed dollar cap, not the crap we got now.

And let the owners of these teams who rape their fans fail in their business. Then these teams will come up for sale at a price where a good businessman can successfully run them and make them competitive.

 

[DaBruinz]

Again, you ignor there are non shared revenues that they believe they are
entitiled to receive. Are you really Bob Kraft?

JR4 -
I am not you. I actually read what is posted previously. You might try it sometime.

1) The Players would be getting more revenue. I showed that to you. And its not been disputed. What you fail to recognize is that in sharing all that extra money, you put more of the burden the teams making money than you do on the teams who aren't.

2) Why is it that you ignore my example of Kraft and how much less revenue he would have? I mean, listening to you, you would have everyone believe that Kraft has an obligation to kiss 180 -240 million in revenue goodbye just because garbage teams like the Cardinals and the Colts can't be bothered to market their teams effectively.

JR, its pretty amazing how you insist on going around in circles and ignoring facts. Do you wonder why you look so foolish in this thread? Maybe you should stop and think about it.

 

[DaBruinz]

Mark, this is at least the second time you have asserted that the player pool certainly will grow a lot.

Why are you so sure of that ... especially, given that NHL players have just taken 20% pay cuts ... after an entire year without any income?

F2P-
There are a couple of reasons why people believe that the player pool is most certainly grow. The 1st reason is just the increase is the TV contract revenue. The 2nd is that the league and players are working towards including more of the revenue that teams generate (concessions, Parking, luxury suites, etc) into the salary cap equation.

Just the new TV contract could see the salary cap come close to 100 million. Never mind adding in other reenue streams, though, should the league do that, they will lower the % that the players get down from the 64.5% it is at now. The players will still be getting more money because it will be from the GROSS revenue, not the revenue as its counted now.