Sorting through the numbers..

[DaBruinz]

As it stands right now, they players get 59.5% of the revenue after you take off $1 billion off the top. At the $9 billion that has been thrown around, that is 4.76 billion or approximately 52.9% of the total revenue.

The players supposedly offered a 50/50 split of that 9 billion. That would actually give them LESS money than the current deal, but more than the owners proposition.

The players proposition would give provide them 4.5 billion of the 9 billion.

The owners proposition (2 billion off the top) would give the players 4.165 Billion or a % of 46.2%.

Now, one of the things that is interesting (Yes, I am acknowledging an error on my part) is that the owners last proposal had the players' portion of the revenue paying for the benefits. I believe that, previously, the owners portion of the revenue paid for the benefits.

In all honesty, I'd go with a 50/50 split of the total revenue with the benefits coming off the top. $864 MILLION in benefits according to the NFL's last proposal.

 

[DaBruinz]

On additional item that has been bugging me is the 41.2% that was mentioned by Rappaport a few weeks back. And I believe that 41.2% IS the player's % if they ignore the benefits. The ones that tally up to $864 M in the owners proposal.

Personally, I'd want to know what sort of benefits they are getting that it's costing the league $864 million a year. But I'd also like to know why the players feel that benefits shouldn't be a part of their compensation package.

 

[McCourty Island]

On additional item that has been bugging me is the 41.2% that was mentioned by Rappaport a few weeks back. And I believe that 41.2% IS the player's % if they ignore the benefits. The ones that tally up to $864 M in the owners proposal.

Personally, I'd want to know what sort of benefits they are getting that it's costing the league $864 million a year. But I'd also like to know why the players feel that benefits shouldn't be a part of their compensation package.

The $864M a year figure does not sound accurate at all but who knows. Not saying that it should matter but when most people say how much they get paid they don't say $50k + $10k in benefits.

 

[DaBruinz]

The $864M a year figure does not sound accurate at all but who knows. Not saying that it should matter but when most people say how much they get paid they don't say $50k + $10k in benefits.

The last NFL proposal had 27 million in benefits going to each team. Multiple that by 32 and you get the $864 million.

When changing jobs, educated people do look at the difference in benefits. Otherwise, leaving a $65K job that has $15K in benefits to take an $80K job with no benefits makes no sense.

 

[Ring 6]

As it stands right now, they players get 59.5% of the revenue after you take off $1 billion off the top. At the $9 billion that has been thrown around, that is 4.76 billion or approximately 52.9% of the total revenue.

The players supposedly offered a 50/50 split of that 9 billion. That would actually give them LESS money than the current deal, but more than the owners proposition.

The players proposition would give provide them 4.5 billion of the 9 billion.

The owners proposition (2 billion off the top) would give the players 4.165 Billion or a % of 46.2%.

Now, one of the things that is interesting (Yes, I am acknowledging an error on my part) is that the owners last proposal had the players' portion of the revenue paying for the benefits. I believe that, previously, the owners portion of the revenue paid for the benefits.

In all honesty, I'd go with a 50/50 split of the total revenue with the benefits coming off the top. $864 MILLION in benefits according to the NFL's last proposal.

I'm not sure I agree with the players requesting 50% with zero off the top.
That would put them in a position to do about the same at current revenue levels and worse on increasing revenues. I don't think they would propose that.

 

[DaBruinz]

I'm not sure I agree with the players requesting 50% with zero off the top.
That would put them in a position to do about the same at current revenue levels and worse on increasing revenues. I don't think they would propose that.

How would the players do worse on increasing revenues?

I agree they would do worse with an increase in benefit costs and revenues staying the same or decreasing.

 

[Ring 6]

How would the players do worse on increasing revenues?

I agree they would do worse with an increase in benefit costs and revenues staying the same or decreasing.

Comparatively.
Old system 60% after 1bill off the top.
Proposal you listed 50% with nothing off the top.

At 6 bill current system players get 60% of 5 bill= 3 mill
Same as if they took 50%

If revenue is 10 bill the players would get 5 under your proposal but 5.4 under the current was (10-1=9x60%=5.4)
The gap gets wider the higher the revenue goes.
Thats why I dont think they would change to a formula that pays them less of everything over 6bill, and hurts them more as revenue increases, compared to what they had

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The 50/50 split was only proposed as a compromise due to the owners not wanting to show their books to justify the larger cut from the revenue pool.

 

[Ring 6]

The 50/50 split was only proposed as a compromise due to the owners not wanting to show their books to justify the larger cut from the revenue pool.

Interesting that the players would cut themselves from 60/40 after 1billion off the top to 50/50, which would likely work out to less.
I'd imagine if the owners were going to accept 50/50 theyd also accept 60/40 with 1 billion off the top.
I suppose its possible that its just being reported that way, since 60/40 after 1bill has so far worked out to 50/50.
It would be far from the first case of inaccurate reporting on this topic