Buftex Posted May 19, 2011 Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) These players are dumber than rocks. Who the hell makes over 400k minimum, and likely 7 figures a year, and needs a loan BEFORE THE LOCKOUT HAS EVEN AFFECT A PAYCHECK!!!!!!! I say give the owners all the money as long as they fund their own dam,n stadiums and lower ticket prices for the only people that do matter. I have seen a number of people say things like this..."the players don't know how to manage their money, they shouldn't get any more" type stuff...that is so un-American! You would give the owners more money, so your tickets cost less, and leave the players out of the equation? How would you feel if you were up for a raise, but your employer said your raise was contigent upon doing a credit rating check? I love how so many don't want people !@#$ing with their money, but are more than happy to tell everyone else how they should spend theirs... Edited May 19, 2011 by Buftex
Glory Bound Posted May 19, 2011 Posted May 19, 2011 I understand your point but hope you are being facetious. You are aware that a billion is not some infinite number but just a thousand million right? If I said you'd get a thousand million instead of saying a billion would you still really retire at 57? Say you lived to be 90. That is 33 years which leaves about 30 million a year to spend. That is just 15 million each for you and your wife. I think you meant to say trillion which makes more sense. It would be tough, but I think I could squeak by...if I quit spending so dang much on lottery tickets.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 19, 2011 Posted May 19, 2011 How would you feel if you were up for a raise, but your employer said your raise was contigent upon doing a credit rating check? I love how so many don't want people !@#$ing with their money, but are more than happy to tell everyone else how they should spend theirs... If you ever start a new job, pay attention to what the HR department asks you to sign - - it's possible they will ask you to sign something that gives them the right to do, without even telling you, exactly what you find so Un-American. From http://credit.about.com/od/creditreportscoring/tp/who-checks-credit-report.htm "Potential employers use your credit report to make hiring decisions. Your current employer might also review your credit report before giving you a raise or promotion. Bankruptcy, account delinquencies, and high debt levels could keep you from getting a job or from getting a raise or promotion." It appears however, that the employer does need to have your permission: From http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/employer-credit-checks.html "Can an Employer Check My Personal Credit Report? The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires credit bureau agencies to share a person's credit history with any party who has a legitimate business need for the information. Generally, employers qualify under the federal law and are allowed access to such information for purposes of deciding whether to hire, promote or terminate an employee. Does the Employer Need My Permission before Running a Credit Check? Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, an employer must have your permission before obtaining your credit report. The document that you sign giving the employer permission to run a credit report must be its own separate document; it cannot be a paragraph that is part of a larger job application form or employment contract. If a potential employer refuses to hire you based at least in part on an item in your credit report, the law requires that the employer give you a copy of the report along with the contact information of the credit bureau that issued the report and written instructions on how to challenge the accuracy of the credit report. Even though technically you have the right to refuse to give the employer permission to run a credit report, your refusal may raise the employer¿s suspicion and therefore give the employer reason to refuse to hire you, promote you or retain you as an employee."
tonyd19 Posted May 19, 2011 Posted May 19, 2011 So if I have this straight you are a financial professional telling this guy to go ahead and play the lottery every week and not just when it gets big? Funny observation. Actually, if he is using a couple of bucks occasionally to play the lottery that he will not need for retirement or other needs, than as a professional, I have no problem with it. If he is not saving anything and does not have enough or make enough to take care of himself than that is different....obviously. Regardless of that, my post was discussing how money can work for you if you plan correctly. Judging by some of the comments on this board, many people do not seem to realize the amount of annual income that can be generated without touching the underlying assets, if you save and plan properly.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 19, 2011 Posted May 19, 2011 Here's more info: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-lockout-leads-to-players-taking-out-cash-loans-with-huge-interest-rates-051511 One firm alone has already issued 25 loans to players already...rates as high as 30%, and the players "love" the lenders. The players don't need more money in the CBA - they just need a paid course in basic home economics! Ridiculous.... If the Big 10 has its way, it will get worse. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6564134 " Big Ten officials discussed a proposal that would pay athletes to help cover living expenses on top of their scholarships during the league's spring meetings this week. The idea, which is backed by current NCAA president Mark Emmert and was favored by late NCAA president Myles Brand, is to bridge the gap between what athletic scholarships pay and other expenses like transportation and clothing. That difference has been estimated at between $2,000 to $5,000 per player. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said league athletic directors and officials have seriously discussed whether they should use some of their growing TV revenue to pay athletes more."
DrDawkinstein Posted May 19, 2011 Posted May 19, 2011 If the Big 10 has its way, it will get worse. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6564134 " Big Ten officials discussed a proposal that would pay athletes to help cover living expenses on top of their scholarships during the league's spring meetings this week. The idea, which is backed by current NCAA president Mark Emmert and was favored by late NCAA president Myles Brand, is to bridge the gap between what athletic scholarships pay and other expenses like transportation and clothing. That difference has been estimated at between $2,000 to $5,000 per player. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said league athletic directors and officials have seriously discussed whether they should use some of their growing TV revenue to pay athletes more." Disagree on it getting worse. First and foremost I believe that scholarship athletes SHOULD be getting some extra spending money. Given the time demands of playing college ball at almost any level, these kids dont have the option to get summer jobs, or jobs during the school year. The current system basically PUSHES kids into looking for money from agents. Paying college athletes also opens the door to get them into financial management classes while in college, and teach them how to live within their means and plan ahead. Currently, most of these kids come from little/no money and have never had to manage money. They go through college with everything paid for, and/or not having any money of their own... and then at 21 get handed $5,000,000... and we wonder why they blow it. Get them some money, and teach them how to manage it. The colleges and NCAA definitely have the money (thanks to the athletes). This could/should be a very positive step.
Buftex Posted May 19, 2011 Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) If you ever start a new job, pay attention to what the HR department asks you to sign - - it's possible they will ask you to sign something that gives them the right to do, without even telling you, exactly what you find so Un-American. From http://credit.about.com/od/creditreportscoring/tp/who-checks-credit-report.htm "Potential employers use your credit report to make hiring decisions. Your current employer might also review your credit report before giving you a raise or promotion. Bankruptcy, account delinquencies, and high debt levels could keep you from getting a job or from getting a raise or promotion." It appears however, that the employer does need to have your permission: From http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/employer-credit-checks.html "Can an Employer Check My Personal Credit Report? The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires credit bureau agencies to share a person's credit history with any party who has a legitimate business need for the information. Generally, employers qualify under the federal law and are allowed access to such information for purposes of deciding whether to hire, promote or terminate an employee. Does the Employer Need My Permission before Running a Credit Check? Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, an employer must have your permission before obtaining your credit report. The document that you sign giving the employer permission to run a credit report must be its own separate document; it cannot be a paragraph that is part of a larger job application form or employment contract. If a potential employer refuses to hire you based at least in part on an item in your credit report, the law requires that the employer give you a copy of the report along with the contact information of the credit bureau that issued the report and written instructions on how to challenge the accuracy of the credit report. Even though technically you have the right to refuse to give the employer permission to run a credit report, your refusal may raise the employer¿s suspicion and therefore give the employer reason to refuse to hire you, promote you or retain you as an employee." I wasn't referring to getting your credit checked when you apply for a job...I think that is BS too (and it is being outlawed in some states), I was talking about denying somebody a raise, because you don't like the way they spend their money...making the judgement that "I am better with money, so you can't have more"...but thanks for all the info...see the distinction? Edited May 19, 2011 by Buftex
Recommended Posts