Will Bob Kraft bench the NFL?

[JR4]

JR4 -
...............................

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.


Absurd ..... really has no bearing on the issue. The point you fail to realize is
that there are revenues that are NOT being shared and the Players believe
they should be. It doesn't matter if Owner(s) X gets more or less what
matters is that if the revenues are made possible because players play the
game then the players asociation want them desginated as revenues to be
shared with the Players.
Why do you insist on confusing the issue by bringing up irrelavant assertions?

The issue is:
Are these currently unshared revenues made possible because the players
play the game?

If so then they should rightfully be share with the players who made it
possible. So simple really. There is no justification to make an exemption
unless the players themselves are willing to do so.




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.


Again another attempt to side step the simple issue as stated above.

(BTW, where did you get the figures of 180-240 M that Bob Kraft would be
losing. )




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.



You mean ignore facts that have no bearing on the simple issue mentioned above?
Maybe you should stick to the simple issue as mentioned above instead
of trying to cloud the issue with irrelevant assertions.


Such "Facts" as
- Owner X won't get as much revenue
- Players will get more shared revenue this year
- Team A gets a benefit because Team B does something
- Owner X has a big debt to service
- Players get too much money
- Team A has a smarter marketing team so they should get more money

and perhaps a host of other non relevant facts,

have no bearing on the simple simple issue:

Are there revenues made possible because the players play the game
that are NOT being included as designated shared revenues in the new
proposed CBA? If so then there is a valid basis for disagreement by
some of the parties invovled.


Please re-read the above part in blue carefully again.

I really don't want to be rude, DaBruinz, but if want to attack my
character I will respond accordingly or simply ignor you.
----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[shmessy]

Hey, JR.....What does Donald Yee, Esquire think about all this?

 

[JR4]

Hey, JR.....What does Donald Yee, Esquire think about all this?

You mean Brady's agent? Have no idea .... why ... does it matter?

 

[pats-blue]

JR4 "have no bearing on the simple simple issue:

Are there revenues made possible because the players play the game"

OK, but the owners own the teams and league that give the players a place and league to play in without the teams the players have NOTHING. THe OWNERS make the league possible as much as the players do. I can watch better basketball in just about any city park than you see in the NBA, but I have never seen a game broadcast on TV on one of these games. Same goes for the NFL, the OWNERS made the league. Most of us follow the TEAMS not players.

Your argument goes both ways.

 

[Covert]

Oh, and unions are definitely a left-wing - socialist - political phenomenon. I know that's swearing on the far side of the Atlantic, but it's demonstrable.

 

[JR4]

JR4 "have no bearing on the simple simple issue:

Are there revenues made possible because the players play the game"

OK, but the owners own the teams and league that give the players a place and league to play in without the teams the players have NOTHING. THe OWNERS make the league possible as much as the players do. I can watch better basketball in just about any city park than you see in the NBA, but I have never seen a game broadcast on TV on one of these games. Same goes for the NFL, the OWNERS made the league. Most of us follow the TEAMS not players.

Your argument goes both ways.

No Problem there and therefore because both players and owners depend on
each other sharing ALL revenues makes sense.

 

[JR4]

Oh, and unions are definitely a left-wing - socialist - political phenomenon. I know that's swearing on the far side of the Atlantic, but it's demonstrable.

Covert my response to your post is in the Political Forum:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?p=43626#post43626

 

[shmessy]

You mean Brady's agent? Have no idea .... why ... does it matter?

You evidently forgot about our friend Bsamson.

 

[DaBruinz]

I really don't want to be rude, DaBruinz, but if want to attack my
character I will respond accordingly or simply ignor you.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Dude - what character was I attacking? I was pointing out a simple truth. Sorry that you seem to take offense to that. Now, if would be nice if seperated out the quotes you are addressing so that people can respond in kind:

Absurd ..... really has no bearing on the issue. The point you fail to realize is
that there are revenues that are NOT being shared and the Players believe
they should be. It doesn't matter if Owner(s) X gets more or less what
matters is that if the revenues are made possible because players play the
game then the players asociation want them desginated as revenues to be
shared with the Players.
Why do you insist on confusing the issue by bringing up irrelavant assertions?

The issue is:
Are these currently unshared revenues made possible because the players
play the game?

If so then they should rightfully be share with the players who made it
possible. So simple really. There is no justification to make an exemption
unless the players themselves are willing to do so.

What is absurd is your continuing to ignore the fact that the PLAYERS are EMPLOYEES of companies. What is absurd is the idea that they aren't getting their fair share when they are already getting more than 60% of the shared revenues.

BTW, the revenues AREN'T made possible strictly because of the players. They are made possible because the NFL exists. The players wouldn't have jobs without the NFL.

The problem with your argument is that you ignore the infrastructure that supports the players. The infrastructure that the OWNERS have to pay so that hte Players can play. Without that infrastructure, there is no game. Ignoring that fact doesn't change it.

BTW, The one bringing up irrelevent assertions is you. Because you don't grasp the entirety of the situation.

Again another attempt to side step the simple issue as stated above.

(BTW, where did you get the figures of 180-240 M that Bob Kraft would be losing. )

Sorry, JR4, but there was no attempt to side step any issue. And the issue isn't simple. But far be it from you to acknowledge that. You have the horseblinders on and can't see beyond the end of your nose.

Now, as for the 180-240 million that Kraft would no longer have in revenue, that's easy. It was stated by Gene Upshaw that Kraft and the Patriots had 300 million in revenues from the concessions, parking and luxury suites. You know, the money that the shyster owners like Bidwell and Irsay want to get their hands on. The smaller owners want that money included in the revenue sharing. In other words, there would be one big giant pot. And the money would be divided evenly to all the teams.

Now, and I hope you can follow me here, the league makes around 6 billion in revenue. The players want the % to remain at 64.5%. That would be approximately 3.87 BILLION. You take that 3.87 billion from the 6 billion total revenue that the league makes and you have 2.13 billion in revenues. That 2.13 billion would get shared amongst the 32 teams. Well, that figures to be around 66 million dollars in revenues for each team to spend on its operating expenses.

So, follow me here, if Kraft has 300 million that he currently uses on operating expenses and that gets cut to 66 million, that is a reduction of 234 million in revenues. Do you understand now?

You mean ignore facts that have no bearing on the simple issue mentioned above?
Maybe you should stick to the simple issue as mentioned above instead
of trying to cloud the issue with irrelevant assertions.


Such "Facts" as
- Owner X won't get as much revenue
- Players will get more shared revenue this year
- Team A gets a benefit because Team B does something
- Owner X has a big debt to service
- Players get too much money
- Team A has a smarter marketing team so they should get more money

and perhaps a host of other non relevant facts,

have no bearing on the simple simple issue:

Are there revenues made possible because the players play the game
that are NOT being included as designated shared revenues in the new
proposed CBA? If so then there is a valid basis for disagreement by
some of the parties invovled.


Please re-read the above part in blue carefully again.

It always amazes me when people change their theory to try and justify their argument.

You're theory started out that it would be KRAFT that would derail the CBA proceedings because he didn't want the revenues from luxury suites, parking and concessions to be included in the shared revenue figures. Now, you are on some BS about whether or not the revenues are made possible by the players.

Through the entire thread, you've been proven wrong at just about every turn.

Here are a few things that you have stubbornly refused to acknowledge regarding the CBA negotiations:

1) It takes only 75% of the owners to make a decision. In other words, 24 of 32 owners. So, the fact that there is still squabbling amongst the owners should tell you (like it tells everyone else) that there is significantly more than 8 owners who are against the increasing the revenue that is shared. It should also tell you that Kraft isn't the only one to lay blame on.

2) Kraft has said (and you have ignored) that he would be willing to put in more revenue for sharing, but that its unfair for the larger revenue teams to have to support teams who aren't actively doing enough to raise revenue for their teams. Why should Kraft take a 180-240 Million hit in his operating revenue to support teams such as Arizona or Indianapolis who aren't willing to do their fair share?

3) The players are EMPLOYEES of each TEAM. Just you are an employee of the company you work for. Just like I am an employee of the company I work for. Their job is to make money for the stock-holders (owners). Just like its your job to make money for the owner of the company you work for.
As I showed you in my example, the Players would be getting more money with the increased revenue sharing and a 56% cut on that revenue. Them asking for 64.5% of the total revenue is laughable because if not for the owners putting together the organization to begin with, the players wouldn't have their jobs or the revenue that is generated.


You're claiming that these are non-relevent facts shows that you truly do not have a grasp on the complexity of the situation.

 

[DaBruinz]

No Problem there and therefore because both players and owners depend on
each other sharing ALL revenues makes sense.

No, actually, it doesn't make sense because the owners have expenses that they have had to pay out. If you want ALL revenue shared, then lets start by charging the players for the training staff, coaches, and all the other support staff that they get the benefit of using. You know, the expenses that the OWNERS have to cover right now. The expenses that YOU so blatantly IGNORE. The EXPENSES that have to be a part of this conversation since it is a BENFIT that the players get.

 

[marty]

Dude - what character was I attacking? I was pointing out a simple truth. Sorry that you seem to take offense to that. Now, if would be nice if seperated out the quotes you are addressing so that people can respond in kind:



[/b]What is absurd is your continuing to ignore the fact that the PLAYERS are EMPLOYEES of companies. What is absurd is the idea that they aren't getting their fair share when they are already getting more than 60% of the shared revenues.

BTW, the revenues AREN'T made possible strictly because of the players. They are made possible because the NFL exists. The players wouldn't have jobs without the NFL.

The problem with your argument is that you ignore the infrastructure that supports the players. The infrastructure that the OWNERS have to pay so that hte Players can play. Without that infrastructure, there is no game. Ignoring that fact doesn't change it.

BTW, The one bringing up irrelevent assertions is you. Because you don't grasp the entirety of the situation.




[/b]Sorry, JR4, but there was no attempt to side step any issue. And the issue isn't simple. But far be it from you to acknowledge that. You have the horseblinders on and can't see beyond the end of your nose.

Now, as for the 180-240 million that Kraft would no longer have in revenue, that's easy. It was stated by Gene Upshaw that Kraft and the Patriots had 300 million in revenues from the concessions, parking and luxury suites. You know, the money that the shyster owners like Bidwell and Irsay want to get their hands on. The smaller owners want that money included in the revenue sharing. In other words, there would be one big giant pot. And the money would be divided evenly to all the teams.

Now, and I hope you can follow me here, the league makes around 6 billion in revenue. The players want the % to remain at 64.5%. That would be approximately 3.87 BILLION. You take that 3.87 billion from the 6 billion total revenue that the league makes and you have 2.13 billion in revenues. That 2.13 billion would get shared amongst the 32 teams. Well, that figures to be around 66 million dollars in revenues for each team to spend on its operating expenses.

So, follow me here, if Kraft has 300 million that he currently uses on operating expenses and that gets cut to 66 million, that is a reduction of 234 million in revenues. Do you understand now?




[/b] It always amazes me when people change their theory to try and justify their argument.

You're theory started out that it would be KRAFT that would derail the CBA proceedings because he didn't want the revenues from luxury suites, parking and concessions to be included in the shared revenue figures. Now, you are on some BS about whether or not the revenues are made possible by the players.

Through the entire thread, you've been proven wrong at just about every turn.

Here are a few things that you have stubbornly refused to acknowledge regarding the CBA negotiations:

1) It takes only 75% of the owners to make a decision. In other words, 24 of 32 owners. So, the fact that there is still squabbling amongst the owners should tell you (like it tells everyone else) that there is significantly more than 8 owners who are against the increasing the revenue that is shared. It should also tell you that Kraft isn't the only one to lay blame on.

2) Kraft has said (and you have ignored) that he would be willing to put in more revenue for sharing, but that its unfair for the larger revenue teams to have to support teams who aren't actively doing enough to raise revenue for their teams. Why should Kraft take a 180-240 Million hit in his operating revenue to support teams such as Arizona or Indianapolis who aren't willing to do their fair share?

3) The players are EMPLOYEES of each TEAM. Just you are an employee of the company you work for. Just like I am an employee of the company I work for. Their job is to make money for the stock-holders (owners). Just like its your job to make money for the owner of the company you work for.
As I showed you in my example, the Players would be getting more money with the increased revenue sharing and a 56% cut on that revenue. Them asking for 64.5% of the total revenue is laughable because if not for the owners putting together the organization to begin with, the players wouldn't have their jobs or the revenue that is generated.


You're claiming that these are non-relevent facts shows that you truly do not have a grasp on the complexity of the situation.

Whew! Well done DaBruinz, think I hear the rather robust young lady in the front row singing now!! :rocker:

 

[pats-blue]

No Problem there and therefore because both players and owners depend on
each other sharing ALL revenues makes sense.

Yeah that would be fair when the players put up 350 million for a stadium and a billion dollars for a team and become a OWNER.

So you are saying if I start a company I build the factory, office what ever...do the advertizing I should split all the profits equally with my EMPLOYEES because I "depend" on them to do thier jobs? Thats ******ed. Name ONE successful business that does that, just ONE. You have backed up nothing except to say the owners depend on the players for thier product, yeah, that describes pretty much every business in the world, now name one where the OWNER makes less than the employees.

 

[JR4]

Yeah that would be fair when the players put up 350 million for a stadium and a billion dollars for a team and become a OWNER.

So you are saying if I start a company I build the factory, office what ever...do the advertizing I should split all the profits equally with my EMPLOYEES because I "depend" on them to do thier jobs? Thats ******ed. Name ONE successful business that does that, just ONE. You have backed up nothing except to say the owners depend on the players for thier product, yeah, that describes pretty much every business in the world, now name one where the OWNER makes less than the employees.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
error they are employees.

However you want cases of shared revenue.
What about the partnership form of business. There are zillions of thoes.
And course "profit sharing" is used a lot as incentives in todays world.
If I have a rare commodity ( NFL talent) and you need that
commodity you will pay somebody what the market will bare or you may be
out of business. Now how we work out the details is up to us. Staright up
pay is one way but profit sharing is certainly another alternative.
What the NFL players have done is to tie their commodity to
profit sharing for renumeration according to a Collective Bargining Agreement
as agree to by parties invovled.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Well first NFL Players are not employees so that shoots down most of your argument. They are an association of independent contractors,
******ed or not that is the way it is.

I really didn't want to get reinvolved in this thread because this horse has been beaten to death.

NFL players ARE employees. They sign employment contracts with the teams that they play for. After their contracts expire and they have been in the league for the required number of years, they are free to seek other employment. Unless the team decides to 'tag" them.

The IRS does not recognize them as "independent contractors". They do not get a 1099 they get a W-2 from the teams that they play for.

Please JR4, if you are going to drag this thread out, get some factual information before you post.

 

[JR4]

Well first NFL Players are not employees so that shoots down most of your argument. They are an association of independent contractors,
******ed or not that is the way it is.

I really didn't want to get reinvolved in this thread because this horse has been beaten to death.

NFL players ARE employees. They sign employment contracts with the teams that they play for. After their contracts expire and they have been in the league for the required number of years, they are free to seek other employment. Unless the team decides to 'tag" them.

The IRS does not recognize them as "independent contractors". They do not get a 1099 they get a W-2 from the teams that they play for.

Please JR4, if you are going to drag this thread out, get some factual information before you post.

You are correct. My error.

 

[PatsSteve1]

If the CBA was left the way it was, Kraft would have no problem at all.

He is not trying to wiggle out of the CBA. The owners who are trying to change the CBA are tying to wiggle out of THEIR agreement.

* The CBA between the NFL and the NFLPA and what the owners agree to on what revenue's should be shared between them are two different things. From what I understand, the only hangup left between the union and the NFL is what percentage of total revenue will go to the players. I believe the union and NFL just about agree what new revenue should be included.
The problem between the different owners is what revenue to include and how to calculate that. Mostly how to calculate it. While some owners built thier own stadiums with thier own money, the ones who had them built by whatever gov't authority, don't own or have complete authority of the stadiums they play in. It's not like they got free stadiums and get to do what they want with it and get every dime that's made from it. The concessions, parking and other money may not go to them like it does if you built your own place. They may not get the naming rights or have the ability to have luxury boxes built or if they have them, get all the money made from them. The NFL would like all owners to own thier own stadiums so this would be a moot point. But it's not.

 

[PatsSteve1]

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).

* I don't think we can compare, say, Kraft's cardboard box business with his football team. The Football team is a franchise in a business in which new owners pay a big franchise fee to the other owners to join and play by the NFL's collective rules. Each owner really doesn't have a separate business that's part of some loosely held organization like a real estate business that's part of the Massachusetts realtors association. Ticket sales are shared, but luxury box and club seat money isn't. Also any money Kraft makes from concerts and other non-football game revenue isn't included. One thing higher revenue teams like the Patriots should definetely want as part of an agreement, and the NFLPA should also, is that the minimum amount spent on players should be raised so the teams getting money from richer teams isn't just put in a lower revenue teams pocket.
Frankly, I don't think any of us here, me included either have the answers or know all the facts. We don't really know what each teams finances are, what teams stadium deals are that don't own thier own, or even those that do, or really that much else - I do know it's a very complicated issue because each team has it's own situation and agenda.