Read more carefully. 141m - 27M benefits is an actual salary cap of 114m which is less than the 2009 cap.
The reason the deal fell apart is that the owners were unwilling to account for profits that exceeded the projected NFL revenue growth estimates.
"Under a mechanism known as a “true-up,” the two sides were negotiating any additional payments made based on financial performance of the league in comparison to a league projection of four-percent revenue growth in 2011, four-percent growth in 2012, 2.5-percent growth in 2013 (a seemingly low amount given that new TV deals will kick in that year), and 2.5-percent growth in 2013."
So for the sake of simplicity. Hypothetically let's just work with round numbers. Start out with a Revenue of 10 billion in 2010. Let's adjust for
projected growth now of 4 percent in 2011, 4 percent in 2012, 2.5 in 2013, and 2.5 in 2014.
2010 10,000,000,000 baseline
2011 10,400,000,000 +4% (+400m)
2012 10,816,000,000 +4% (+400m)
2013 11,086,400,000 +2.5% (+270m)
2014 11,363,560,000 +2.5% (+277m)
Alright so these numbers look staggering.
The point is that if the NFL experiences more growth than expected, lets say 2013 is a 5% growth year rather than a 2.5% growth year that throws of the mathematics a lot! Therefore the owners' offer of a 'fixed increase' in cap per year doesn't address the issue of possible 'overgrowth' of NFL revenues.
Increasing the salary cap across the board based on a conservative projection of revenue growth is inadequate. Rather I think what would get it done would be a 'dynamic cap' that would account for revenue spikes, that would fairly adjust both UP and DOWN based on actual revenue accrued. So if the NFL makes less revenue than expected it will pay players less, but if it makes more, it pays players more. I think that's the only fair way to do it if players are to maintain the relative same amount of the revenue pie from year to year. Lastly, overall revenue disclosures from every team is essential to give an accurate picture of what revenues we are actually talking about.
The last owner offer of a $141M cap plus all the other goodies is an impressive offer. The alternative of $131M plus adders for growth is also an awesome offer.
The players will utilimately take a deal close to this. I think that they really wanted to avoid the 18 week season and wanted to see the books, at least for a couple of years. The owners have pulled off the extra games and have in fact reduced the time on the field. The requirement of open financials will come from the courts.
==============
BOTTOM LINE
Folks here said that Miguel was crazy to consider that the settlement cap might be as high as $135M. Posters thought that a cap of under $110M was more likely. Folks will learn to listen to Miguel!
$135M plus adders for growth based on percentage of revenue seems very reasonable indeed. Also $135M with a fixed schedule of increases seems reasonable. The owners are already offering these deals.