Screw Bob Kraft

[billsburgh]

That formula could be the subject of major debate during Tuesday's owner meetings in Dallas between low- and high-revenue clubs. Sources say New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft has emerged as the most vocal high-revenue franchise that is a strong dissenter to a new revenue sharing model.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2355861
it appears the he is the one holding up progress on the CBA because he doesnt like the new revenue sharing model. **** you Bob Kraft, you and your team arent above the rest of the NFL.

[ddaryl]

another reason to hate the Patsies

I already hate big market owners

[Dr. Lecter]

The one thing I will say in his defense is that he does NOT accept public funds and built his stadium with his own money.

[Mr B]

Craft is an exellent business man. I remember when he threatened to move the Pats to Hartford, Ct. unless the new stadium was built at Foxboro. It's built now, but he isn't gonnashare. Maybe they could raise parking from $35 to $50.

They didn't use tax[ayer money? WHo paid for for the new highway leading to the stadium? Kraft?

[mybills]

That stadium sucks, too. :D

[bledslow]

they(craft,snyder,jones,ect) already share more then most.i can see why there a lil pee'd off. bunch of solialist

and the stadium is great

[ICE74129]

Why is it screw Kraft? Again Jones, Kraft etal worked hard to get where they are. Some will say 'but it was easy where they are' Bull crap. Easier maybe, but it's hard work non the less.

I really don't have any issue with the bigger market owners until the smaller market guys do everything they can to get all the money they can. Again Sell stadium naming rights, get ticket prices up to league average and other things as well. THEN you have a right to complain some.

But even after that, you can't penalise a team because they are successful and have more money.

[Mr B]

I don't think revenue sharing is penalizing. The NFL needs it even more after expanding to 32 teams. Every owner works hard. Snyder and Jones aren't the main reason their franchises wealth, it is also because of the long tradition of their franchises and the huge market they are in. New England isn't in a huge market, but one of the wealthiest. The same with DC. Sure a team like the Bills could jack up their prices like the big boys, but then there would be a lot of empty seats. The NFL needs revenue sharing.

[L.A. Playa]

with all the minds in the negotiations there is a simple but complicated solution.

since we all know that it costs more to operate and more revenue can be earned in a market like NY compared to Buffalo, put somekind of economic formula into the revenue sharing model and also take into effect the pay down in stadium debt that some of these owners have who financed a new stadium with their own money.

that way if Dallas can get 10 mil a year in naming rights but a team in Buffalo can only get 500,000 based on economic conditions of the community, hae some kind of formula which allows Dallas to have to share a % of their revenue based on the economic conditions of their community and the higher cost of doing business in a more thriving enviroment.

Large market owners should not be punished for being able to have more resources available to generate higher revenues, there is a middle ground the owners just need to think outside the box

[Ickybaluky]

Kraft hasn't been opposed to the revenue sharing plan, his opposition is based on having stadium debt taken into account.

For instance, while Indianapolis is having a new stadium built that will be paid for mostly by taxes on legalized slot machines, Kraft built his stadium with little public funding. He did receive infrastructure improvements from the state, but that money is being repaid to the state over a period of 20 years using revenue from parking fees. Thus, Kraft has a boatload of debt along with being one of the highest grossing teams in the NFL in terms of total revenue.

So while Indy spends 70% of their total revenue on player expenses to only 40% that NE pays, when you look at the stadium debt each is carrying they really aren't far apart in terms of income generated. Kraft has worked hard to increase revenue and make the Patriots viable financially, and before he shares some of that revenue he would like to account for the expense side of the ledger as well. Otherwise some teams will be receiving money from teams that generate more revenue, but they will actually be in better financial position because they have less debt to finance.

Not that I'm crying for the guy, as he is richer than I'll ever be. However, he does have a point and it is a little more complicated than just not wanting to share revenue.

[Mitchy moo]

Balance is the real thing, we need to keep a balance so all teams large/small market have a chance. One thing I do recognize is that the yankees spend the most but have not fielded a world champion in years but the yankees win enough that the teams in their division they play the most normally have less of a chance of making post-season play via all those losses.

The NFL problem is the teams don't play enough games to balance out win/losses every year. So a powerhouse mega money team in one division can really effect all the tie breakers-via conference and divisional wins/losses much more so.

[ddaryl]

Balance is the real thing, we need to keep a balance so all teams large/small market have a chance. One thing I do recognize is that the yankees spend the most but have not fielded a world champion in years but the yankees win enough that the teams in their division they play the most normally have less of a chance of making post-season play via all those losses.

The NFL problem is the teams don't play enough games to balance out win/losses every year. So a powerhouse mega money team in one division can really effect all the tie breakers-via conference and divisional wins/losses much more so.


Good points... this stuff is not all black and white like we think, or want it to be.

But BALANCE is key. All teams should have equal financial footing. No league could be balanced and fair without this system in place. IMO its what makes the NFL the premiere sports league in America, and which other leagues are copying

[Michael82]

The problem with the greedy bastard owners (top 10 revenue teams) is that they don't realize that without the other 22 teams, they wouldn't be making all the money they make. The interesting thing is if u look at the teams in the greedy bastard faction...most of the owners were never with the league from the beginning and have acquired their team in the last 20 years. Look at the ones that are trying to get more spread revenue sharing and trying to keep this league flourishing...they are the ones that built this league from their bare hands. They are the ones that have been here all the way thru and they are a huge reason why the Snyders, Krafts and Jones are making the money they are making now. Yes the greedy bastard owners have done their own extra work to make more money...but why should they get the right to pocket it all themselves? They should share, afterall...they have the small market teams to thank for their hundreds of millions.

[Mitchy moo]

The problem with the greedy bastard owners (top 10 revenue teams) is that they don't realize that without the other 22 teams, they wouldn't be making all the money they make. The interesting thing is if u look at the teams in the greedy bastard faction...most of the owners were never with the league from the beginning and have acquired their team in the last 20 years. Look at the ones that are trying to get more spread revenue sharing and trying to keep this league flourishing...they are the ones that built this league from their bare hands. They are the ones that have been here all the way thru and they are a huge reason why the Snyders, Krafts and Jones are making the money they are making now. Yes the greedy bastard owners have done their own extra work to make more money...but why should they get the right to pocket it all themselves? They should share, afterall...they have the small market teams to thank for their hundreds of millions.

Wow that's true. Success comes by the other teams failures so one hand washes the other. Great points Mikey!!

[Michael82]

This was the list of the 9 teams (and the year they became owner of their team) that opposed the expanded revenue sharing, according to Profootballtalk.com on 2/21/06.....

New England Patriots - Bob Kraft (1994)
Dallas Cowboys - Jerry Jones (1989)
Washington Redskins - Dan Synder (1999)
Philadelphia Eagles - Jeffrey Lurie (1994)
New York Giants - Wellington Mara (w/ the Giants since the beginning)
New York Jets - Woody Johnson (2000)
Denver Broncos - Pat Bowlen (1984)
Carolina Panthers - Jerry Richardson (1993)
Houston Texans - Bob McNair (2002)

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2-20-06.htm

[tat2dmike77]

Ya know what it's times like these when i say

BRING BACK THE USFL :lol:

[Ickybaluky]

The problem with the greedy bastard owners (top 10 revenue teams) is that they don't realize that without the other 22 teams, they wouldn't be making all the money they make. The interesting thing is if u look at the teams in the greedy bastard faction...most of the owners were never with the league from the beginning and have acquired their team in the last 20 years. Look at the ones that are trying to get more spread revenue sharing and trying to keep this league flourishing...they are the ones that built this league from their bare hands. They are the ones that have been here all the way thru and they are a huge reason why the Snyders, Krafts and Jones are making the money they are making now. Yes the greedy bastard owners have done their own extra work to make more money...but why should they get the right to pocket it all themselves? They should share, afterall...they have the small market teams to thank for their hundreds of millions.

There is a flip side to that argument...

Most of the valuation of the majority of the 32 teams in this league is tied to the value of the league itself. So called gang of nine members are directly responsible for that growth. They pull the rest of the league along in their wake, not to mention use their expertise to negotiate sweetheart TV deals and promote the league worldwide (as compared to stiffs who can't even promote their own team locally). Removing any incentive for them to continue to out perform their idiot peers is not going to improve league value (which has quadrupled in the last decade) going forward. What it will do is drive the best and the brightest ownership out of the game. And I don't think it's coincidence that that growth has occurred in the same time period most of them began their involvement with this league.

The combination of revenue sharing and a salary cap has worked well for the NFL. They share more of their revenues than any other sport. Each team receives enough money through television to cover all of it's player payroll costs.

Owners should not be required to share all of their local revenue. Each owner has a different business situation. Guys like Irsay and Rooney inherited their teams, from their fathers, who bought the teams decades ago for comparatively short money. Bidwell has owned his team forever. A guy like McNair in Houston paid something like $700M for his team. Kraft paid around $200M for the team and stadium, then invested another $350M in a new stadium.

Some teams are in larger markets than others. These large markets generally bring in more revenue. This is also why it costs more to purchase a team in a large market than a small one. This is also why many of these big market teams have a lot of debt. Guys like Jeffrey Lurie and Dan Snyder paid big dollars for their teams. These people have debt to pay down.

The other factor is that guys like Kraft and Jones feel that some teams just don't work hard at it. Having a big market helps, sure, but creating local revenues also requires an investment of time, personnel, and money. Kraft built his own in house production studio. Did Paul Brown? No. Does Paul Brown deserve a share of the revenue that Kraft derives from his weekly television show? I don't think so.

The small market teams are crying, but the system has been working. San Francisco is the #5 market, but had a horrible team. New York is the #1 market, but the Jets were awful. Cincinnati, Indy, and Jax all made the playoffs.

Here is a breakdown of the playoff teams by market size:
Top ten markets:
Giants (1)
Chicago (3)
NE Pats (5)
Washington (8)

Eleven through twenty markets:
Tampa (12)
Seattle (13)
Denver (18)

Twenty one through thirty markets:
Pittsburgh (22)
Indy (25)
Charlotte (27)

Thirty and above markets:
Cinncinnati (34)
Jacksonville (52)

Here is a list of teams in a top ten market, that did not make the playoffs:
Jets (1)
Philadelphia (4)
San Francisco (6)
Dallas (7)
Atlanta (9)
Houston (10)

You can't tell me that the difference in market size has affected the competitive balance in the league. If one owner happens to be making more money than another, then more power to him. This is America you know.

[socalfan]

I agree with NE39. I see no reason for the rich teams to share local revenues with the poor teams. Sharing the ticket revenues and tv rights is enough.

The poorer teams need to suck it up or change what they are doing. If that means relocating the team, then they should be given that option. If a market cannot support a team, I see no reason for that market to have a team.

I do however see a problem that does need to be addressed, but not by revenue sharing. Cash over cap, is really the problem that will make the NFL uncompetitive. I think the new agreement with the players should address this issue. I think if the players get 60% of gross revenues, the cash over cap figure should be set to $0. In that way even the poorer teams which have the money to cover the cap can spend to the cap. The richer teams that could spend over the cap will be limited to the cap.

[L.A. Playa]

Here you go Mikey here is a list of revenues for teams in the 2004 season

1. Washington Redskins 287

2. New England Patriots 236

3. Dallas Cowboys 231

4. Philadelphia Eagles 216

5. Houston Texans 215

6. Cleveland Browns 203

7. Denver Broncos 202

8. Carolina Panthers 195

9. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 195

10. Chicago Bears 193

11. Baltimore Ravens 192

12. Miami Dolphins 190

13. Green Bay Packers 189

14. Tennessee Titans 186

15. Detroit Lions 186

16. Seattle Seahawks 183

17. Pittsburgh Steelers 182

18. Kansas City Chiefs 181

19. St. Louis Rams 176

20. New York Giants 175

21. New Orleans Saints 175

22. Buffalo Bills 173

23. New York Jets 172

24. Cincinnati Bengals 171

25. San Francisco 49ers 171

26. Jacksonville Jaguars 169

27. Oakland Raiders 169

28. Atlanta Falcons 168

29. Indianapolis Colts 166

30. San Diego Chargers 165

31. Minnesota Vikings 164

32. Arizona Cardinals 153

-- SOURCE: Forbes Magazine

Sorry I cant feel sorry for any owners that generated over $150 mil in revenue, football operations cost no where near that much to run so each owner pockest probably a low range guess about a min of $200 mil a year.

Plus look at the NY teams the cost of operating there is higher than in Buffalo so they are actually making less than the Bills

[Ickybaluky]

The richer teams that could spend over the cap will be limited to the cap.

If I'm an NFL owner, I don't have trouble with cash over cap if it isn't tied to revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is a separate issue and has nothing to do with working out a CBA.

However, if I'm the union the last thing in the world I want is to get involved in limiting the "cash over cap" figure. The union is supposedly adamant about reaching the 60% of revenue figure, but they are already there at 56% if the "cash over cap" continues to be used as it has historically. If the union were to agree to that, they would be selling the players out.

[Mitchy moo]

Here you go Mikey here is a list of revenues for teams in the 2004 season

1. Washington Redskins 287

2. New England Patriots 236

3. Dallas Cowboys 231

4. Philadelphia Eagles 216

5. Houston Texans 215

6. Cleveland Browns 203

7. Denver Broncos 202

8. Carolina Panthers 195

9. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 195

10. Chicago Bears 193

11. Baltimore Ravens 192

12. Miami Dolphins 190

13. Green Bay Packers 189

14. Tennessee Titans 186

15. Detroit Lions 186

16. Seattle Seahawks 183

17. Pittsburgh Steelers 182

18. Kansas City Chiefs 181

19. St. Louis Rams 176

20. New York Giants 175

21. New Orleans Saints 175

22. Buffalo Bills 173

23. New York Jets 172

24. Cincinnati Bengals 171

25. San Francisco 49ers 171

26. Jacksonville Jaguars 169

27. Oakland Raiders 169

28. Atlanta Falcons 168

29. Indianapolis Colts 166

30. San Diego Chargers 165

31. Minnesota Vikings 164

32. Arizona Cardinals 153

-- SOURCE: Forbes Magazine

Sorry I cant feel sorry for any owners that generated over $150 mil in revenue, football operations cost no where near that much to run so each owner pockest probably a low range guess about a min of $200 mil a year.

Plus look at the NY teams the cost of operating there is higher than in Buffalo so they are actually making less than the Bills

With $173 M you can retire most of cheektowaga!!

[socalfan]

That's right the players would have a problem with it. That is why, I wouldn't be to concerned with the 60% figure. Some of the owner's however, might also have a problem with it. If you consider the redskins and their zeal for free agents, I would expect that Snyder would not want cash over cap to be limited, since it could stop him from using his money as he sees fit to buy a championship.