Kraft the NFL's MVP this week

Sure ain't gonna be Roger Goodell.

We shall see....

They might be swayed by all the dough they'll lose if the season is canceled.

"successful businessmen accustomed to winning by knockout. "

Really successful businessmen are accustomed to knowing when they've got the best deal they're going to get, and closing it. "Winning by a knockout" is a good strategy for letting the deal slip through your fingers and ending up with nothing.

Yeah, Bob Kraft knows the right way. A lot of the other owners don't. This isn't the construction or real estate business.

$9 billion- $1 billion goes to the owners off the top. $1 billion goes to a general fund for new stadiums ( so tax payers are not held hostage and the NFL pays for its own stadiums ) The remaining money is split.

QUOTE(#5):

Originally posted 08:39 AM ET  06.21 by Debbie Does

"successful businessmen accustomed to winning by knockout. "Really successful businessmen are accustomed to knowing when they've got the best deal they're going to get, and closing it. "Winning by a knockout" is a good strategy for letting the deal slip through your fingers and ending up with nothing.Yeah, Bob Kraft knows the right way. A lot of the other owners don't. This isn't the construction or real estate business.

I agree. He must be aware of more than just what the players want, he better be aware of what the fans want, as should the players. Otherwise all the preservatives in the world won't save this barrel of cheese.

Kraft, Jones and Bowlen aren't the problems.

Brown, Wilson, Richardson and their bloc are the problems.

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 09:15 AM ET  06.21 by Otis B. Driftwood

Kraft, Jones and Bowlen aren't the problems. Brown, Wilson, Richardson and their bloc are the problems.

Big market owners want to keep more instead of all this revenue-sharing?

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 09:15 AM ET  06.21 by Otis B. Driftwood

Kraft, Jones and Bowlen aren't the problems. Brown, Wilson, Richardson and their bloc are the problems.

I think you are probably right. Richardson has a burr up his a## for sure.
This battle was always as much about the owners vs owners than it ever was about owners vs players.

QUOTE(#10):

Originally posted 09:18 AM ET  06.21 by Debbie Does

Big market owners want to keep more instead of all this revenue-sharing?

historcally, not true. and I don't think ginny mac knows where she is, let alone how much more money she could make with out revenue-sharing....

QUOTE(#10):

Originally posted 09:18 AM ET  06.21 by Debbie Does

Big market owners want to keep more instead of all this revenue-sharing?

Big market owners want to keep their marketing, PSL & sponsorrights moneys they work their butts off for. No talk about changing TV and gate funds.

Small market owners have their hands out.

Kraft shouldn't have to give a dime to Mike Brown. Eff him!

For some reason I'm hungry for Mac and cheese?

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 09:34 AM ET  06.21 by Otis B. Driftwood

Big market owners want to keep their marketing, PSL & sponsorrights moneys they work their butts off for. No talk about changing TV and gate funds.Small market owners have their hands out. Kraft shouldn't have to give a dime to Mike Brown. Eff him!

but the revenue sharing is a big part of how pro-football became so big. you've heard it before, they didn't have it in baseball and it messed them up while they did have it in football and they just kept moving right along up to the top sport spot.

QUOTE(#15):

Originally posted 09:46 AM ET  06.21 by gigi_iv

but the revenue sharing is a big part of how pro-football became so big. you've heard it before, they didn't have it in baseball and it messed them up while they did have it in football and they just kept moving right along up to the top sport spot.

When revenue-sharing is about parity, that's good, up to the point where we are now when there really aren't enough good players to go around regardless of how much money is available. But when revenue sharing is about moving money from one billionaire's pocket to another's, then it becomes very petty and doesn't do the league or the fans any good at all.

QUOTE(#15):

Originally posted 09:46 AM ET  06.21 by gigi_iv

but the revenue sharing is a big part of how pro-football became so big. you've heard it before, they didn't have it in baseball and it messed them up while they did have it in football and they just kept moving right along up to the top sport spot.

There is no incentive right now, other than ego, to put a good team on the field. None. You can spend $50 million less in payroll ( and some teams do ), pocket the money and take from the revenue stream created by other teams.
Small market is a bunch of BS in the NFL. It does not exist. All ticket sales are split 60/40. The only money an owner gets to keep is that generated from luxury boxes and corporate Suites.
Nobody was ever forced to put some of these teams in Cities with the so called " small market " problem. It was done by greedy owners who knew they could cash in anywhere.

QUOTE(#16):

Originally posted 09:53 AM ET  06.21 by Debbie Does

When revenue-sharing is about parity, that's good, up to the point where we are now when there really aren't enough good players to go around regardless of how much money is available. But when revenue sharing is about moving money from one billionaire's pocket to another's, then it becomes very petty and doesn't do the league or the fans any good at all.

Vets get cut all the time and replaced by cheaper labor. Nothing to do with football ability. All about money.

QUOTE(#16):

Originally posted 09:53 AM ET  06.21 by Debbie Does

When revenue-sharing is about parity, that's good, up to the point where we are now when there really aren't enough good players to go around regardless of how much money is available. But when revenue sharing is about moving money from one billionaire's pocket to another's, then it becomes very petty and doesn't do the league or the fans any good at all.

if it wasn't for big market owners helping out little market owners, than the packers would never have made it through their first bankrupcy into their second and thus becoming a publically held company.

I don't think the packers owners are seeing any of this money either way. but think about the teams that are always in the bottom. some of them have mendling owners who don't know how to keep their hands off and thus mess up the team. really, you don't find the sort of "who cares, I'm stilling making a ton of money" attitude that you find in baseball.

QUOTE(#17):

Originally posted 09:54 AM ET  06.21 by 50yearfan

Nobody was ever forced to put some of these teams in Cities with the so called " small market " problem. It was done by greedy owners who knew they could cash in anywhere.

the "small market" teams tend to be the really old teams that have very deep roots in the communities.

or they are in warm weather places were people have a lot more options of what they could be doing on a sunday afternoon than those in the cold weather cities.

QUOTE(#18):

Originally posted 09:56 AM ET  06.21 by 50yearfan

Vets get cut all the time and replaced by cheaper labor. Nothing to do with football ability. All about money.

schools in the same district have been known to fight over who gets the brand new teacher because it helps the budget. has nothing to do with helping the kids get a better education.


that has nothing to do with football and everything to do with business practives.

and my spelling is off to a most excellent start this morning.