Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 6/5/2019 at 4:47 PM, Ol Dirty B said:

I'm honestly confused by the morality clique in here cheering on a robbery of a half a mil on a guy they don't know. The worst we know he has done was blaze up before a preseason game flight.

 

Other than that, the guy has managed his career the way he wanted to. It's his life and he wasn't a Bill when he did it. The hate is nonsensical. 

 

Yea, he looks dumb, for first, the 500k spent on jewelry and trusting two people who are evidently way worse than him.

 

But some idiot said you go girls.

 

I could dirty this thread up and take conservatives down the path of personal liberty and all that corny ***** they say.

 

I could also take it down the race path, because I honestly have no clue why a guy who wasn't under contract for Pittsburgh refused to sign the franchise tag, because it is his choice to not sign the contract is hated so much. 

 

Now it makes sense, it's the pro-choice element? 

 

I hope the dude gets his jewelry back, sells it and invests. But then again, should most of you be big on gold? The commercial on fox news tells me it's always valuable. You get a way better return on investment than the 10% a decade the stock.

 

You should all buy gold.

 

 

 

Relax chief, it was probably insured. 

 

And if it wasn’t he deserves every bit of ridicule.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
On 6/5/2019 at 7:47 PM, Ol Dirty B said:

I'm honestly confused by the morality clique in here cheering on a robbery of a half a mil on a guy they don't know. The worst we know he has done was blaze up before a preseason game flight.

 

Other than that, the guy has managed his career the way he wanted to. It's his life and he wasn't a Bill when he did it. The hate is nonsensical. 

 

Yea, he looks dumb, for first, the 500k spent on jewelry and trusting two people who are evidently way worse than him.

 

But some idiot said you go girls.

 

I could dirty this thread up and take conservatives down the path of personal liberty and all that corny ***** they say.

 

I could also take it down the race path, because I honestly have no clue why a guy who wasn't under contract for Pittsburgh refused to sign the franchise tag, because it is his choice to not sign the contract is hated so much. 

 

Now it makes sense, it's the pro-choice element? 

 

I hope the dude gets his jewelry back, sells it and invests. But then again, should most of you be big on gold? The commercial on fox news tells me it's always valuable. You get a way better return on investment than the 10% a decade the stock.

 

You should all buy gold.

 

 

 

Oh my, a whole Faux News! rant over some idiot letting whores take his jewelry?   That's even better than the original story!   :lol:

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
On 6/5/2019 at 8:44 PM, JohnC said:

The thieving girlfriends can't be too bright. He knows their names. Maybe they used aliases? :ph34r:

I am sure he only ever knew their first names, which were probably professional names in any case.  

Posted
On 6/7/2019 at 10:47 AM, JohnC said:

The NFL needs to make it mandatory to teach investment common sense to its players. If you are going to spend millions of dollars on an investment it might be wise to do your due diligence rather than your due stupid.  

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/drew-brees-testified-thursday-against-san-diego-jeweler-he-claimed-overcharged-him-dollar6-million-for-diamonds/ar-AACwEoc?ocid=spartandhp

 

I am sure the NFLPA would require contract changes and concessions like NFLPA internal only review of criminal acts.

Posted
19 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

I am sure the NFLPA would require contract changes and concessions like NFLPA internal only review of criminal acts.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. This jewelry case is a civil case brought on by Brees. Brees bought a lot of expensive jewelry with the expectation of it being a good investment. It's not. In this case because of the amount of money involved he should have gotten a number of outside evaluations done by jewelry and insurance experts beyond the person who was selling him the jewelry. He exercised horrible judgment and got himself entangled in a legal and financial mess because he didn't do his due diligence.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm not sure what you are getting at. This jewelry case is a civil case brought on by Brees. Brees bought a lot of expensive jewelry with the expectation of it being a good investment. It's not. In this case because of the amount of money involved he should have gotten a number of outside evaluations done by jewelry and insurance experts beyond the person who was selling him the jewelry. He exercised horrible judgment and got himself entangled in a legal and financial mess because he didn't do his due diligence.  

 

This issue is requiring players to do anything not in contract.

They added SAFETY gear and they still wanted to approve requiring it.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

This issue is requiring players to do anything not in contract.

They added SAFETY gear and they still wanted to approve requiring it.

I'm not following what you are get at. This Brees jewelry issue is a personal issue. It has nothing to do with the league. In America it is not illegal to be stupid. 

Posted

"The NFL needs to make it mandatory to teach investment common sense to its players. "

That would require approval from NFLPA.

Posted
On 6/7/2019 at 7:47 AM, JohnC said:

The NFL needs to make it mandatory to teach investment common sense to its players. If you are going to spend millions of dollars on an investment it might be wise to do your due diligence rather than your due stupid.  

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/drew-brees-testified-thursday-against-san-diego-jeweler-he-claimed-overcharged-him-dollar6-million-for-diamonds/ar-AACwEoc?ocid=spartandhp

6 MIL OVERCHARGED???? What did he PAY? Brees makes Bell's stash look like chump change. I'm sure both Drew and Le'Veon will survive.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
On ‎6‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 10:47 AM, JohnC said:

The NFL needs to make it mandatory to teach investment common sense to its players. If you are going to spend millions of dollars on an investment it might be wise to do your due diligence rather than your due stupid.  

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/drew-brees-testified-thursday-against-san-diego-jeweler-he-claimed-overcharged-him-dollar6-million-for-diamonds/ar-AACwEoc?ocid=spartandhp

 

 

They already do.  Rookies have financial instruction at rookie minicamp.  And players getting their second contracts, they offer a personal finance "camp" for players and their wives in the Spring.

 

It won't matter for some.  It shouldn't be the responsibility of an employer to tell it's employees not to do stupid things with their income.  If you are going to argue for such a system, you should just go all out and advocate the NFL to just give these guys a fraction of their contract (all guaranteed) value every week aa an "allowance" and then give the remainder at the end of their current contract.

Posted
1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

They already do.  Rookies have financial instruction at rookie minicamp.  And players getting their second contracts, they offer a personal finance "camp" for players and their wives in the Spring.

 

It won't matter for some.  It shouldn't be the responsibility of an employer to tell it's employees not to do stupid things with their income.  If you are going to argue for such a system, you should just go all out and advocate the NFL to just give these guys a fraction of their contract (all guaranteed) value every week aa an "allowance" and then give the remainder at the end of their current contract.

I never said it was the responsibility of the employer to tell their employees how to manage their money. Quite the contrary. I argued that it is the responsibility of the players to educate themselves and get the proper guidance in financial matters. 

 

Brees isn't a dummy. That doesn't mean that he isn't a fool in money matters and investing. What makes his case even more foolish is that he had the ability to seek plenty of credible outside expertise on whether the jewels were worth what the jeweler claimed it to be worth and whether investing in jewelry is a good idea, which it is not. 

Posted
16 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I never said it was the responsibility of the employer to tell their employees how to manage their money. Quite the contrary. I argued that it is the responsibility of the players to educate themselves and get the proper guidance in financial matters. 

 

Brees isn't a dummy. That doesn't mean that he isn't a fool in money matters and investing. What makes his case even more foolish is that he had the ability to seek plenty of credible outside expertise on whether the jewels were worth what the jeweler claimed it to be worth and whether investing in jewelry is a good idea, which it is not. 

 

 

You said this:  "The NFL needs to make it mandatory to teach investment common sense to its players"..

 

I interpreted that as you believe the NFL (the employer) "needs" to "make" the players (their employees) learn how to manage their money.  So you are saying that the NFL should make it "mandatory"... that someone else teaches its employees how to make their money?

 

 

 

Posted
Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

You said this:  "The NFL needs to make it mandatory to teach investment common sense to its players"..

 

I interpreted that as you believe the NFL (the employer) "needs" to "make" the players (their employees) learn how to manage their money.  So you are saying that the NFL should make it "mandatory"... that someone else teaches its employees how to make their money?

 

 

 

Do you know what the definition of jest is? Your interpretation is wrong. I'll excuse you  for your impulsivity because that is your natural instinct. You just can't help yourself. :)

Posted
3 hours ago, JohnC said:

Do you know what the definition of jest is? Your interpretation is wrong. I'll excuse you  for your impulsivity because that is your natural instinct. You just can't help yourself. :)

 

I love when posters post a clear, unambiguous thought and then respond with, "that's not what i said" 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I love when posters post a clear, unambiguous thought and then respond with, "that's not what i said" 

 

If you take a sentence out of context with the full post you end up with a distortion. Don't be afraid to take a step back. It won't hurt you. 

Posted
Just now, JohnC said:

If you take a sentence out of context with the full post you end up with a distortion. Don't be afraid to take a step back. It won't hurt you. 

 

 

The "full post" was 2 sentences.  I reposted your lead statement.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

The "full post" was 2 sentences.  I reposted your lead statement.  

The one sentence was said in jest. I pointed that out to you. Give it a freaking rest. I'm not Doc involved in one of your exhausting dog fights. Stop being so bloody punctilious! :)

  • Like (+1) 1
  • 2 weeks later...
×
×
  • Create New...