Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg (FossilMan)
It is quite standard in long-term live backing for the investor and player to split the profits equally, with the investor paying the expenses along with the buyins. My package only gives me 40%, and I cover all the expenses. The downside compared to the standard arrangement is that this ends with the year, and if we are behind, I owe no makeup.
This is why people are coming in here and discussing the value of your offer. The way you speak about this you're being either unintentionally naive or purposefully misleading when you make statements like this. You try to say it's "standard" to split 50/50 to increase the attractiveness of your "only" 60/40 offer, but it's simply not the case. And the lack of makeup is a huge part of the problem.
It would have been infinitely better if you had plainly put the offer out there without justification and let the open market decide rather than make multiple statements throughout this thread claiming so much value in your playing time, travel expenses, incentive not to lose, multiple events, etc. All of those things are ldo for ANYONE selling, so it's pretty disingenuous to use to them to prove you should get 40% of profits.
Better yet, why wouldn't you show full financial numbers, graphs, tourney buy-ins, cash game results, etc. if you felt the need to justify your offer?