Opinion: Jonathan Kraft not representing the Krafts well during labor battle

[Synovia]

This thread:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ct-grants-nfls-request-expedited-hearing.html


Is a pretty good argument for Kraft being right. The NFL is looking for an expedited hearing despite currently having a stay keeping the lockout in place.

Thats atleast an argument that ownership isn't whats slowing this process down.

 

[townes]

Yeah, it did. But what was included in that percentage changed.


If a bully takes 57% of your lunch money one year, then the next year takes 57% of your (lunch money+bus fare), is he still taking the same amount of money?

lmao-Gene Upshaw-"THE BULLY" I guess his reputation of bending over for the owners didn't precede him in your part of the world. Everywhere else, but not wherever it is you are.


Taking a % of the money that doesn't change is not asking for more.

 

[ausbacker]

I don't know much about Jonathan Kraft's standing in the locker room and business environment but from listening to him during interviews and reading his quotations he sure does lack the charisma of his father.

 

[Synovia]

Taking a % of the money that doesn't change is not asking for more.

When you change what is included in that percent, it is.


And apparantly we're not even correct in that. The percentage was going up every other year:

The $102 M figure in 2006 was based on a 57% share of the 2006 projected Total Revenues as was the $109 M figure for 2007. In 2008, the percentage jumps to 57.5%, and the same percentage applies to 2009 as well. In 2010 and 2011 the percentage will be 58%. Note that if the projections see a shortfall in 2006 or 2007, when the dollar amounts were hard-coded in the CBA, then the 2008 and 2009 caps would be adjusted accordingly.

Askthecommish.com

 

[JoeSixPat]

I forgot to bring this up when I heard him on WEEI last week, but Jonathan Kraft - and this isn't the first time - desperately needs to take a lesson from his father and be careful about what he says in the media.

He is way too brash and arrogant in the media and lacks all the eloquence and level-headedness of his father.

Howe hit upon it this week:

Patriots President Jonathan Kraft Disregards Major Details in Placing Blame on Players for Lockout

In a pre-draft bit on WEEI last week, Jonathan took digs at the players and insinuated they didn't want to negotiate and that they were delaying the process by their actions with the lawsuit and decertifying the NFLPA. He sounded incredulous that the players had even done what they had done, and effectively blamed this entire lockout on them.

His tone was shockingly arrogant and his point was derisive - obviously, the players were looking for leverage, and had a right to look for leverage.

When they were at the negotiating table before, the owners had all the leverage. They believed they were getting their "lockout insurance" $$ and they believed they could, in fact, lockout the players.

Both of those things are in question now, thanks to the players actions.

The players actions have been confirmed to be the right course of action by both Doty and Nelson - and they have won themselves leverage accordingly. It remains to be seen if the 8th Circuit will give the players a slam dunk, or reverse Nelson's decision, but until then - Jonathan Kraft has no right to question the players decision to try and win some leverage in order to negotiate under fair pretenses - not the completely unlevel playing field the owners had set-up for them to start this process.

The larger point I want to make is that this isn't the first time I thought Jonathan Kraft was representing his family and the team in a questionable manner in his dealings with the media. Of all the people high up in the organization, he's actually one of the more likely to give someone fodder or a soundbyte that would not seem Belichick-approved.

During this entire players vs. union battle, Robert Kraft has handled everything with class - and been a figure that both sides seem to look forward to coming to the table. In spite of the fact that the message he is delivering is often no different than his son's, he does it in a way that is not divisive, but rather gives hope that the labor battle will be solved. I hope he manages to rein his son in.

I heard that interview as well.

First of all I think Jonathan is very open and forthcoming with the media. I think there's a mutal respect for Jonathan among the fans and media alike.

He was on the radio to speak about the draft and he was very informative during that time. Then they asked him about the labor status - at the time it was unclear whether a stay would be issued - he was trying to be responsive and he did what many of us do in that situation...

He said more than he should have.

I think he realized it even as it was happening. He was trying to - and I think he effectively did - state the facts... just not all of the facts.

The interview itself was far from arrogant in my opinion - but he was VERY clear in expressing his belief that the owners are in the right.

I have no doubt Jonathan questions some of his choice of words - and I believe he should engage in more media training with an experienced consultant (and I am for hire Mr. Kraft! )

But the real problem here is that the transcription was picked up by PFT and left itself open to word by word scrutiny - which triggered a bit of a pundit feeding frenzy. But ultimately this will blow over and they'll learn their lessons and not make the same mistake twice.

One thing's for certain - you talk to the media enough, eventually you are going to suffer from "foot in mouth" disease. Jonathan's willingness to be available to the media - which is a good thing - is by product of that.

Picking your opportunities and making clear your limits to what detail you're willing to discuss something is key.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I heard that interview as well.

First of all I think Jonathan is very open and forthcoming with the media. I think there's a mutal respect for Jonathan among the fans and media alike.

He was on the radio to speak about the draft and he was very informative during that time. Then they asked him about the labor status - at the time it was unclear whether a stay would be issued - he was trying to be responsive and he did what many of us do in that situation...

He said more than he should have.

I think he realized it even as it was happening. He was trying to - and I think he effectively did - state the facts... just not all of the facts.

The interview itself was far from arrogant in my opinion - but he was VERY clear in expressing his belief that the owners are in the right.

I have no doubt Jonathan questions some of his choice of words - and I believe he should engage in more media training with an experienced consultant (and I am for hire Mr. Kraft! )

But the real problem here is that the transcription was picked up by PFT and left itself open to word by word scrutiny - which triggered a bit of a pundit feeding frenzy. But ultimately this will blow over and they'll learn their lessons and not make the same mistake twice.

One thing's for certain - you talk to the media enough, eventually you are going to suffer from "foot in mouth" disease. Jonathan's willingness to be available to the media - which is a good thing - is by product of that.

Picking your opportunities and making clear your limits to what detail you're willing to discuss something is key.

I heard it too, sounded to me like he knew he shouldnt be going down that path but couldnt stop himself. As for what he said, if your for the players, hes an arrogant ahole, if your for the owners theres nothing wrong with what he said, if your in the camp that believes both parties share in the blame it was nothing but one sided rhetoric. Hes part of ownership, what did you expect him to say?

Big O pushed him a little with the questioning but Jonathan pushed back so the Big O backed off and let Jonathan say what he wanted.
I dont care who interviews him, Jonathan only says what he wants to say, if you push the issue he'll change the subject or end the interview, your not gonna get something out of him if he not willing to give it.

 

[Joker]

I heard that interview. It was not Ordway's finest hour.

uh...not to start an argument because I really don't want to waste the time and energy, but if you could enlighten me as to Ordway's "finest hour" I'd appreciate it. I can't think of an Ordway "finest 30 seconds"...

 

[Joker]

I never expect hard questions from Holley to the local football guys. He doesn't want to lose his access there. Ordway, on the other hand, needs to be more than just a doormat.

why would anyone ever consider using a beach ball as a doormat?

 

[Timbo717]

Was this the interview with Ordway and Dibiase when he asked Dibiase how an overweight, former OL-lineman could shoot a 70 on the golf course?

 

[BradyManny]

But the real problem here is that the transcription was picked up by PFT and left itself open to word by word scrutiny - which triggered a bit of a pundit feeding frenzy. But ultimately this will blow over and they'll learn their lessons and not make the same mistake twice.

To be honest - I never saw the transcript, and if I had to guess, it probably doesn't read as bad as it sounded. His tone was very arrogant.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The claim that the players were looking for more money since the last CBA is what is not true.

Technically you're incorrect as every proposal (including from owners) has the players getting more money. Now if you're talking a higher percentage of income, then you may be right (although there seems to be some dispute about that as well).

But this is true in every negotiation; both sides want the most money. As has been said a number of times (and is apparently often ignored), when one side is happy with the deal and the other side is unhappy with the deal, the deal is (almost certainly) slanted in favor of the side that is happy. All the posts (and there have been many) that try to represent the labor deal over the past 4 years as perfectly equitable fail this simple little test. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[townes]

When you change what is included in that percent, it is.


And apparantly we're not even correct in that. The percentage was going up every other year:



Askthecommish.com

You still don't get it, the terms of the agreement had not changed in any way, and the only way to change them was to go back to negotiations and the owners created that situation, not the players. The players wer happy with the deal Jonathan Kraft and his cohorts put on the table and they agreed to, it was Ralph Wilson, Mike brown and the rest of the cheapassed owners who don't re-invest in their teams who weren't, and i have zero sympathy for them.

 

[townes]

Technically you're incorrect as every proposal (including from owners) has the players getting more money. Now if you're talking a higher percentage of income, then you may be right (although there seems to be some dispute about that as well).

But this is true in every negotiation; both sides want the most money. As has been said a number of times (and is apparently often ignored), when one side is happy with the deal and the other side is unhappy with the deal, the deal is (almost certainly) slanted in favor of the side that is happy. All the posts (and there have been many) that try to represent the labor deal over the past 4 years as perfectly equitable fail this simple little test. Take it for what it's worth.

The continued claim that the players were looking for more than they agreed to is a lie, period, they were abiding by the terms of the deal and the owners opted out, that's a fact. The owners are the ones killing the game, good riddance to all of them.

 

[DaBruinz]

I forgot to bring this up when I heard him on WEEI last week, but Jonathan Kraft - and this isn't the first time - desperately needs to take a lesson from his father and be careful about what he says in the media.

He is way too brash and arrogant in the media and lacks all the eloquence and level-headedness of his father.

Howe hit upon it this week:

Patriots President Jonathan Kraft Disregards Major Details in Placing Blame on Players for Lockout

In a pre-draft bit on WEEI last week, Jonathan took digs at the players and insinuated they didn't want to negotiate and that they were delaying the process by their actions with the lawsuit and decertifying the NFLPA. He sounded incredulous that the players had even done what they had done, and effectively blamed this entire lockout on them.

His tone was shockingly arrogant and his point was derisive - obviously, the players were looking for leverage, and had a right to look for leverage.

When they were at the negotiating table before, the owners had all the leverage. They believed they were getting their "lockout insurance" $$ and they believed they could, in fact, lockout the players.

Both of those things are in question now, thanks to the players actions.

The players actions have been confirmed to be the right course of action by both Doty and Nelson - and they have won themselves leverage accordingly. It remains to be seen if the 8th Circuit will give the players a slam dunk, or reverse Nelson's decision, but until then - Jonathan Kraft has no right to question the players decision to try and win some leverage in order to negotiate under fair pretenses - not the completely unlevel playing field the owners had set-up for them to start this process.

Let's just IGNORE the fact that the Players initially lost to the Special Master. That was round 1. Rounds 2 & 3 were Doty and Nelson. People seem to forget that.

And just as a reminder, the Special Master was someone that BOTH sides agreed upon. So, the fact that the Players didn't get their way and went to Doty says ALOT.

The larger point I want to make is that this isn't the first time I thought Jonathan Kraft was representing his family and the team in a questionable manner in his dealings with the media. Of all the people high up in the organization, he's actually one of the more likely to give someone fodder or a soundbyte that would not seem Belichick-approved.

During this entire players vs. union battle, Robert Kraft has handled everything with class - and been a figure that both sides seem to look forward to coming to the table. In spite of the fact that the message he is delivering is often no different than his son's, he does it in a way that is not divisive, but rather gives hope that the labor battle will be solved. I hope he manages to rein his son in.

Like Howe claims of Kraft, Howe actually has forgotten some major details. Like the "last offer" from the Owners was not a "take it or leave it" offer. It was a new starting place in which the owners gave quite a bit, but also tried to take quite a bit. That is NORMAL for union negotiations. All I ever heard from the players was "status quo" and considerations for the extra billion IF the owners did something that no one should be forced to do except to the IRS. And that is show their books. I've not heard of them make a single tangible counter offer. How isw that negotiating in good faith?

One of the things that Howe also forgets is that, during the 6 seasons without a CBA, the players lost a lot of money because they didn't have a CBA in place.

I'll be honest, I've yet to hear a player, agent or former union officer NOT sound arrogant during the whole thing. From Smith to Mawae to Rosenhaus to Condon.

 

[DaBruinz]

The continued claim that the players were looking for more than they agreed to is a lie, period, they were abiding by the terms of the deal and the owners opted out, that's a fact. The owners are the ones killing the game, good riddance to all of them.

This is complete BS.

There is a laundry list of things that the players wanted from the owners after the owners opted out. You're a fool if you think that the players aren't also killing the game.

1) The players wanted compensation for the players who were "hurt" because of the no-cap year.

2) The players wanted the health care benefits extended to their families and extended beyond their playing career at no cost.

3) The players wanted the owners to be solely responsible for the increase in veteran pension money.

4) Reduction in the off-season stuff (OTAs, off-season workouts, etc)

That is among other things..

 

[DaBruinz]

And a primary architect of the CBA the owners claim they had to opt out of because it was such a horrible deal.


Did Kraft really do that bad a job or are the owners full of crap?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the economic situations changed drastically and the deal was no longer viable?? And if you claim it hasn't, then I have a nice 3 acre plot of ocean front property in Nebraska I'd like for you to consider..

 

[DaBruinz]

If the owners wanted the players to negotiate, they should have offered a deal that wasn't an insult.

The deal was only an insult because the players chose to take it as a "FINAL OFFER" when the owners clearly stated it wa a new starting point.

Again, I have yet to see ANY proposal that the players offered. Funny thing about that. They blame the owners for not negotiating, yet the ONLY offer we ever saw was the one that the owners made. Why is that? could it be that the PLAYERS didn't actually make an offer other that to say "Status quo"? And if that is the case, why did they not make more of an effort?

I blame both sides. Certain people would have everyone believe that the owners are the evil people here while the players are just innocent in this. That's laughable and the people insinuating that are the jokes.

 

[DaBruinz]

The NFL economy is only getting better and has suffered no setbacks whatsoever, all they had to do to "keep the gravy train rolling" was continue on, and they have not shown any compelling reason not to do so.

And you know this how??? The only way you could know this is by having looked at the books of the teams. Which you haven't. Neither has Forbes or any other place out there.

Your claim that they've suffered no "set backs" has no veracity to it. You ignore that the economy has changed significantly. You ignore that taxes (particularly local ones) have changed, in some cases significantly. Especially in California. You ignore that the price of many goods and services has gone up in the last 4 years. The price of doing business has, most certainly gone up in that time frame. Especially when it comes to scouting (air travel, hotel stays, rental cars, gas, food, etc). Not to mention the medical has gone up.

How do I know these things? Because I have suffered through them. And have had friends and family suffer through them. Including business owners.

 

[patfanken]

Jon Kraft was intimately involved in crafting the last CBA and was actually the one in the room during the work on it, not his father, and it was clear then that the dispute was between the owners and not with the players. He can try and deflect that all he wants but he still needs to explain why the deal was so bad and as yet has done nothing to address it.

The Basic points of the last offer are public knowledge now. You must have seen. You tell me what was so bad about the deal that was so horrible that the players couldn't at LEAST have gone back to the table. The owners gave up the 18 game season, time off in the OTA's and (here's the one that was a real shocker) gave up control to an independent 3rd party on drug test failures. That's just off the top of my head, but those are 3 HUGE gains for the players.

Again Townsie, you tell me what was so horrible?

BTW - if you already have done this ....nevermind. I'm only on page 3 of this thread.

 

[DaBruinz]

Record ratings, record TV deals, and record revenues, and increasing revenue streams, trying to conflate the NFL economy with the economy as a whole is absurd.

It's only absurb because it totally destroys 99% of your claims. To think that the 32 NFL teams are somehow immune from what happens in the economy shows a complete lack of understanding of economics on your part.

Many of the "increased revenue streams" are not ones that the teams benefit directly from. For instance, Patriots Place is owned by the same holding company that owns the Patriots, but the revenue from there is not figured into the CBA calcs.

With those "record TV DEALS" has come record player salaries as well. Including, but not limited to, record signing bonuses for guards and elite QBs. And record medical expenses. Such as for players on the IR. Which there was a record for last year.. Something like 3 times the normal number of players on IR lists. Teams with 25-30 players on IR. The most had been like 19..

Instead of acting like the revenue far outweighs the expenses of an NFL team, why don't you go and look at the Green Bay Packers accounting records. Just take a look at the expenses side of it. Are all the teams going to be exactly the same? No. But I bet most teams are within +/- 15% of that number.