So the answer is to rape and pillage one owner and team and force him to take it like a man, with no benefit to the league, and thenforce him to take it is the way you prevent fractured ownership? How about you just treat everyone fairly. You seriously are trying to say that Kraft would be wrong to not allow his team to get screwed because other teams enjoy screwing him? Please stop me here and explain how unjustly punishing the Patriots is good for the league.
Why would you want to part of a group of 32 when 31 tell you that the best thing for them is for you to get screwed when their is nothing for them to gain by it?
You are making that up. You don't know. Goldberg wrote a compelling argument that was the first salvo. Goodell came right out and said he looked forward to Brady adding informaiton, giving clarity and showing where the Wells report got it wrong. He wants Brady to do it, but Kraft would have been Charlie Manson if he did?
Your entire argument fails because you are defending something indefensible (in the way you are defending it)
If your argument was that Kraft determined that the success of the Patriots, their legacy,and the claim that they are honest and worthy champions meant less to Kraft than making sure the league keeps making more and more money so he can line his pockets then you have the starting point of what could be a convincing argument.
The only part about best for Patriots is with respect to the bottom line.