What's OSU? Pryor has clearly stated before he went to the University of Ohio State

Footwedge;1169031 wrote:Sorry...all hearsay evidence. No way that those numbers are accurate.

Well, if you use logic, it's at least possible they're true.

1. Many careers are short. Guys like Jerry Rice and Bruce Matthews, who last for decades, are rarities. A lot of guys only last a couple seasons.

2. Many guys don't make superstar money. And a lot of those guys are in the short-career zone. Low-round draft picks who spend a couple years on special teams until getting cut and winding up out of the league. Or that undrafted free agent who made the practice squad, but never found a home on an actual sideline roster except for that one game when they needed a back-up long snapper because the regular one had stomach flu and they weren't sure if he could go.

3. When you consider that a lot of young athletes (ie: nearly all) probably take their first huge check and turn it into a car, a house, new wardrobe, hangers-on, baby mommas, etc., you'd have to think they'd have to make A LOT of bank just to overcome their own immediate wants. They don't have long careers (or don't "outgrow" their "SPEND SPEND SPEND" tendencies), they're in trouble.

4. Salary inflation. Money in all sports has dramatically jumped over the past couple decades. I'm in my 30s and can remember when a guy making $1 million was big news. Now, that's commonplace. There are tons of stories about older athletes who are physically broken down and struggle to afford healthcare or anything.

Add it all up. Short careers, poor financial planning, injuries forcing a need for legit medical care, not having a great deal of employable skills because their life has been about football up until they were out of the league. I can easily see those numbers being, if not accurate, within 5 or so % of accuracy.

Heretic;1170525 wrote:Well, if you use logic, it's at least possible they're true.

1. Many careers are short. Guys like Jerry Rice and Bruce Matthews, who last for decades, are rarities. A lot of guys only last a couple seasons.

2. Many guys don't make superstar money. And a lot of those guys are in the short-career zone. Low-round draft picks who spend a couple years on special teams until getting cut and winding up out of the league. Or that undrafted free agent who made the practice squad, but never found a home on an actual sideline roster except for that one game when they needed a back-up long snapper because the regular one had stomach flu and they weren't sure if he could go.

3. When you consider that a lot of young athletes (ie: nearly all) probably take their first huge check and turn it into a car, a house, new wardrobe, hangers-on, baby mommas, etc., you'd have to think they'd have to make A LOT of bank just to overcome their own immediate wants. They don't have long careers (or don't "outgrow" their "SPEND SPEND SPEND" tendencies), they're in trouble.

4. Salary inflation. Money in all sports has dramatically jumped over the past couple decades. I'm in my 30s and can remember when a guy making $1 million was big news. Now, that's commonplace. There are tons of stories about older athletes who are physically broken down and struggle to afford healthcare or anything.

Add it all up. Short careers, poor financial planning, injuries forcing a need for legit medical care, not having a great deal of employable skills because their life has been about football up until they were out of the league. I can easily see those numbers being, if not accurate, within 5 or so % of accuracy.

Aside from the incorrect use of hearsay, I'd be surprised if it isn't true. Presuming NFL players include all the taxi squad/special teams guys that have a career of a year or two - they make a lot but off the top they are paying 10-15% for their agent, taxes and if they are smart an FA on top of that. A $400,000 salary turns into $200,000 fairly quickly. And if they have children, in many jurisdictions take into account present earnings for paternity claims, without regard to future ability to maintain said earnings, which is why people out of the league still owe tens of thousands of paternity even though they have no source of income...leading to the point that many of these guys aren't making a cent outside of football. In come cases alumni sources will give them a job but they can't feed all of them.

-edit, I meant Footwedge's incorrect use of the term hearsay.

Lol at "woo is me".

Heretic;1170525 wrote:Well, if you use logic, it's at least possible they're true.

1. Many careers are short. Guys like Jerry Rice and Bruce Matthews, who last for decades, are rarities. A lot of guys only last a couple seasons.

2. Many guys don't make superstar money. And a lot of those guys are in the short-career zone. Low-round draft picks who spend a couple years on special teams until getting cut and winding up out of the league. Or that undrafted free agent who made the practice squad, but never found a home on an actual sideline roster except for that one game when they needed a back-up long snapper because the regular one had stomach flu and they weren't sure if he could go.

3. When you consider that a lot of young athletes (ie: nearly all) probably take their first huge check and turn it into a car, a house, new wardrobe, hangers-on, baby mommas, etc., you'd have to think they'd have to make A LOT of bank just to overcome their own immediate wants. They don't have long careers (or don't "outgrow" their "SPEND SPEND SPEND" tendencies), they're in trouble.

4. Salary inflation. Money in all sports has dramatically jumped over the past couple decades. I'm in my 30s and can remember when a guy making $1 million was big news. Now, that's commonplace. There are tons of stories about older athletes who are physically broken down and struggle to afford healthcare or anything.

Add it all up. Short careers, poor financial planning, injuries forcing a need for legit medical care, not having a great deal of employable skills because their life has been about football up until they were out of the league. I can easily see those numbers being, if not accurate, within 5 or so % of accuracy.

The implication is that 78% either are bankrupt or seriously in debt. There is absolutely no effin way. Because a few agents and the like say so....doesn't mean 4 out of 5 players are broke.

It's bullshit plain and simple. A much more accurate assessment? About 25%. And of those 25%, 24% are financial idiots.

Footwedge;1175981 wrote:The implication is that 78% either are bankrupt or seriously in debt. There is absolutely no effin way. Because a few agents and the like say so....doesn't mean 4 out of 5 players are broke.

It's bullshit plain and simple. A much more accurate assessment? About 25%. And of those 25%, 24% are financial idiots.

Link?

Manhattan Buckeye;1171375 wrote:Aside from the incorrect use of hearsay, I'd be surprised if it isn't true. Presuming NFL players include all the taxi squad/special teams guys that have a career of a year or two - they make a lot but off the top they are paying 10-15% for their agent, taxes and if they are smart an FA on top of that. A $400,000 salary turns into $200,000 fairly quickly. And if they have children, in many jurisdictions take into account present earnings for paternity claims, without regard to future ability to maintain said earnings, which is why people out of the league still owe tens of thousands of paternity even though they have no source of income...leading to the point that many of these guys aren't making a cent outside of football. In come cases alumni sources will give them a job but they can't feed all of them.

-edit, I meant Footwedge's incorrect use of the term hearsay.

From the article in CNN


"reports from a host of sources (athletes, players' associations, agents and financial advisers) indicate that:• By the time they have been retired for two years, 78% of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress because of joblessness or divorce.
• Within five years of retirement, an estimated 60% of former NBA players are broke."

That...by pure definition...is hearsay evidence. Where is the empiracle data? Where is the list of these players? By what definition are they using in describing these athletes as being in "dire straights financially"?

Do you think that a court would even allow that stuff to be entered in?

The answer is no. A much better depiction regarding the finances of former professional athletes...in a "78" range...would be the number that are not able to maintain their playing day incomes.

Again...the assertions are all hearsay...without a shred of documentation proving it.

Footwedge;1175989 wrote:From the article in CNN


"reports from a host of sources (athletes, players' associations, agents and financial advisers) indicate that:• By the time they have been retired for two years, 78% of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress because of joblessness or divorce.
• Within five years of retirement, an estimated 60% of former NBA players are broke."

That...by pure definition...is hearsay evidence. Where is the empiracle data? Where is the list of these players? By what definition are they using in describing these athletes as being in "dire straights financially"?

Do you think that a court would even allow that stuff to be entered in?

The answer is no. A much better depiction regarding the finances of former professional athletes...in a "78" range...would be the number that are not able to maintain their playing day incomes.

Again...the assertions are all hearsay...without a shred of documentation proving it.

What does a court have to do with anything? What needs to be admitted? If someone asks me how many of my clients that raised $5M maintained their business and are still operational that isn't hearsay...that's me looking at my files and responding accordingly. Not only is that not the definition of hearsay, it has nothing to do with hearsay. It is a technical evidentiary term. It sounds like this report was a journalist asking agents about their clients. I believe it. Given the short lifespans of most sports careers and the poor choices made or previously made, a few hundred thousand dollars of immediate benefit aren't getting these guys out of fiscal difficulty.

Footwedge;1175989 wrote:From the article in CNN


"reports from a host of sources (athletes, players' associations, agents and financial advisers) indicate that:• By the time they have been retired for two years, 78% of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress because of joblessness or divorce.
• Within five years of retirement, an estimated 60% of former NBA players are broke."

That...by pure definition...is hearsay evidence. Where is the empiracle data? Where is the list of these players? By what definition are they using in describing these athletes as being in "dire straights financially"?

Do you think that a court would even allow that stuff to be entered in?

The answer is no. A much better depiction regarding the finances of former professional athletes...in a "78" range...would be the number that are not able to maintain their playing day incomes.

Again...the assertions are all hearsay...without a shred of documentation proving it.

I asked for a link with facts, not your opinion. Thanks.

Steel Valley Football;1171782 wrote:Lol at "woo is me".

Bigger lol at premadonnas

Manhattan Buckeye;1176086 wrote:What does a court have to do with anything? What needs to be admitted? If someone asks me how many of my clients that raised $5M maintained their business and are still operational that isn't hearsay...that's me looking at my files and responding accordingly. Not only is that not the definition of hearsay, it has nothing to do with hearsay. It is a technical evidentiary term. It sounds like this report was a journalist asking agents about their clients. I believe it. Given the short lifespans of most sports careers and the poor choices made or previously made, a few hundred thousand dollars of immediate benefit aren't getting these guys out of fiscal difficulty.

What I want is a copy of this so called "study" alleging that 78% of former pro athletes are broke. Until that is provided, then the evidence is hearsay. Period.

Pharmaceuticals are not approved because "unsourced" studies are hinted at. Pharmaceuticals are approved because of the empiracle data proving an outcome. There is no doubt ton of people that made millions of dollars blew it all and then some...but to state 4 out of 5 have done so is hogwash.

LJ;1176088 wrote:I asked for a link with facts, not your opinion. Thanks.

You have it backwards. I'm the one asking for the facts, not unsourced hearsay from anonymous studies. Also, given the fact that most people's financial statements are nobody's business but their own, it is beyond ridiculous for these claims to be made in the first place.

This is nothing more than media sensationalism that doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. Nothing more than mumbo-jumbo.

Footwedge;1176145 wrote:You have it backwards. I'm the one asking for the facts, not unsourced hearsay from anonymous studies. Also, given the fact that most people's financial statements are nobody's business but their own, it is beyond ridiculous for these claims to be made in the first place.

This is nothing more than media sensationalism that doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. Nothing more than mumbo-jumbo.

We already got your opinion. Thanks though.

LJ;1176150 wrote:We already got your opinion. Thanks though.

Who you should be asking for a link....are those at CNN who threw out ridiculous claims. My opinion is just as good as their opinion. The difference is that they made the assertions...not me. Anyone that blindly throws out their opinions should have their feet held to the fire.

What is clear...neither I nor CNN can source anything concrete to prove anything. Manhatten Buckeye believes their opinion is accurate...whereby logic tells me it's a huge exaggeration and not worthy of any acknowledgement. Nothing but hearsay hokey pokey.

You do realize that hundreds of guys are drafted each year, many of which sign rookie contracts that pay them a few hundred thousand a year...and they play on the taxi squad or on special teams and they are done before their initial contract is up. Most of them didn't graduate, many of them already have kids and financial obligations. Is it that difficult to understand that these guys are under a lot of financial pressure? They are technically NFL players.

Once again, thanks for the compliment, your lack of ability to spell and misunderstanding of the word "hearsay". Your opinion is worthless because you don't know the meaning of the words and facts you are throwing out, as usual.

Footwedge;1176165 wrote:Who you should be asking for a link....are those at CNN who threw out ridiculous claims. My opinion is just as good as their opinion.

Stop right there. No it's not, since CNN>Footwedge.

/thread

Manhattan Buckeye;1176319 wrote:You do realize that hundreds of guys are drafted each year, many of which sign rookie contracts that pay them a few hundred thousand a year...and they play on the taxi squad or on special teams and they are done before their initial contract is up. Most of them didn't graduate, many of them already have kids and financial obligations. Is it that difficult to understand that these guys are under a lot of financial pressure? They are technically NFL players.

Once again, thanks for the compliment, your lack of ability to spell and misunderstanding of the word "hearsay". Your opinion is worthless because you don't know the meaning of the words and facts you are throwing out, as usual.

They unclude taxi squad players too? Where does it say that? Do they include Single A players? How about D League? What exactly are they saying?

If one includes true big leaguers, then you have about 800 baseball players, 1200 football players and maybe 600 or so
NBA players.

So...out of 2400 players, probably at least half making 7 digits per year...with the minimum being roughly $330K per year, 1870 players are either destitute or bankrupt. LMAO.

Believe what you want MB. Santa Clause is coming to town in 7 months too.

Done. With Justin's new rules you aren't worth it.

I've not followed the thread, but chances are good that MB is wrong. He's a bigger blowhard KIA than LJ. This, however, is not an endorsement of Footwedge.

Manhattan Buckeye;1176370 wrote:Done. With Justin's new rules you aren't worth it.

It's simple really. You believe that 78 percent of pro athletes go broke inside of 2 years. I don't. What do rules here have to do with it?

Steel Valley Football;1176384 wrote:I've not followed the thread, but chances are good that MB is wrong. He's a bigger blowhard KIA than LJ. This, however, is not an endorsement of Footwedge.

2 people differing on a subject...that's all it is. But just curious, what's your opinion on it? Do you agree with CNN in stating that 4 out of 5 pro athletes go belly up financially after 2 years of retirement?