31 replies to this topic

[BeeR]

Shocker, Warren Fatt makes the list:

http://espn.go.com/n...67-million-debt

[HowboutthemCowboys]

I heard on the radio the other day that some NBA player invested $10,000 into the big lottery last week. When asked about it he said, "meh..I'd have just spent it in the strip club anyway"

[Wpob]

I do not understand that any of these athletes does not have ONE person telling them to bank away some money.  Mindblowing.  I guess at the negotiating table with the NFL Netword, being bankrupt and wrongly accussing Shockey as the snith in NO kind of gives Sapp no leverage whatsoever.

[Menudo]

"Sapp's $6.45 million in assets includes 240 pairs of Jordan athletic shoes worth almost $6,500; a $2,250 watch; and a lion skin rug worth $1,200."

Edited by Menudo, 08 April 2012 - 12:46 PM.

[DMD]

Every rookie in the NFL is instructed what to do with their money and how to find a good financial adviser. Most just choose to ignore it.

[coordi88]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMwMdeMwtuA[/media]

Edited by coordi88, 08 April 2012 - 03:19 PM.

[Deathpig]

Not to go all Big John on this thread, but I'm pretty sure the rookie symposiums (1997) started after Sapp was actually drafted ('94?  '95?), so he never actually attended one in the first place.

[Big John]

Deathpig, on 08 April 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

Not to go all Big John on this thread, but I'm pretty sure the rookie symposiums (1997) started after Sapp was actually drafted ('94?  '95?), so he never actually attended one in the first place.

Sapp was drafted in 1995.  And correct on the 1997 year of them starting

Edited by Big John, 08 April 2012 - 05:37 PM.

[Savage Beatings]

He also reported losing his 2002 Super Bowl ring with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and his 1991 national championship ring from the University of Miami.

Riiiiiight... he "lost" them.  

[Ursa Majoris]

Deathpig, on 08 April 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

Not to go all Big John on this thread, but I'm pretty sure the rookie symposiums (1997) started after Sapp was actually drafted ('94?  '95?), so he never actually attended one in the first place.

Considering all NFL players except possibly an undrafted walk-on or two have been to college, I find it completely preposterous that the NFL has to run "rookie symposiums" to teach them not to piss away more than they earn and maybe even try to save a little for the future.

I'm not convinced any employer owes any employee that level of care.   I've never had any sympathy for any once-rich person who has lost / wasted it all.  Go live in a cardboard box, moran.  The vast majority never have a similar opportunity so why anyone should waste sympathy on these buffoons is beyond me.

[stevegrab]

Menudo, on 08 April 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

"Sapp's $6.45 million in assets includes 240 pairs of Jordan athletic shoes worth almost $6,500; a $2,250 watch; and a lion skin rug worth $1,200."

You mean you don't own those things?  240 pairs of Jordan athletic shoes to walk around in (I doubt Sapp does a lot of athletic things these days).

[Deathpig]

Ursa Majoris, on 09 April 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

Considering all NFL players except possibly an undrafted walk-on or two have been to college, I find it completely preposterous that the NFL has to run "rookie symposiums" to teach them not to piss away more than they earn and maybe even try to save a little for the future.

I'm not convinced any employer owes any employee that level of care.   I've never had any sympathy for any once-rich person who has lost / wasted it all.  Go live in a cardboard box, moran.  The vast majority never have a similar opportunity so why anyone should waste sympathy on these buffoons is beyond me.

While I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment in your second paragraph, the first paragraph carries the implication that most NFL players actually 'studied' in school, which seems to be the exception and not the rule.  One of the biggest problems college football has is that most college players don't make the pros, and most college players don't take advantage of the opportunity they have by being in school.  If they don't make the pros, they don't end up as architects or doctors-- they end up fixing cars or as janitors or whatever.

As for how ridiculous it is to run a rookie symposium, I actually wish they'd do the same thing for lottery winners.  A grave misconception a lot of people have is that by simply handing someone a lot of money they are transformed into 'rich and successful'.  It's also not like there are college courses called 'How to Handle Large Sums of Money 101'-- most Economics classes aren't personal economics (i.e. studying economy of scale and diminishing returns don't set you up to deal with how to take care of your own personal fortune).

If you've been living hand-to-mouth your entire life, you are not prepared-- in any way-- to deal with instantly having millions of dollars.  This is why so many lottery winners end up broke in record time and why so many pro athletes can end up similarly broke.  Add in the likelihood of a lack of success in the extended family, entire industries dedicated to getting money out of you (for example, all those companies that get you cash for structured settlements?  They aren't your friends...), and every other vender that upsells you on stuff because you are now 'rich'.

This is also not to say that there are no exceptions.  Obviously, some folks have the wherewithal to deal with this and retain/grow their wealth after their playing days are over.  Again, they are the exception, not the rule.

[delusions of grandeur]

Deathpig, on 09 April 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

While I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment in your second paragraph, the first paragraph carries the implication that most NFL players actually 'studied' in school, which seems to be the exception and not the rule.  One of the biggest problems college football has is that most college players don't make the pros, and most college players don't take advantage of the opportunity they have by being in school.  If they don't make the pros, they don't end up as architects or doctors-- they end up fixing cars or as janitors or whatever.

As for how ridiculous it is to run a rookie symposium, I actually wish they'd do the same thing for lottery winners.  A grave misconception a lot of people have is that by simply handing someone a lot of money they are transformed into 'rich and successful'.  It's also not like there are college courses called 'How to Handle Large Sums of Money 101'-- most Economics classes aren't personal economics (i.e. studying economy of scale and diminishing returns don't set you up to deal with how to take care of your own personal fortune).

If you've been living hand-to-mouth your entire life, you are not prepared-- in any way-- to deal with instantly having millions of dollars.  This is why so many lottery winners end up broke in record time and why so many pro athletes can end up similarly broke.  Add in the likelihood of a lack of success in the extended family, entire industries dedicated to getting money out of you (for example, all those companies that get you cash for structured settlements?  They aren't your friends...), and every other vender that upsells you on stuff because you are now 'rich'.

This is also not to say that there are no exceptions.  Obviously, some folks have the wherewithal to deal with this and retain/grow their wealth after their playing days are over.  Again, they are the exception, not the rule.

I agree completely... To say "I have no sympathy for", well yeah, that's pretty easy to say that I don't feel sorry for anyone who's made more money than me, but it's also to neglect the reason why fiscal irresponsibility is so prevelant among those who come from rags-to-riches. They haven't been instilled with those principles, because they've never had it (though note this can happen to spoiled rich kids just as easily if they've not been taught the value of saving and working for your money)...

This is not to excuse anyone of course, I still believe in personal responsibility, but at the same time, to say "I have no sympathy", is to neglect the reason why middle and upper class folks tend to be better able to handle their finances, than others have never even had to consider it before....

Thus is also why conspicuous consumption (wealth on display) is even more prevalent among lower classes, rather than savings.

[stevegrab]

I don't think its just the rags to riches group who are fiscally irresponsible. Its a large number of people (at least in the US). How many people buy homes that are way more than they need, because the bank will loan them the money? How many are buying vehicles that are too much too often? And all the other consumable goods (cell phones with high end plans, big screen TVs, recreational vehicles, etc). They live on the edge of bankruptcy all the time and rarely save anything for that rainy day or retirement.

For the rags to riches, its just another extreme, buying even more crazy stuff (20-30 thousand dollar watches, hundreds of pairs of expensive sneakers, etc) than the average consumer.

And now we've got generations of people living like that, who are teaching the next generation the same thing. (Unlike baby boomers who grew up from parents who lived through the great depression, WWII and other times of great sacrifice).
:stepsoffsoapbox:

[Ursa Majoris]

stevegrab, on 09 April 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

I don't think its just the rags to riches group who are fiscally irresponsible. Its a large number of people (at least in the US). How many people buy homes that are way more than they need, because the bank will loan them the money? How many are buying vehicles that are too much too often? And all the other consumable goods (cell phones with high end plans, big screen TVs, recreational vehicles, etc). They live on the edge of bankruptcy all the time and rarely save anything for that rainy day or retirement.

For the rags to riches, its just another extreme, buying even more crazy stuff (20-30 thousand dollar watches, hundreds of pairs of expensive sneakers, etc) than the average consumer.

And now we've got generations of people living like that, who are teaching the next generation the same thing. (Unlike baby boomers who grew up from parents who lived through the great depression, WWII and other times of great sacrifice).
:stepsoffsoapbox:

Well, at the risk of further outraging you, I don't care a flying frack about the people in your first paragraph either.  I guess I have plenty of "no sympathy" to go around.  I tend to reserve my sympathy for the returning National Guardsman who finds his job hasn't been kept open for him as required by law, for the mentally damaged US veteran now sleeping in his shoes on the street and for the genuinely hard working poor.

People who have spent beyond their means to keep up with someone else and NFL players who can't read, write and count up to 3 can all go f themselves.  You can't fix stupid and it's pointless being sympathetic to it.

[delusions of grandeur]

stevegrab, on 09 April 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

I don't think its just the rags to riches group who are fiscally irresponsible. Its a large number of people (at least in the US). How many people buy homes that are way more than they need, because the bank will loan them the money? How many are buying vehicles that are too much too often? And all the other consumable goods (cell phones with high end plans, big screen TVs, recreational vehicles, etc). They live on the edge of bankruptcy all the time and rarely save anything for that rainy day or retirement.

For the rags to riches, its just another extreme, buying even more crazy stuff (20-30 thousand dollar watches, hundreds of pairs of expensive sneakers, etc) than the average consumer.

And now we've got generations of people living like that, who are teaching the next generation the same thing. (Unlike baby boomers who grew up from parents who lived through the great depression, WWII and other times of great sacrifice).
:stepsoffsoapbox:

Very good points. Our economy has become consumer-driven, rather than production-driven for quite some time, and it really stands against the ideals of capitalism.

Ursa Majoris, on 09 April 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

Well, at the risk of further outraging you, I don't care a flying frack about the people in your first paragraph either.  I guess I have plenty of "no sympathy" to go around.  I tend to reserve my sympathy for the returning National Guardsman who finds his job hasn't been kept open for him as required by law, for the mentally damaged US veteran now sleeping in his shoes on the street and for the genuinely hard working poor.

People who have spent beyond their means to keep up with someone else and NFL players who can't read, write and count up to 3 can all go f themselves.  You can't fix stupid and it's pointless being sympathetic to it.

The fact that you've argued in the past for entitilements, yet take such a personal-responsibility/screw those who aren't view, is more than a little baffling to me... Maybe sympathy is the wrong word, when what I mean is to understand why these are not jsut isolated incidents, but happen so frequently, making it just as much of a cultural as individual problem.

[Ursa Majoris]

delusions of granduer, on 09 April 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

The fact that you've argued in the past for entitilements, yet take such a personal-responsibility/screw those who aren't view, is more than a little baffling to me... Maybe sympathy is the wrong word, when what I mean is to understand why these are not jsut isolated incidents, but happen so frequently, making it just as much of a cultural as individual problem.

I've argued in favor of means testing entitlements.  I've argued that the entitlement issue is not as colossal as it's made out to be if approached correctly.  I have never argued in favor of leaving entitlements completely unchanged.

Whatever, I just don't see why people who waste massive amounts of money - amounts FAR beyond what most people will ever see in a lifetime - are worthy of any sympathy, empathy or whateverpathy when there are a whole ton of worthy causes just begging for attention and assistance.

Like I said, stupid deserves no sympathy.  I would allow the stupid, however, to collect their entitlements.

[detlef]

In some ways, it actually doesn't make sense for the NFL to bother trying to help these guys learn how to hold on their money.  Consider the recent labor dispute and the court of public opinion.  Obviously, both sides want to cobble sympathy from the paying customers and the amount of players who go broke despite making as much as they do certainly factored in the rationale for those who sided with the owners.

"Ah, why should they get so much money?  They're just going to piss it away."  That sort of thing.  Now, I don't believe that line of thinking should have any bearing on how much a man is entitled to ask to get paid, but I can certainly say that I heard that said plenty by those who wanted to see the owners come out on top in the fight.

[Jolly Rodgers]

Honestly, Sapp is not all that different from the general population.  Standard business / personal finance classes need to be mandated in all public schools.  Fix the problem at the core...

[Chavez]

Ursa Majoris, on 09 April 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

Considering all NFL players except possibly an undrafted walk-on or two have been to college, I find it completely preposterous that the NFL has to run "rookie symposiums" to teach them not to piss away more than they earn and maybe even try to save a little for the future.

Well, they don't exactly teach you personal finance in college - a person can come out of 13 yrs of K-12, a Bachelor's Degree, and a Masters/PhD with no practical financial education.

[Ursa Majoris]

Chavez, on 10 April 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

Well, they don't exactly teach you personal finance in college - a person can come out of 13 yrs of K-12, a Bachelor's Degree, and a Masters/PhD with no practical financial education.

How hard is it to figure out that making it rain $10,000 in a strip club might not be the wisest use of one's cash?  Personal finance is simple math.  It doesn't need a degree, it just needs some common sense and that can't be taught.

[WashingtonD]

Ursa Majoris, on 11 April 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

How hard is it to figure out that making it rain $10,000 in a strip club might not be the wisest use of one's cash?  Personal finance is simple math.  It doesn't need a degree, it just needs some common sense and that can't be taught.

Whoah whoah whoah...Strippers have to eat to.

[coordi88]

So do their drug addict boyfriends

[stevegrab]

Ursa Majoris, on 11 April 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

How hard is it to figure out that making it rain $10,000 in a strip club might not be the wisest use of one's cash?  Personal finance is simple math.  It doesn't need a degree, it just needs some common sense and that can't be taught.

I recall a class in junior high I think it was (in the 70s) where we learned about budgeting a little. And how something like 25% of your montly income should be for housing, x% for food, etc.  Now look at your average person today, people in their 30s & 40s with families, how much they spend (got to have that nice new house like the Jones) and how much debt people have (gotta have the car, TV, iPhone, etc). Its is out of control and the financial crisis and economy downturn recently were only the tip of the iceberg. You cople that with lower paying jobs, less pension style retirement, and longer life expectancy and things look pretty bleak in another couple generations.

[Ursa Majoris]

WashingtonD, on 11 April 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

Whoah whoah whoah...Strippers have to eat to.

My own practice when visiting such establishments is to enter with a fixed number of dollars and leave any means of getting more e.g. CC, debit card, etc, elsewhere.  I do the same on my occasional visits to casinos.

This ensures the fine young ladies can eat but not for too long.