Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?
posted at 3/1/2011 10:05 AM EST
In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand?:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFLPA Vs NFL.. where do you stand? : Kraft really didn't take a risk. He did early on, but long term he knows the market here very well. Boston fans are great support for any organization that is serious. Sort of a no brainer. Even the Bruins' Jeremy Jacobs has bounced along for 35 years of mediocrity here because of the fan support in this region. Slam dunk market if you even just want to run it as a business. That's why I appreciate Kraft so much. He took the worst franchise in this area and made it the best. Pretty incredible considering the untapped upside of the Sox, the Celtics leverage of their tradition and the Bruins consistency of at least putting out a solid product. Kraft has singlehandledly put the pressure on the other 3 owners in Boston.
Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]
I agree completely on this. And you're right, not only has Kraft improved the Pats, he's sort of forced the owners of the other teams to step up to the plate (pun intended, I guess) too. He's really a fabulous business man. That said, like most good business men, he will maximize profits first and foremost, which is why I think it helps for the players and other employees to have the best support in their negotiations with him. It wasn't widely noticed, but when it became possible for NFL teams to freeze pensions for front-office staff and assistant coaches, Bob Kraft was one of the first to opt out of paying for pensions for his employees. This issue is a big one with the lockout coming for assistant coaches who are non-unionized and more vulnerable. Here's a report from the Milwaukee Journal:
This issue is fairly interesting because it involves NFL assistant coaches, who are caught in the middle of the fight between owners and the NFL players union.
Assistants are not unionized, and a number of teams have dropped them from the NFL pension program and are planning to lay them off or reduce their salaries by as much as 25% if their is a lockout. The assistants all have contracts, but many of them have lockout clauses that give the team the option of reducing salary or laying them off completely.
"There's enough stress in coaching already that now we're going to be docked 25% of pay," said Larry Kennan, executive director of the NFL Coaches Association, a professional organization dedicated to the interests of assistant coaches. "We have nothing to do with that (the impending lockout)."
Since March of 2010, teams have been opting out of the league's bountiful pension plan, choosing to let yearly salary stand as the coaches' only option for saving for retirement. There are now 11 teams who have opted out of the pension plan and there will be a 12th declaring so soon, Kennan said.
The pension opt outs have nothing to do with the lockout, which is of even more concern to Kennan and his group, because it is permanent.
Some of the teams that have opted out are among the most wealthy: New England, Dallas, Houston, Washington, Tampa Bay and Atlanta.
On the other hand, there are a handful of teams who have remained committed to the pension and they include the Green Bay Packers, Philadelphia Eagles, Indianapolis Colts and Pittsburgh Steelers.
Kennan said that group not only plans on keeping its pension benefits in place, but it also appears committed to paying its coaches fully during the lockout. . . .
Just another side of this whole NFL debate. Interesting to note which franchises, given the choice, cut pensions and which kept them.