Specter says Patriots "stonewalling" Spygate probe

[tparich]

http://www.jetnation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50360&page=3&highlight=sherman

The anti trust exemption that they have is solely in regard to broadcasting rights. Allowing the NFL to pool together and sell the broadcast rights as one entity. That's why I bring up the teams pooling together. This is what Specter is talking aobut revoking, but more than likely because it would be in favor of comcast, not the general public.

quote]

Again, how much of a benifit they get from the exemption is pointless. If they want any kind of special treatment then they are going to have to deal with the person giving them the special treatment looking over their shoulder.

If they just give it up then the only thing they would have to worry about is breaking the law.

[PatriotReign37]

Finally a post of yours I can agree with . As a Pat fan, having all the facts about your SB victories become public is a must. Only then can the NFL lay this whole spygate thing to rest and move on. Right now there's still too many unanswered questions out there.

I already know how NE won those Championships.

They were the better team. They had better players, coaches, schemes, etc.

[tparich]

It's comcast, not cablevision. Whatever his reasons, his methods seem questionable. Either way, it's silly season. Beats another thread on McFadden.

Whoops. yeah thats what i meant...lol

I think everyone thing about spygate seems questionable. i would love for them to expedite everything and just find out what happened and end it.

[BaumerJet]

Whatever. Specter faxed, then mailed his concerns to Goodell.

If Specter was legit he would have called or emailed back in September.

Gainzo, you're acting like Bellichick. Specter Faxed & mailed the SAME LETTER to Goodell in order to keep it a STRAIGHT LEGAL DOCUMENT.

In the world of Law, eMails can only be used as documentation of contact - NOT LEGAL DOCUMENTATION!

As for his offiliation with COMCAST - It's probably how he got most of his information on the Patriots, since Comcast is at war with the NFL over losing NFL Network this year. Comcast moved NFL NETWORK to it's Tiering System, removing it from basic, which violated the agreement with the NFL.

It's the "don't blame the Player, blame the Play" senario that's driving me nuts with Patriot fans.

As for the JETS front offices - we most definitely were instructed by the NFL not to talk to Spector over this issue - JUST BECAUSE IT COULD EFFECT THE NFL'S ANTI-TRUST legislation!

Instead of biting you nails about the future - Wait to see what happens. You'll save your fingers this way!

[Blackout]

I already know how NE won those Championships.

They were the better team. They had better players, coaches, schemes, etc.

just like the Giants being the better team in 2007

[PFSIKH]

No, it is not. If the exemption was lifted, the league would die as we know it.

It would become baseball.

Look at the advantage the Red Sox and Yankees have with their own networks in majot cities. The teams might lose money after taxation, but their networks and private corporations they establish in the name of the team make alot of money. NESN and New England Sports Ventures make money for John Henry, not the Red Sox. In a good season, he breaks even with the Sox.

Now take that exemption away and you have the Patriots possibly becoming a partner with or starting their own cable company. Do you think Cincy, KC, Green Bay are going to get the same money as a Boston or NY team? No. There goes parity and competitive balance.

As I said previously and what 27 covered, this is not about anything more then Specter protecting his home based campaign contributor.

[EM31]

No, it is not. If the exemption was lifted, the league would die as we know it.

It would become baseball.

Look at the advantage the Red Sox and Yankees have with their own networks in majot cities. The teams might lose money after taxation, but their networks and private corporations they establish in the name of the team make alot of money. NESN and New England Sports Ventures make money for John Henry, not the Red Sox. In a good season, he breaks even with the Sox.

Now take that exemption away and you have the Patriots possibly becoming a partner with or starting their own cable company. Do you think Cincy, KC, Green Bay are going to get the same money as a Boston or NY team? No. There goes parity and competitive balance.

As I said previously and what 27 covered, this is not about anything more then Specter protecting his home based campaign contributor.

Why do you think the fact that TV revenues come from a relatively few national contracts is is the same thing as the teams agreeing to share those revenues? If the rule is that everything gets shared then that would be the rule even if there were 32 seperate TV deals.

[Lil Bit Special]

The whole thing with Specter just trying to back cablevision might have merit but so far I have only read that in one article. The sports media world seems desperate these days for stories so one would think that more would of picked up on it. When this becomes a bigger story then I will give it some merit but until then it's really just one article.

I've heard it on radio a few times, but almost nothing written...

You tend to forget that sports journalists are extremely lazy and rarely ever do any research into stuff like this.

If it isnt in their face and straight forward, they dont get involved. It takes too much time away from sitting on their fat asses.

And the only reason why I bring up that Specter is the wrong guy to be doing this inquiry is this is something the NFL and Pats can use to question his impartiality. And possible findings from this inquiry.

I want to know why Goodell ignored the letter. I want to know what Walsh has. I want to know what happened. I just dont want any reasons for this to blow up in our faces and never get any answers. That is why Specter should step aside and let an impartial member of Congress take over.

[PFSIKH]

Why do you think the fact that TV revenues come from a relatively few national contracts is is the same thing as the teams agreeing to share those revenues? If the rule is that everything gets shared then that would be the rule even if there were 32 seperate TV deals.

What will compel the big teams, like Dallas and New England to name but two, who have had fights with the NFL over selling products in their stadiums, to be willing to sign over signing over 31/32nds of their TV contract in exchange for 1/32nd of the Bengals and Bills?

Remember, the last CBA was not hung up over the players contracts and what percentage they receive. It was hung up over the small market owners, like Mike Brown in Cincy, that do virtually nothing to market their team and just reap the benefits of the current NFL system wanting a bigger slice of the pie.

The big market and better run teams make a lot more through marketing and other endeavours. Why would Bob Kraft secure a big TV contract w/NESN or create the Patriots Sports Network (remember there were rumors of something like this a few years back) and further subsidize the Buffalo and Cincinnati's of the NFL only to watch Randy Moss leave to another team because of a salary cap? He would not. I am sure Jerry Jones, Ralph Lurie, Dan Snyder and some of the other newer owners would want something in return. Like no salary cap. Ok, Roger, here is 31/32, of my big contract, but I want the rights to sell Pepsi in my stadium. National Car deal w/Chevy? No, I am going Toyota. SCrew John Mellencamp and that horrible song.

Now, seeing the NFL TV deal will probably dwarf what they individually can get, I doubt the share Buffalo receives now will be equal to what Buffalo Entertainment Sports Network would be willing to or could pay. This means, less revenue which translate into less player salaries. Lower salary cap and a NFLPA that would be fine with taking a pay cut.

There might be a by-law in the NFL Operation's Manual that states all money earned through whatever medium is dividied equally. That is under the pretext that the NFL negoitates for the whole of the league irregardless if one team brings more to the table then another. Now, if the clubs are now negotiating for themselves, the ones that bring more to the table are all of a sudden looking at Buffalo, Cincy, Green Bay a little differently. The owner is thinking I bring in $XX,XXX,XXX.XX a year the Bills bring in $XXX,XXX.XX a year. Why am I gviing up 97% of my TV contract for 3% of Buffalo's?

The NFL could die as we know it and become two leagues or MLB with a few big market teams and several that cannot.

To quote Jesse Venture, "owners did not get rich by being dumb." You are saying they are dumb. Your analogy is that Walmart will susidize the Mom and Pop store. Why?

[Thai Jet]

I already know how NE won those Championships.

They were the better team. They had better players, coaches, schemes, etc.

I suppose having the other teams defensive calls didn't help. You're a clown.

[tparich]

The NFL could die as we know it and become two leagues or MLB with a few big market teams and several that cannot.

If you think all this could happen if the exemption is taken away I would think you would be blasting the Pats for cheating and putting the exemption in jeopardy in the first place.

Since Specter has tried before and you know he will try again why would the leage not take a zero tolerance stand on cheating?

It would only make the leage look even better in the eyes of most of the public as well as protect them againt probes.

[jetophile]

The truth shall set you free!! (except in come cases where it might send you to jail)

HAH, Weeeeee!

[EM31]

What will compel the big teams, like Dallas and New England to name but two, who have had fights with the NFL over selling products in their stadiums, to be willing to sign over signing over 31/32nds of their TV contract in exchange for 1/32nd of the Bengals and Bills?

Remember, the last CBA was not hung up over the players contracts and what percentage they receive. It was hung up over the small market owners, like Mike Brown in Cincy, that do virtually nothing to market their team and just reap the benefits of the current NFL system wanting a bigger slice of the pie.

The big market and better run teams make a lot more through marketing and other endeavours. Why would Bob Kraft secure a big TV contract w/NESN or create the Patriots Sports Network (remember there were rumors of something like this a few years back) and further subsidize the Buffalo and Cincinnati's of the NFL only to watch Randy Moss leave to another team because of a salary cap? He would not. I am sure Jerry Jones, Ralph Lurie, Dan Snyder and some of the other newer owners would want something in return. Like no salary cap. Ok, Roger, here is 31/32, of my big contract, but I want the rights to sell Pepsi in my stadium. National Car deal w/Chevy? No, I am going Toyota. SCrew John Mellencamp and that horrible song.

Now, seeing the NFL TV deal will probably dwarf what they individually can get, I doubt the share Buffalo receives now will be equal to what Buffalo Entertainment Sports Network would be willing to or could pay. This means, less revenue which translate into less player salaries. Lower salary cap and a NFLPA that would be fine with taking a pay cut.

There might be a by-law in the NFL Operation's Manual that states all money earned through whatever medium is dividied equally. That is under the pretext that the NFL negoitates for the whole of the league irregardless if one team brings more to the table then another. Now, if the clubs are now negotiating for themselves, the ones that bring more to the table are all of a sudden looking at Buffalo, Cincy, Green Bay a little differently. The owner is thinking I bring in $XX,XXX,XXX.XX a year the Bills bring in $XXX,XXX.XX a year. Why am I gviing up 97% of my TV contract for 3% of Buffalo's?

The NFL could die as we know it and become two leagues or MLB with a few big market teams and several that cannot.

To quote Jesse Venture, "owners did not get rich by being dumb." You are saying they are dumb. Your analogy is that Walmart will susidize the Mom and Pop store. Why?

What compels them? They live essentially under articles of incorporation granted by the group. If they violate the articles of incorporation then they are effectively voting themselves off the island. The NFL could grant two new franchises in Boston tomorrow if they liked. They could force Kraft to sell if they liked.

Individual teams could no more opt out of the revenue sharing agreement that States could opt out of their citizens paying Federal income tax.

Now if you get enough of them to agree to change the rules for all... Well then that is a possibility. The problem with that is that there are more receivers of the big money than there are big market teams who would like to split off. You could even theoretically get a small but powerful group threaten to break off and form their own league, just as for example, some of the top european soccer clubs have threatened from time to time. But while they are in the NFL they obey the rules of the group.

Period.

[EM31]

A perfect analogy would be the co-op Apartment I "own" in New York. I actually own shares in a corporation which are assigned to my apartment. I agreed to all of the by-laws of the corporation when I bought those shares so that means I need board approval before I can sell, or even rent my apartment out. The Apartment is mine for sure but If I decided to rent to an undesirable without seeking permission, the board has a variety of way to stop me up to and including changing the locks on the Apartment without my permission.

I think you will find that the articles of incorporation for NFL franchises is far more constraining on the individual owners than those in place for my apartment.