Kraft Selling the Team!! Well sort of...

[p8ryts]

I get nervous when a private equity buys in. They start pushing for larger profits and the companies start paring payroll and not keeping infrastructure improvements.

 

[p8ryts]

gotta pay Maye he’s going to be the highest paid player in the league in a few years.

I missed the part where poor Bob couldn't pay the players out of his current billions.

 

[BTTA]

It's nice to have some walking around money.

I'm sure they are just solving the same problem my wife and I were just discussing, that we need to get some cash and stick it in a drawer in the kitchen so when we go out, we can grab some to have some available to tip people.

 

[patfanken]

I have no idea what you or the other original poster are going on about I just found it interesting he said something about affordable housing and I just heard a few weeks ago there was something in the works.

I just heard about the affordable housing mentioned in this thread. Normally I wouldn't have thought anything about it EXCEPT that I got the impression that the poster was pissed at the idea that Kraft would entertain the idea of having "affordable housing" included into a project of his. I mean, can you believe it. Affordable housing. What would he consider next. Next thing you know he'll be proposing a community center or a public playground where just ANYONE can go.

 

[Tunescribe]

Selling 3 percent to a private equity firm. Guess couldn't do that for TB12 eh?

Unfortunately, no. It's been pointed out many times: the NFL prohibits owners from selling shares to non-family team employees past or present. The purpose is to prevent teams from working out low-ball contracts with promise of compensation later via interest in the franchise.

 

[patfanken]

Unfortunately, no. It's been pointed out many times: the NFL prohibits owners from selling shares to non-family team employees past or present. The purpose is to prevent teams from working out low-ball contracts with promise of compensation later via interest in the franchise.

Equally unfortunately is the fact that despite your post and the "many times" it has been pointed out, it will not stop the haters to continue to make the same comments over and over again.

 

[PP2]

I get nervous when a private equity buys in. They start pushing for larger profits and the companies start paring payroll and not keeping infrastructure improvements.

They don't get to do that when they're minority owners.

 

[PatsfanTN]

I wonder what they'll buy with all that?

Lots of bologna sandwiches.

 

[Froob]

This pisses me off.

there’s no way in hell the owners approve that deal lol

 

[Froob]

Unfortunately, no. It's been pointed out many times: the NFL prohibits owners from selling shares to non-family team employees past or present. The purpose is to prevent teams from working out low-ball contracts with promise of compensation later via interest in the franchise.

any chance you know where that rule is so I can show people?

 

[Tunescribe]

any chance you know where that rule is so I can show people?

NFL headquarters
345 Park Ave
New York, NY 10154

 

[zoostation]

Love to have TB12 be part of Pats ownership. But Tom can't afford the 8% being offered.

 

[signbabybrady]

I got the solution.
We just need to propose a trade.

Raiders send us Brady and we send them 6th street, Pop Douglas, Rham, and a first round pick. We'll even throw in the plaque that commemorates where Adam Vinatieri made the snow game kick.

 

[XLIX]

any chance you know where that rule is so I can show people?

There is no such rule. (Some posters in here love to talk out their asses and completely make things up out of thin air.). For example, the Broncos tried to get Elway on board as an owner. Elway declined but not because of any make believe rule preventing him from joining.

Furthermore, even if such a rule existed, the owners are the ones who make - and can change - the rules. Any 24 owners voting together can change a rule (which is the number of votes a new minority owner needs anyway).

There absolutely may have been questions raised if Kraft offered Brady a sweetheart deal. No way to know how the other 31 owners would respond. But there’s no hard and fast rule specifically disallowing it.

Brady wants a pathway to majority ownership someday, a pathway that does not exist in New England. It’s really that simple.

 

[Tunescribe]

There is no such rule. (Some posters in here love to talk out their asses and completely make things up out of thin air.).

@XLIX Oh, you mean talking out of YOUR ASS by saying things like "there is no such rule"?

@Froob FYI:

NFL bans giving equity stakes to players, employees

Collective, collusive action is a wonderful thing.

www.nbcsports.com

No, NFL owners are not allowed to sell parts of the team to players; current NFL rules specifically prohibit employees, including players, from owning equity in a team. This prohibition is in place for several reasons, including to prevent potential salary cap complications, value depreciation, and conflicts of interest.

Why NFL owners cannot sell parts of a team to players:

• Employee-Ownership Ban:
  The core rule prevents employees, such as players, from having an equity interest in the team they work for.
• Conflict of Interest:
  Allowing a player to have an ownership stake could create conflicts of interest, as they would be an employee, an owner, and a player simultaneously.
• Salary Cap and Depreciation Concerns:
  There are concerns that player ownership could complicate salary cap management and potentially lead to a depreciation of the team's value.
• Disputes:
  The NFL wants to avoid situations where an employee-owner could later claim improper treatment or sue the team over the value of their interest.

 

[XLIX]

@XLIX Oh, you mean talking out of YOUR ASS by saying things like "there is no such rule"?

@Froob FYI:

NFL bans giving equity stakes to players, employees

Collective, collusive action is a wonderful thing.

www.nbcsports.com

No, NFL owners are not allowed to sell parts of the team to players; current NFL rules specifically prohibit employees, including players, from owning equity in a team. This prohibition is in place for several reasons, including to prevent potential salary cap complications, value depreciation, and conflicts of interest.

Why NFL owners cannot sell parts of a team to players:

• Employee-Ownership Ban:
  The core rule prevents employees, such as players, from having an equity interest in the team they work for.
• Conflict of Interest:
  Allowing a player to have an ownership stake could create conflicts of interest, as they would be an employee, an owner, and a player simultaneously.
• Salary Cap and Depreciation Concerns:
  There are concerns that player ownership could complicate salary cap management and potentially lead to a depreciation of the team's value.
• Disputes:
  The NFL wants to avoid situations where an employee-owner could later claim improper treatment or sue the team over the value of their interest.

I took you out of the ignore file because I knew this would be your response and you took the bait hook, line and sucker. You are so easily manipulated, it is hilarious.

That rule applies to CURRENT EMPLOYEES AND PLAYERS - NOT FORMER EMPLOYEES AND PLAYERS. For example, this rule was mentioned when Caleb Williams said he wanted a slice of ownership to play for Chicago, which would be forbidden. (It was also mentioned when people talked about Brady actually playing for the Raiders).

Now that his playing days are over, there is no rule forbidding Brady from taking an ownership percentage in the Patriots (prior to when he bought into the Raiders, obviously). I am not saying some owners wouldn't have had a problem with it or voted against it, but there is no rule forbidding it.

Just take the L and move on, loser. You should be used to it by now. Now back into the ignore file you go and this time you don't come out.

 

[Tunescribe]

I took you out of the ignore file because I knew this would be your response and you took the bait hook, line and sucker. You are so easily manipulated, it is hilarious.

That rule applies to CURRENT EMPLOYEES AND PLAYERS - NOT FORMER EMPLOYEES AND PLAYERS. For example, this rule was mentioned when Caleb Williams said he wanted a slice of ownership to play for Chicago, which would be forbidden. (It was also mentioned when people talked about Brady actually playing for the Raiders).

Now that his playing days are over, there is no rule forbidding Brady from taking an ownership percentage in the Patriots (prior to when he bought into the Raiders, obviously). I am not saying some owners wouldn't have had a problem with it or voted against it, but there is no rule forbidding it.

Just take the L and move on, loser. You should be used to it by now. Now back into the ignore file you go and this time you don't come out.

@XLIX

Such nasty language!

You simply are wrong — AGAIN, sport. The ownership prohibition covers BOTH current AND former players/team employees re. the team they worked for.

But, hey, we’re making progress here. At least you admit talking out of YOUR ASS saying no such rule existed. Now perhaps you can do yourself and everyone else a favor by reading the damn thing.

 

[Triumph]

What's a Wu?

Comrade do you like vodka and cabbage soup?

 

[Triumph]

Excuse me, but is there suddenly something WRONG with the concept of affordable housing or in this Trumponian distopia where diversity is a swear word is the idea of housing people can afford is a bad idea

Hilarious

Rents and housing were affordable until 2020. Food was too. You will never admit that or own up to it. It's just like HOF Cleveland Browns RB Jim Brown said. You people will cut off a leg so that you can hand that person a crutch. And, here we are today. You're right on time.

 

[mgteich]

Rents and housing were affordable until 2020. Food was too.

This is one of the most uninformed posts that I have seen in many years.