1B4IDie Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Exactly. Union spends too much time in media to complain about owners and play victim role. For example, In February, Union claimed they made a so called 50-50 split proposal but owners rejected it. They then made it sound like owners were so greedy that even union reduced their share from 59% to 50%, owners didn't take it. This is not the fact at all. In last CBA, owners take 1 billion first and then players take 59%. In this NFLPA proposal, players would take 50% without owners taking any penny beforehand. Union just plays numbers games and tries to fool fans to stand by their side. What is the difference between these two in what players actually take? Very little. NFL's profit is 7 billion according Smith himself (link). Players previously took (7-1) * 59% = 3.54 billion in last CBA. In their so called 50-50 split proposal, players would take 7*50% = 3.5 billion. The difference is only (3.54-3.5)/3.54 = 1.1%, much less than what NFLPA made it sound like. The difference is so small that union knew owners would reject it. But then they could claim they sacrifice a lot in this so called 50-50 split proposal when they actually do not. This is one of the tricks union used so they can play victim role in media. See, you really like to make personal attack when people don't agree with you. I guess you just can't stand people have different opinion as yours and like to call other opinions silly or call others having problems with reading comprehension. I understand what you said perfectly but don't agree with you. Let me say it again: You are wrong. Owners have more control of their teams than you realize. You didn't say that the first time, Mr. WEO What specifically am I missing? Area VPs can hire/fire and market to their area too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) You didn't say that the first time, Mr. WEO What specifically am I missing? Area VPs can hire/fire and market to their area too. Ha Ha, after making personal attacks, you now want to make multi claim. Do you really think that anyone agrees with me is my multi and anyone agrees with you (if any) is your multi? And again, I disagree with you. Owners run their teams individually more than you want to believe and have more control of their teams than you realize. You seem to think that owners only follow orders from their CEO (NFL? Goodall?) when that is not the fact. Owners are also in the decision making for important league wide issues, for example, voting for accepting CBA, rule changes, etc. Edited May 26, 2011 by syhuang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Exactly. Union spends too much time in media to complain about owners and play victim role. For example, In February, Union claimed they made a so called 50-50 split proposal but owners rejected it. They then made it sound like owners were so greedy that even union reduced their share from 59% to 50%, owners didn't take it. This is not the fact at all. In last CBA, owners take 1 billion first and then players take 59%. In this NFLPA proposal, players would take 50% without owners taking any penny beforehand. Union just plays numbers games and tries to fool fans to stand by their side. What is the difference between these two in what players actually take? Very little. NFL's profit is 7 billion according Smith himself (link). Players previously took (7-1) * 59% = 3.54 billion in last CBA. In their so called 50-50 split proposal, players would take 7*50% = 3.5 billion. The difference is only (3.54-3.5)/3.54 = 1.1%, much less than what NFLPA made it sound like. The difference is so small that union knew owners would reject it. But then they could claim they sacrifice a lot in this so called 50-50 split proposal when they actually do not. This is one of the tricks union used so they can play victim role in media. See, you really like to make personal attack when people don't agree with you. I guess you just can't stand people have different opinion as yours and like to call other opinions silly or call others having problems with reading comprehension. I understand what you said perfectly but don't agree with you. Let me say it again: You are wrong. Owners have more control of their teams than you realize. Smith didnt say that at all. He said that $7 billion is the shared pot. Thats not profit either, its revenue. very major difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 You didn't say that the first time, Mr. WEOWhat specifically am I missing? Area VPs can hire/fire and market to their area too. You've lost your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) Smith didnt say that at all. He said that $7 billion is the shared pot. Thats not profit either, its revenue. very major difference. Okay, my bad. So it's 7 billion in shared pot after owners take 1 billion. If owners doesn't take 1 billion beforehand, the share pot will be 8 billion. It doesn't change the fact that the difference in last CBA and NFLPA's so called 50-50 split proposal is much smaller than they claim. In last CBA, players got 7*59%=4.13 billion. In their so called 50-50 split proposal, it is (7+1)*50%=4. Players only take (4.13-4)/4.13=3.1% less of what they previously get or (4.13-4)/8=1.625% less of the whole pot. The point is that NFLPA plays victim role too hard in media and simply plays numbers games here. The difference in their so called 50-50 split proposal is so small that union knew owners would reject it. But then they could claim they sacrifice a lot in this so called 50-50 split proposal when they actually do not. This is one of the tricks union used so they can play victim role in media Edited May 25, 2011 by syhuang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yungmack Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Okay, my bad. So it's 7 billion in shared pot after owners take 1 billion. If owners doesn't take 1 billion beforehand, the share pot will be 8 billion. It doesn't change the fact that the difference in last CBA and NFLPA's so called 50-50 split proposal is much smaller than they claim. In last CBA, players got 7*59%=4.13 billion. In their so called 50-50 split proposal, it is (7+1)*50%=4. Players only take (4.13-4)/4.13=3.1% less of what they previously get or (4.13-4)/8=1.625% less of the whole pot. The point is that NFLPA plays victim role too hard in media and simply plays numbers games here. The difference in their so called 50-50 split proposal is so small that union knew owners would reject it. But then they could claim they sacrifice a lot in this so called 50-50 split proposal when they actually do not. This is one of the tricks union used so they can play victim role in media I believe the issue is that the owners USED TO TAKE 1 billion off the top but now want to take TWO billion off the top AND add two more games. For the life of me, I can't see why those greedy players object to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I believe the issue is that the owners USED TO TAKE 1 billion off the top but now want to take TWO billion off the top AND add two more games. For the life of me, I can't see why those greedy players object to this. In owners' proposal before lockout, they reduced the amount to something like 1.3 billion. I may not remember the exact number correctly, but I believe it is more close to 1 billion than 2 billions. However, that's not the point of my post. My point is that NFLPA made a so called 50-50 split proposal which makes little difference compared to last CBA. But after it was rejected by owners, union used 59% number in old CBA and 50% in their proposal to make it sound like a lot and play victim role in media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts