What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

78% of players in poorhouse by 2yrs after football (1 Viewer)

To be fair, it must be very difficult for the mid-level or league minimum guys to be teammates and friends with some of the multi-millionaires they're around.You leave your school, have to start over with friends, and the pressure to "live large" must be great.
Absolutely, and it cuts both ways. The 1st rounder whose new to town wants to be buddies with other young players, and he knows they're playing for the league minimum. So he says, "I got this." Except that this isn't a case of one of us buying a round of beers for friends, it's the case of often dropping thousands, if not tens of thousands, on a night out because you feel like a "have" surrounded by guys who don't have as much.
I remember reading a story about David Beckham when he came to America. The whole team went out and then the check came. He chipped in his percentage but described it as a situation where others were looking at him to pay more because he made more. He said he couldn't set that precedent. They thought he was being cheap even though he was paying his fair share.
He was being cheap. sorry when you get signed to a 100 mill K and the rest of the league makes pennies compared to you, you pick up the check. Especially when you are new to the team and trying to foster camaraderie.
So his teammates are sitting around looking at him with the EXPECTATION that he should pay for their dinner.So what were his teammates being?Next time I go to dinner with friends, I'll ask them to bring along last year's tax return if they don't have 2010's done yet...so I know who has to pay for dinner.I've had dinner with wealthy people before, not on Beckum's level for sure. But I've never felt entitled to their generosity in covering the tab. A sense of entitlement. It's done wonders for us as a culture.
 
I never meant to imply that the current situation is just the player's wanting more money. It is not.

A] It is the player's wanting more money and

B] the owners wanting more money

C] and each positioning themselves to do so.
No, the players were going to play under the already negotiated CBA. The owners opted out for... more money.So A] doesnt work under the "current situation" scenario. Though under a new negotiation, when that Agreement expired, it was certainly possible.
Again, status quo means more money for the players year over year. They wanted to keep the previous CBA because that means increasingly more money for the players. While the owners are collectively seeing their cash flow decline.
 
Thanks for the explanation but not necessary. Let me explain something to you.The NFLPA has been up front from the beginning that if the owners can prove that costs have gone up so much that they need another $1 billion off the top, they are willing to adjust the deal. But guess what? The owners won't open up their books and show that. Likely because they are greatly overstating how much their costs have gone up since much of their "costs" are subsidized by taxpayers and sweetheart land deals that will allow them to recover those cost and then some in the not so distant future.So the player's have been open to the owners taking more of the top to cover cost, just not the $1 Billion the owners are asking without fully justifying it. So your characterization of the player's wanting more money is still wrong and I still wonder why that was the theme of your original post.
First, the theme of my first post was related to the 78% of players in poorhouse theme of the thread. The inference on the title of the thread is that the players do not make enough money or are not rich enough that they end up being set up for the rest of their lives. I simply was replying back that I think for the 80-90% of that 78% making more money would not have made a difference. A recent example of this would be JaMarcus Russell. He got a $61 million dollar deal out of college with $32 of that guaranteed. I am not exactly sure how much of that $29 million that was not guaranteed he ended up with but he got a chunk of that on top of his $32 million. Well, news came out a few weeks ago that his house is in foreclosure. So, my 'theme' was just simply in response to the idea that if 78% are in the poorhouse then they must need more money.
So if the owners were smart they would be demanding a rookie cap and the guaranteed money redirected to retired players because these tragic idiots have no idea how to spend their money.
No, they know how to spend the money. That is the problem. They have no idea how to save and invest their money.
 
I never meant to imply that the current situation is just the player's wanting more money. It is not.

A] It is the player's wanting more money and

B] the owners wanting more money

C] and each positioning themselves to do so.
No, the players were going to play under the already negotiated CBA. The owners opted out for... more money.So A] doesnt work under the "current situation" scenario. Though under a new negotiation, when that Agreement expired, it was certainly possible.
Again, status quo means more money for the players year over year. They wanted to keep the previous CBA because that means increasingly more money for the players. While the owners are collectively seeing their cash flow decline.
The owners are making more money year over year, too. If they're also spending more, that's their choice, isn't it? Do the players deserve more money if they buy a new car?
 
'CalBear said:
'Chadstroma said:
'Choke said:
'Chadstroma said:
I never meant to imply that the current situation is just the player's wanting more money. It is not.

A] It is the player's wanting more money and

B] the owners wanting more money

C] and each positioning themselves to do so.
No, the players were going to play under the already negotiated CBA. The owners opted out for... more money.So A] doesnt work under the "current situation" scenario. Though under a new negotiation, when that Agreement expired, it was certainly possible.
Again, status quo means more money for the players year over year. They wanted to keep the previous CBA because that means increasingly more money for the players. While the owners are collectively seeing their cash flow decline.
The owners are making more money year over year, too. If they're also spending more, that's their choice, isn't it? Do the players deserve more money if they buy a new car?
Per the audited financials that they released to the NFLPA, their cash flow is declining. So, you would be wrong in saying that the owners are making more money year over year too.
 
Per the audited financials that they released to the NFLPA, their cash flow is declining. So, you would be wrong in saying that the owners are making more money year over year too.
They are making more money in the same way the players are. I'm sure many of the players have declining cash flow, due to choices that they have made, just like the owners.
 
Per the audited financials that they released to the NFLPA, their cash flow is declining. So, you would be wrong in saying that the owners are making more money year over year too.
They are making more money in the same way the players are. I'm sure many of the players have declining cash flow, due to choices that they have made, just like the owners.
The increased revenues are tied into larger and more profitable stadiums, which had to be built with mountains of debt.
 
Per the audited financials that they released to the NFLPA, their cash flow is declining. So, you would be wrong in saying that the owners are making more money year over year too.
They are making more money in the same way the players are. I'm sure many of the players have declining cash flow, due to choices that they have made, just like the owners.
The increased revenues are tied into larger and more profitable stadiums, which had to be built with mountains of debt.
How many teams own these mountains of debt? I know JJ financed his own, but I cannot recall any other teams paying for the stadium themselves. I do recall a lot of sweetheart stadium deals in the past. With the economy, I doubt many places are handing out these deals now, but I sincerely doubt the Cowboys way is about to become the norm.
 
Per the audited financials that they released to the NFLPA, their cash flow is declining. So, you would be wrong in saying that the owners are making more money year over year too.
They are making more money in the same way the players are. I'm sure many of the players have declining cash flow, due to choices that they have made, just like the owners.
Mainly their decision to accept the previous CBA. So, yes, you are right for once in this thread.
 
Per the audited financials that they released to the NFLPA, their cash flow is declining. So, you would be wrong in saying that the owners are making more money year over year too.
They are making more money in the same way the players are. I'm sure many of the players have declining cash flow, due to choices that they have made, just like the owners.
The increased revenues are tied into larger and more profitable stadiums, which had to be built with mountains of debt.
The increased revenue that comes from a stadium expansion project goes to the owner, not to the players; there is no meaningful way that Jerry Jones' monstrosity increases TV revenue, for example. So from the perspective of NFL shared revenues, the stadiums didn't "have" to be built; Jerry Jones built his because he thought it would make him more money. If he was wrong, that's on him.
 
Thanks for the explanation but not necessary. Let me explain something to you.The NFLPA has been up front from the beginning that if the owners can prove that costs have gone up so much that they need another $1 billion off the top, they are willing to adjust the deal. But guess what? The owners won't open up their books and show that. Likely because they are greatly overstating how much their costs have gone up since much of their "costs" are subsidized by taxpayers and sweetheart land deals that will allow them to recover those cost and then some in the not so distant future.So the player's have been open to the owners taking more of the top to cover cost, just not the $1 Billion the owners are asking without fully justifying it. So your characterization of the player's wanting more money is still wrong and I still wonder why that was the theme of your original post.
Really? The NFL opened their books more to the NFLPA than they do to the teams that comprise the NFL but guess what, the NFLPA wants more... hardly shocking. The NFLPA thinks they are in a position of power that they can keep demanding more from the NFL and keep getting it because of the last CBA. I've stated before and I'll say it again, the last CBA was a sham and the players were rejoicing while the owners knew they would opt out before the end of the agreement.For everyone who's so on the players side (I'm not against them, just a realist) they had a sweet sweet deal with the last CBA and there will be a lockout if the players don't concede some of that back to the owners. You seem to think they the players deserve more money than the owners and that the owners are evil greedy people. Funny how player greed never gets mentioned by those who claim owner greed. To them the players "deserve" the money while the owner don't because they apparently have no need for it because they aren't the ones "risking their lives". I don't think the owners should get everything back from the last CBA by a LONG shot. They needed to give up more in the last CBA, I was just shocked at how much they actually did give up. Having said that there needs to be a happy medium and the owners are the ones proving they are willing to negotiate while the players think they can stick to their hard stance like last time and get what they want. The problem with that is Tagliabue and Upshaw are gone and the NFL is no longer trying to push a bad deal through for the sake of their legacy.
 
Thanks for the explanation but not necessary. Let me explain something to you.The NFLPA has been up front from the beginning that if the owners can prove that costs have gone up so much that they need another $1 billion off the top, they are willing to adjust the deal. But guess what? The owners won't open up their books and show that. Likely because they are greatly overstating how much their costs have gone up since much of their "costs" are subsidized by taxpayers and sweetheart land deals that will allow them to recover those cost and then some in the not so distant future.So the player's have been open to the owners taking more of the top to cover cost, just not the $1 Billion the owners are asking without fully justifying it. So your characterization of the player's wanting more money is still wrong and I still wonder why that was the theme of your original post.
Really? The NFL opened their books more to the NFLPA than they do to the teams that comprise the NFL but guess what, the NFLPA wants more... hardly shocking. The NFLPA thinks they are in a position of power that they can keep demanding more from the NFL and keep getting it because of the last CBA. I've stated before and I'll say it again, the last CBA was a sham and the players were rejoicing while the owners knew they would opt out before the end of the agreement.For everyone who's so on the players side (I'm not against them, just a realist) they had a sweet sweet deal with the last CBA and there will be a lockout if the players don't concede some of that back to the owners. You seem to think they the players deserve more money than the owners and that the owners are evil greedy people. Funny how player greed never gets mentioned by those who claim owner greed. To them the players "deserve" the money while the owner don't because they apparently have no need for it because they aren't the ones "risking their lives". I don't think the owners should get everything back from the last CBA by a LONG shot. They needed to give up more in the last CBA, I was just shocked at how much they actually did give up. Having said that there needs to be a happy medium and the owners are the ones proving they are willing to negotiate while the players think they can stick to their hard stance like last time and get what they want. The problem with that is Tagliabue and Upshaw are gone and the NFL is no longer trying to push a bad deal through for the sake of their legacy.
We can go around and around, but ultimately the owners don't HAVE to do anything they haven't already done. Obviously neither side wants football to cease to exist, and yet the owners are seemingly willing to lock out the players rather than "open the books." That should tell you something. These are rich, powerful and intelligent men who don't throw billions away on principle.
 
Thanks for the explanation but not necessary. Let me explain something to you.The NFLPA has been up front from the beginning that if the owners can prove that costs have gone up so much that they need another $1 billion off the top, they are willing to adjust the deal. But guess what? The owners won't open up their books and show that. Likely because they are greatly overstating how much their costs have gone up since much of their "costs" are subsidized by taxpayers and sweetheart land deals that will allow them to recover those cost and then some in the not so distant future.So the player's have been open to the owners taking more of the top to cover cost, just not the $1 Billion the owners are asking without fully justifying it. So your characterization of the player's wanting more money is still wrong and I still wonder why that was the theme of your original post.
Really? The NFL opened their books more to the NFLPA than they do to the teams that comprise the NFL but guess what, the NFLPA wants more... hardly shocking. The NFLPA thinks they are in a position of power that they can keep demanding more from the NFL and keep getting it because of the last CBA. I've stated before and I'll say it again, the last CBA was a sham and the players were rejoicing while the owners knew they would opt out before the end of the agreement.For everyone who's so on the players side (I'm not against them, just a realist) they had a sweet sweet deal with the last CBA and there will be a lockout if the players don't concede some of that back to the owners. You seem to think they the players deserve more money than the owners and that the owners are evil greedy people. Funny how player greed never gets mentioned by those who claim owner greed. To them the players "deserve" the money while the owner don't because they apparently have no need for it because they aren't the ones "risking their lives". I don't think the owners should get everything back from the last CBA by a LONG shot. They needed to give up more in the last CBA, I was just shocked at how much they actually did give up. Having said that there needs to be a happy medium and the owners are the ones proving they are willing to negotiate while the players think they can stick to their hard stance like last time and get what they want. The problem with that is Tagliabue and Upshaw are gone and the NFL is no longer trying to push a bad deal through for the sake of their legacy.
We can go around and around, but ultimately the owners don't HAVE to do anything they haven't already done. Obviously neither side wants football to cease to exist, and yet the owners are seemingly willing to lock out the players rather than "open the books." That should tell you something. These are rich, powerful and intelligent men who don't throw billions away on principle.
Um.. they HAVE opened their books. The players have all the financial information pertinent to the negotiations. They want every piece of information they can get even if it does not pertain to the negotiations at hand.http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6196585http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81ead445/article/union-wants-more-financial-information-than-nfl-has-offered?module=HP_headlinesEdited to add the links.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the explanation but not necessary. Let me explain something to you.The NFLPA has been up front from the beginning that if the owners can prove that costs have gone up so much that they need another $1 billion off the top, they are willing to adjust the deal. But guess what? The owners won't open up their books and show that. Likely because they are greatly overstating how much their costs have gone up since much of their "costs" are subsidized by taxpayers and sweetheart land deals that will allow them to recover those cost and then some in the not so distant future.So the player's have been open to the owners taking more of the top to cover cost, just not the $1 Billion the owners are asking without fully justifying it. So your characterization of the player's wanting more money is still wrong and I still wonder why that was the theme of your original post.
Really? The NFL opened their books more to the NFLPA than they do to the teams that comprise the NFL but guess what, the NFLPA wants more... hardly shocking. The NFLPA thinks they are in a position of power that they can keep demanding more from the NFL and keep getting it because of the last CBA. I've stated before and I'll say it again, the last CBA was a sham and the players were rejoicing while the owners knew they would opt out before the end of the agreement.For everyone who's so on the players side (I'm not against them, just a realist) they had a sweet sweet deal with the last CBA and there will be a lockout if the players don't concede some of that back to the owners. You seem to think they the players deserve more money than the owners and that the owners are evil greedy people. Funny how player greed never gets mentioned by those who claim owner greed. To them the players "deserve" the money while the owner don't because they apparently have no need for it because they aren't the ones "risking their lives". I don't think the owners should get everything back from the last CBA by a LONG shot. They needed to give up more in the last CBA, I was just shocked at how much they actually did give up. Having said that there needs to be a happy medium and the owners are the ones proving they are willing to negotiate while the players think they can stick to their hard stance like last time and get what they want. The problem with that is Tagliabue and Upshaw are gone and the NFL is no longer trying to push a bad deal through for the sake of their legacy.
We can go around and around, but ultimately the owners don't HAVE to do anything they haven't already done. Obviously neither side wants football to cease to exist, and yet the owners are seemingly willing to lock out the players rather than "open the books." That should tell you something. These are rich, powerful and intelligent men who don't throw billions away on principle.
Um.. they HAVE opened their books. The players have all the financial information pertinent to the negotiations. They want every piece of information they can get even if it does not pertain to the negotiations at hand.http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6196585http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81ead445/article/union-wants-more-financial-information-than-nfl-has-offered?module=HP_headlinesEdited to add the links.
Is anyone asking specifically what the NFLPA wants, as far as the books go? Someone stated in one of these threads that Forbes or some other publication has reported that ownership has turned over something like 95% of the requested material and the missing 5% can be inferred from the 95% the NFLPA has.Is it possible that the NFLPA has all they need, but they are asking for more simply because they know the owners won't provide it? By that, I mean, is it possible that the NFLPA is asking for information that ownership doesn't want open to the public that doesn't really affect the CBA bargaining but is of a sensitive nature that might hurt ownerships' reputation or standing with the fanbase? Is it possible the NFLPA knows that they can use this refusal by ownership for PR support while at the same time knowing they don't really need it?It's a bit Machiavellian, but is that possible?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the explanation but not necessary. Let me explain something to you.The NFLPA has been up front from the beginning that if the owners can prove that costs have gone up so much that they need another $1 billion off the top, they are willing to adjust the deal. But guess what? The owners won't open up their books and show that. Likely because they are greatly overstating how much their costs have gone up since much of their "costs" are subsidized by taxpayers and sweetheart land deals that will allow them to recover those cost and then some in the not so distant future.So the player's have been open to the owners taking more of the top to cover cost, just not the $1 Billion the owners are asking without fully justifying it. So your characterization of the player's wanting more money is still wrong and I still wonder why that was the theme of your original post.
Really? The NFL opened their books more to the NFLPA than they do to the teams that comprise the NFL but guess what, the NFLPA wants more... hardly shocking. The NFLPA thinks they are in a position of power that they can keep demanding more from the NFL and keep getting it because of the last CBA. I've stated before and I'll say it again, the last CBA was a sham and the players were rejoicing while the owners knew they would opt out before the end of the agreement.For everyone who's so on the players side (I'm not against them, just a realist) they had a sweet sweet deal with the last CBA and there will be a lockout if the players don't concede some of that back to the owners. You seem to think they the players deserve more money than the owners and that the owners are evil greedy people. Funny how player greed never gets mentioned by those who claim owner greed. To them the players "deserve" the money while the owner don't because they apparently have no need for it because they aren't the ones "risking their lives". I don't think the owners should get everything back from the last CBA by a LONG shot. They needed to give up more in the last CBA, I was just shocked at how much they actually did give up. Having said that there needs to be a happy medium and the owners are the ones proving they are willing to negotiate while the players think they can stick to their hard stance like last time and get what they want. The problem with that is Tagliabue and Upshaw are gone and the NFL is no longer trying to push a bad deal through for the sake of their legacy.
We can go around and around, but ultimately the owners don't HAVE to do anything they haven't already done. Obviously neither side wants football to cease to exist, and yet the owners are seemingly willing to lock out the players rather than "open the books." That should tell you something. These are rich, powerful and intelligent men who don't throw billions away on principle.
They have "opened the books" but the players want more. Something tells me that if the NFL and each franchise handed them every piece of paper that had anything to do with their financials, the NFLPA would still say they aren't opening the books. Why? It is not because the players are evil or greedy but because it is part of the positioning/negotiating and PR battle for the players. The players are in a weak position. The owners can outlast the average player and has many years of operations to recoup the income lost, while the players have a small window on making their money. As has been documented in many stories, many players live check by check and they are going to feel the pressure of not having income very soon. So, the NFLPA has very little in terms of leverage. Saying that the NFL is not opening the books is one of the few ways that they can gain leverage by winning in the PR battle. I suspect that those who are playing the 'owners are evil greedy b-tards' card are union sympathizers that flock to solidarity at every opportunity. It comes down to this: It is about money and who gets more. If you disagree with this, then you just do not know the facts, have an agenda or you are being willfully ignorant. Each side is going to have to give. Each side is going to have to get. The longer that this goes on, it favors the owners. So, if the NFLPA is smart, they will seek to get this deal done ASAP.
 
Thanks for the explanation but not necessary. Let me explain something to you.

The NFLPA has been up front from the beginning that if the owners can prove that costs have gone up so much that they need another $1 billion off the top, they are willing to adjust the deal.

But guess what? The owners won't open up their books and show that. Likely because they are greatly overstating how much their costs have gone up since much of their "costs" are subsidized by taxpayers and sweetheart land deals that will allow them to recover those cost and then some in the not so distant future.

So the player's have been open to the owners taking more of the top to cover cost, just not the $1 Billion the owners are asking without fully justifying it. So your characterization of the player's wanting more money is still wrong and I still wonder why that was the theme of your original post.
Really? The NFL opened their books more to the NFLPA than they do to the teams that comprise the NFL but guess what, the NFLPA wants more... hardly shocking. The NFLPA thinks they are in a position of power that they can keep demanding more from the NFL and keep getting it because of the last CBA. I've stated before and I'll say it again, the last CBA was a sham and the players were rejoicing while the owners knew they would opt out before the end of the agreement.For everyone who's so on the players side (I'm not against them, just a realist) they had a sweet sweet deal with the last CBA and there will be a lockout if the players don't concede some of that back to the owners. You seem to think they the players deserve more money than the owners and that the owners are evil greedy people. Funny how player greed never gets mentioned by those who claim owner greed. To them the players "deserve" the money while the owner don't because they apparently have no need for it because they aren't the ones "risking their lives".

I don't think the owners should get everything back from the last CBA by a LONG shot. They needed to give up more in the last CBA, I was just shocked at how much they actually did give up. Having said that there needs to be a happy medium and the owners are the ones proving they are willing to negotiate while the players think they can stick to their hard stance like last time and get what they want. The problem with that is Tagliabue and Upshaw are gone and the NFL is no longer trying to push a bad deal through for the sake of their legacy.
You're really making a lot of incorrect assumptions here but have at it.
 
"Just to be absolutely clear, the information that was offered wasn't what we asked for," DeMaurice Smith said, "and, according to our investment bankers and advisers, they told us that information would be meaningless in determining whether to write an $800 million check to the National Football League" in each year of a new CBA.

The chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is urging NFL owners to open their financial books to the players' union, arguing that will help resolve a labor dispute.

"Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that the only way to sort out this stalemate is for the owners and the league to answer the biggest sticking point: money," Sen. Jay Rockefeller

"What I'd like to see from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners is a simple display of good faith: Show the union your books. Don't keep secrets. If there are financial pressures that keep you from agreeing to the revenue-sharing plan proposed by the players, let's see the proof."

So, no. The books have not been opened.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Just to be absolutely clear, the information that was offered wasn't what we asked for," DeMaurice Smith said, "and, according to our investment bankers and advisers, they told us that information would be meaningless in determining whether to write an $800 million check to the National Football League" in each year of a new CBA.

The chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is urging NFL owners to open their financial books to the players' union, arguing that will help resolve a labor dispute.

"Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that the only way to sort out this stalemate is for the owners and the league to answer the biggest sticking point: money," Sen. Jay Rockefeller

"What I'd like to see from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners is a simple display of good faith: Show the union your books. Don't keep secrets. If there are financial pressures that keep you from agreeing to the revenue-sharing plan proposed by the players, let's see the proof."

So, no. The books have not been opened.
Oh, the NFLPA and a politician that happens to be a Democrat (i.e. union owned and operated politician) say so. Well then, of course, case closed.
 
"Just to be absolutely clear, the information that was offered wasn't what we asked for," DeMaurice Smith said, "and, according to our investment bankers and advisers, they told us that information would be meaningless in determining whether to write an $800 million check to the National Football League" in each year of a new CBA.

The chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is urging NFL owners to open their financial books to the players' union, arguing that will help resolve a labor dispute.

"Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that the only way to sort out this stalemate is for the owners and the league to answer the biggest sticking point: money," Sen. Jay Rockefeller

"What I'd like to see from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners is a simple display of good faith: Show the union your books. Don't keep secrets. If there are financial pressures that keep you from agreeing to the revenue-sharing plan proposed by the players, let's see the proof."

So, no. The books have not been opened.
Oh, the NFLPA and a politician that happens to be a Democrat (i.e. union owned and operated politician) say so. Well then, of course, case closed.
Yes it is. CASE CLOSED.You can remain snarky though. :thumbup:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00001685&cycle=2010&type=I&newMem=N&recs=100

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Just to be absolutely clear, the information that was offered wasn't what we asked for," DeMaurice Smith said, "and, according to our investment bankers and advisers, they told us that information would be meaningless in determining whether to write an $800 million check to the National Football League" in each year of a new CBA.

The chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is urging NFL owners to open their financial books to the players' union, arguing that will help resolve a labor dispute.

"Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that the only way to sort out this stalemate is for the owners and the league to answer the biggest sticking point: money," Sen. Jay Rockefeller

"What I'd like to see from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners is a simple display of good faith: Show the union your books. Don't keep secrets. If there are financial pressures that keep you from agreeing to the revenue-sharing plan proposed by the players, let's see the proof."

So, no. The books have not been opened.
Oh, the NFLPA and a politician that happens to be a Democrat (i.e. union owned and operated politician) say so. Well then, of course, case closed.
Yes it is. CASE CLOSED.You can remain snarky though. :thumbup:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00001685&cycle=2010&type=I&newMem=N&recs=100
By that list, there is about $150K in contributions from the numerous unions that ponied up some cash for your boy in WV. Plus, that list does not show the manpower that unions mobilize and the organization that they provide for the Democratic vote. Are you really going to try to make an argument that unions do not influence the Democratic party? Because that is as poor of a position as it is to try to say that the books have not been opened because the NFLPA says so. Actually, no, it is a harder position to defend.

 
No, I was just posting information on your sideshow.

The FACT remains that the owners books are not opened.

Id love to see a pdf link to, lets say the NY Giants, book. TIA.

 
Are you really going to try to make an argument that unions do not influence the Democratic party? Because that is as poor of a position as it is to try to say that the books have not been opened because the NFLPA says so. Actually, no, it is a harder position to defend.
Unions do not influence the Democratic party any more than corporations do. Probably less.
 
No, I was just posting information on your sideshow.The FACT remains that the owners books are not opened. Id love to see a pdf link to, lets say the NY Giants, book. TIA.
That is exactly what the owners do not want to do for reasons that have nothing to do with labor negotiations. The NFLPA has the audited books of the entire NFL. That shows a cash flow decline. The FACT remains that the NFL books are open. The NFLPA is negotiating with the NFL and not individual owners. Everything else is just a PR battle.
 
Are you really going to try to make an argument that unions do not influence the Democratic party? Because that is as poor of a position as it is to try to say that the books have not been opened because the NFLPA says so. Actually, no, it is a harder position to defend.
Unions do not influence the Democratic party any more than corporations do. Probably less.
Wow. You must have went to Cal.
 
The FACT remains that the NFL books are open. The NFLPA is negotiating with the NFL and not individual owners.
No they are NOT.Owners can't agree on opening books

Posted on: March 10, 2011 11:40 am

http://eye-on-football.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6264363/27835308

There is just one day left before a possible NFL Armageddon and a crucial event has happened within the past 24 hours.

There are some NFL owners who want to completely open the league's financial books to the union, CBSSports.com has learned.

The problem is other NFL owners are refusing.

Report: Some owners willing to open books

March 10, 2011, 12:12 PM EST

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/10/report-some-owners-willing-to-open-books/

Heck if you do a search for "nfl opens books" you get nothing of what you claim. Not even an owner or the league claiming they have opened their books. Only that they have provided some financial information, but nothing as you state. Certainly not open books.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sounds about right to me.The average career is 3.5 years. So for every guy who gets to play 5 years is a guy who plays 2.And for every guy who plays 6, and reaches a 2nd contract, there is a guy who only lasts a year.Then the minimum (which is closer to what most make) 285,000. A 5th round pick is going to get 350k a year with 120k guaranteed, on a 3 year contract.If he buys a decent house at 525k, and a car at 75k, his bank account wont be looking stellar when his career is over.
True, but he will have made way more than the average 25 year old person. Now if the same player bought a 300K home and a new Honda Accord or Ford Fusion he would have an extra 300K still left over at 25 to start his new career.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you really going to try to make an argument that unions do not influence the Democratic party? Because that is as poor of a position as it is to try to say that the books have not been opened because the NFLPA says so. Actually, no, it is a harder position to defend.
Unions do not influence the Democratic party any more than corporations do. Probably less.
This is a very stupid comment and why having a discussion about this labor issue on a fantasy football forum is just as dumb. Unions give huge contributions to help elect democrats. I return, the democrats create laws to help the unions and their members, in addition to giving cabinet positions to union bigwigs. Big labor (aka unions) support democratic causes a good 95% of the time. Just as an example the SEIU (Service Employees International Union and the 2nd largest) gave $60.7 million dollars to Obama's campaign in 2008. What did the SEIU get in return? 2 cabinet appointees: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, along with the passage of several laws. Here's a link from SEIU's website: http://www.seiu.org/2008/10/seius-massive-ground-campaign-for-obama-pro-working-family-candidates.phpThe same story can be said for the other big unions (SEIU is #2), NEA (#1), UFCW (#3), IBT (#4), AFSCME (#5). The list goes on. A matter of fact the NEA has never supported a rebulican (or 3rd party) candidate for president since the days of Jimmy Carter.

But guess what Cal Bear, guess who was one of the bigger donators to Obama's campaign. The University of California, with over $1.5 million bucks. Hmmm...

So now this whole thing, essentially, comes down to 1 judge. 1 judge, who is pro-union. I bet I can guess which side comes out of this dog fight ahead. You think it is going to be the owners? Not a chance. The big labor judge, who I would bet my house is a registered democrat, will side with the unions. Why do you think the unions wanted so badly to go to court and decertify. They know they won't lose.

 
Great story on NFL players and finances

The statistic is downright alarming: By the time they are out of the game for two years, 78 percent of NFL players are bankrupt or financially distressed.

By Tim McManus in Philly Sports Daily

The current NFL labor strife has been labeled a battle of billionaires vs. millionaires. The lockout could begin at 11:59 p.m. Thursday night, so the clock is ticking quickly now.

In reality, it is a battle of wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Some players are millionaires, some are dead broke, and the rest are simply racing against the inevitable end. Almost all of them are outmatched and undereducated compared to the wolves that begin circling the campfire well before the first paycheck is deposited.

History has shown that the union will fold a couple strides into a work stoppage, and will be forced to concede to the owners’ demands. They will do so because they hold almost no leverage. The men cutting the checks have enough money to survive not just a lost season but a nuclear winter, while a bulk of the players cannot endure even a small dam in the revenue stream.

Think that’s an exaggeration? Just look in your own back yard.

Despite warnings from the NFLPA, there are players on the Eagles who are financially ill-equipped for the looming lockout. Brandon Graham is not one of those people. Thanks to a first-round contract that reportedly guarantees him $14 million, as well as the guidance of a trustworthy management team, the former Michigan Wolverine is set up for long-term wealth despite short-term hurdles.

This makes him attractive to the needy and the greedy seeking some liquid – including his own teammates. By Graham’s count, at least two fellow Eagles have asked him for substantial loans to get them through the lockout.

The most he’s gotten hit up for?

“100K,” said Graham.

“They try not to make it awkward. They’ll come to you like they’re joking, but they’re serious. They’re trying to feel you out, to see what you’ll say.”

Graham always has the same reply: No.

“I’ll be like, ‘What are you going to do with it, other than blow it?’ I don’t want to be beefing with guys on my team because they owe me money,” said Graham.

It is hard to grasp that, with the league minimum around $300,000 a year, any player could be so strapped that he couldn‘t afford to temporarily do without one bonus check. How can it come to this?

For that answer, you have to go back to well before they hit the big leagues, when only a small group (which included friends and vultures alike) knew that stardom was on the horizon.

Ganglands, Jim Brown and a bike ride to Berkeley

A gangland undesirable wanted to do DeSean Jackson a favor.

Heading into his freshman year at Cal, Jackson didn’t have a car to take to school nor the means to buy one. Seeing an opportunity the shady character stepped in, and offered his vehicle free of charge.

His father – the late Bill Jackson – was concerned, and sought the counsel of a local writer whom he had grown tight with. It was suggested that DeSean go speak with Jim Brown, and a meeting was soon arranged.

It is through this meeting that the Jackson family connected with Mike Ladge, senior vice president of investments at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney who oversees the finances of some entertainment luminaries.

According to Ladge, Brown told Jackson: “OK you can take the car if you want it, but you’ve got to think – if it is ever found out that the car was bought with drug money, are you willing to throw away your college career over a vehicle?”

Jackson ended up riding his bicycle around Berkeley that fall.

“It was hard growing up in a gang-proven town and it was even harder to stay away from that environment,” said Jackson. “It was more difficult to make it to the NFL. Lucky for me I had a strong mom and dad to keep me grounded and focused. I’m successful because I was able to stay away from that environment and work hard to make my dreams come true.”

Jackson was able to make it out of Cal clean and debt free. And even without the big pay day to date, he is more than comfortable financially thanks in large part to the guidance of Ladge and Compass Management (More on them later).

He is one of the lucky ones.

Many of the future stars get sucked into the underworld of collegiate sports, where “financial advisors” dig their claws into an athlete with the lure of money now while they await their first big pay day. Before his first NFL check is even cashed a player can be in debt upwards of six figures. Best-case scenario, he starts his career having to fight out of a financial hole. Worst-case, an injury or other unforeseen circumstance prevents his first pay day from ever happening.

Of course, the greed often comes from within as well.

“I’ll have players that tell me, ‘I want to get a credit line; I want to go to Hawaii; I want a Mercedes,’ ” said Ladge. “I say, ‘You are not going to spend a dime until you get signed. You’ve been broke for 22 years. Suck it up another six months.’ But most aren’t willing to do that.”

Riches to rags

The poor decision-making and mismanagement only begin on the collegiate level.

The statistic is downright alarming: By the time they are out of the game for two years, 78 percent of NFL players are bankrupt or financially distressed.

Many fall victim to the same type of sharks who feasted on them in college. There are countless stories of money being funneled out of a player’s account without his consent, and scams that have players invest in a business that does not even exist.

“People see them as uneducated targets and they take advantage,” said Daniel Sillman, founder of Compass Management Group, which safeguards athletes through a comprehensive service ranging from financial management to marketing. Both Graham – a college friend of Sillman’s – and Jackson are under Compass’ stewardship.

Sillman explains that players are led to believe that having a financial advisor is protection enough, when in reality all that does is guarantee that your money will be played in the market. Compass’ goal is to provide a business management platform that covers tax-planning, estate-planning, trust work and education funds, for starters. Essentially, all the benefits usually allotted to the wealthy, which are inexplicably all but absent in the juggernaut NFL world.

“I will ask a client, ‘Alright, how old do you want to live to be?’ ” said Sillman. “And they will just about always say, ‘100’. I will say, ‘Alright, we have to assume that this is the only contract you will ever get. You’re 25. Let’s spread the wealth out over 75 years. All of a sudden, they say, ‘Wow. I don’t have much money.’ ”

Most don’t get that message, or simply don’t want to hear it.

A new age

The concept that the money you make in the NFL should carry you for a lifetime is a new one.

Former Eagles running back Keith Byars, for example, started working two years after his retirement in 1998. He is now the head football coach at Boca Raton High School in Florida. When Philly Sports Daily caught up with him he was swamped, his office that day filled with college coaches as he worked to find homes for his players.

“I was born 10 years too soon,” he joked.

Byars, selected 10th overall in the ‘86 draft, inked a four-year deal worth under $2 million, he said. To contrast, Graham – the 13th overall selection by the Eagles in 2010 – signed a five-year contract worth a reported $22 million.

“Less than two million over four years, that didn’t set me up for life – it gave me a great start on life,” said Byars. “I have to work.”

Byars has a unique perspective on the current NFL environment because he was a second-year player during the strike in ’87. That year, the league was forced to cancel one week of the season, and played three more with replacement players.

“We sacrificed a quarter of our paychecks that season,” Byars said. “Is anyone today willing to sacrifice a quarter of their paychecks? I don’t think so.”

Still, many of the same vulnerabilities existed in that era as they do now. A lot of the players crossed the picket lines and played on the “scab” teams. The union was ultimately broken because of one major factor – money.

“Players become dependent on checks every two weeks that have a whole lot of zeros,” said Byars. “The owners are banking on that.”

In Mom We Trust

There are those who spend lavishly, and those who are like Graham that try and not spend at all. In fact, he doesn’t even like to splurge on food, and instead has his mom cook for him every night.

She is part of a small nucleus of people around Graham that he knows he can trust. The Detroit native has seen the way the behavior of some friends and family members have changed since he began earning an NFL wage. It has gotten to the point where he can’t hang out in certain crowds like he used to, because the only topic that will be discussed is the money in his bank account.

“People say that we change when we get to this level, but it’s the people that are changing,” said Graham. “People have the wrong idea of how they think we’re living out here.”

From loved ones to strangers; entourage members to former lovers; there is a long line of people who are looking to dip their hand into the Armani pockets of these athletes.

And as Graham has discovered, sometimes the digging comes from within their own locker rooms.

“Some guys still think like a kid, like nothing bad can happen to you and somebody is going to help you,” said Graham.

“I only give out money I am not expecting to get back. I don’t want to create no monster.”
Those poor players; why would anyone take a job where you aren't garuanteed financial stability 2 years after you leave it.
 
Money management 101 should be a core requirement for every college athlete in their freshman year...and they should actually have to attend the class.

Maybe it could be paired with NCAA eligibility rules, but then Cam Newton and half the Ohio State football team couldn't have claimed ignorance and played in their bowl games...

 
Money management 101 should be a core requirement for every college athlete in their freshman year...and they should actually have to attend the class. Maybe it could be paired with NCAA eligibility rules, but then Cam Newton and half the Ohio State football team couldn't have claimed ignorance and played in their bowl games...
Does this include the 99+% that aren't going to be professional athletes?
 
Money management 101 should be a core requirement for every college athlete in their freshman year...and they should actually have to attend the class. Maybe it could be paired with NCAA eligibility rules, but then Cam Newton and half the Ohio State football team couldn't have claimed ignorance and played in their bowl games...
Does this include the 99+% that aren't going to be professional athletes?
Of course. Everyone should know how to handle their money and the vast majority of Americans have no clue. There should be courses in HS but everyone should have a requirement in college.
 
Everyone should know how to handle their money and the vast majority of Americans have no clue.
If you used outlandish hyperbole does it help to convince someone else you're right in this assertion? I would argue you are very wrong here. The vast majority of Americans don't end up in the poorhouse.
 
Everyone should know how to handle their money and the vast majority of Americans have no clue.
If you used outlandish hyperbole does it help to convince someone else you're right in this assertion? I would argue you are very wrong here. The vast majority of Americans don't end up in the poorhouse.
Only because the current workforce will not have enough $ to retire. Current retireees mostly have pensions of some sort. THus they aren't in the poorhouse. Once the 401k'ers try to retire, watch how quickly they eat up that 401k.Even the Suzy Orman creature told someone the other day that they have to keep working. That woman had $760000 in a 401k and thought she could retire. Better have about 2-3 million. How many of you are on that pace. Hello poorhouse. It's coming.

 
Everyone should know how to handle their money and the vast majority of Americans have no clue.
If you used outlandish hyperbole does it help to convince someone else you're right in this assertion? I would argue you are very wrong here. The vast majority of Americans don't end up in the poorhouse.
Outlandish hyperbole should not but my 10 year of experience in retail banking in which my job was working with customers and their money as well as a huge amount of evidence such as this article:
Shocking Facts About Americans Personal Finances

March 4, 2011 by

Filed under Personal Finance

The majority of our high schools, colleges and even graduate schools don't have a course teaching the really needed skill of personal finances. This is the reason why most Americans never took this kind of training and don't know how to handle their personal finances. I have read about high school principals saying that this kind of knowledge doesn't help the students on their preparation for the real world.

And when some school do provide some kind of personal finance class, it is more probable to be related with economics. There are a few lucky people that get the opportunity to study with great success the financial basics reading some books, doing internet research or talking to friends illustrated on that matter. But sadly, there are others that never do or they do it the tough way losing their money and assets. This deficiency in personal finances education causes severe problems and concern on the individuals. Next I will present some facts about personal finance that will shock you:

United States, one of the most economically powerful countries in the world, is actually having filled near 1.5 million personal bankruptcies annually, which represents almost 1 in every 80 households. This means in the next 10 years, almost 10% of all households will fil bankruptcy.

If you ask American adults about 401(k), less than 10 percent of them understand it well enough to explain it to another person. And when we go to a municipal bond, less than 1 in four will do it.

Twenty five percent of the adults between the ages of 35 and 54 have not yet started to save for retirement and studies show that only one fifth of baby boomers are saving correctly for retirement.

Financial stress is one of the main reasons for marital problems. And remember that one of every two marriages ends in separation in America.

Do you know how the grace period on a credit card works? Almost 80% of American consumers don't know it. And even more people doesn't get that credit card interest starts accumulating straightaway on any purchase when you have a credit card with already outstanding debts.

On a test made by a well-known Survey company, almost 35 percent of the individuals who took the test responded correctly less than 50 percent of the questions. These outcomes become shocking when you discover that the questions only had two or three multiple choice answers!

A little more than half of the people who took a multiple choice investing test didn't know that when you need to know the best measure of a mutual fund's return you have to look at their total return.

There are huge consequences in our society because of this lack of personal finance knowledge. People spend too much money year after year buying inefficient and low quality financial products and all this lower the long term economic growth of the country. People just spend too much but save too low!
or
Are You Saving Enough for Retirement?

Mar 17 2011, 1:47 AM ET By Daniel Indiviglio

Even with Social Security, most Americans need to save well in excess of 5% of our income. But we don't.

How much money are you saving for retirement? If you're a savvy saver, then you know one of the best ways to do so is to have some percentage of each paycheck automatically placed into a savings plan. You can often defer paying taxes on savings that way, and some companies even match some portion of your savings in a 401(k) or other retirement plan. But how much of each paycheck should you be saving to retire at a reasonable age? Unfortunately, the number is different for everyone, but there's little doubt that most Americans aren't saving enough.

It always helps to think about saving with some historical context. Here's a chart showing the portion of personal income that Americans have saved since 1959, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis:

Link to Article with Graph

You can see that saving grew to be at or above 8% until the 1980s. During that decade it declined to around 6%, before moving to 4% in the 1990s. In the last decade, it went even lower, but has rebounded recently, settling at around 5%.

Through a little financial analysis, it's pretty clear that this 5% savings rate is woefully inadequate for most Americans, no matter what career stage they are in, if they hope that savings will produce an adequate income after the age of 65. Social Security may help, but necessary deficit cutting over the next several years could dampen its impact. Even at Social Security's current rate, however, most Americans need to save well in excess of 5%.

The Money Report

How much you need to save is determined by a number of variables. First, it depends on your age, when you intend to retire, and how many years you estimate you will live. You also need to decide how much money you want your savings to provide each year during retirement. Then, you must make assumptions about the rate of inflation and the rate of return on your savings.

So how much you should save can't be summed up in a quick article, because it's different for everyone. But let's consider an example to get an idea of a minimum that might be required. So we'll start with a 22-year-old college grade named Fred. He just got a job making $50,000 -- the average starting salary this year for college grads, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers. Fred wants to retire when he's 65 years old. He also wants his retirement income derived from savings to match his starting income out of college, after adjusting for inflation. Now let's make some assumptions about the future:

1) Inflation will be 3.5% per year (reasonable, as it's been 3.7% since 1950).

2) His compensation will increase by 3.5% per year, on average (reasonable, since average wage growth has virtually matched inflation since 1979).

3) He will invest in the S&P500, which will average a nominal 7.5% annual return on his savings (a favorable assumption, as the index has averaged 7.4% annually since 1959, but U.S. growth will likely be a little slower going forward).

4) He will live to be 85 years old.

Next, we have to estimate how much Fred will be provided by Social Security. Luckily, there's an easy way to estimate this through a government website. In 2054 dollars (when he will retire), Social Security would provide an initial annual benefit of $89,508. In 2011 dollars, that would be $18,372 -- about 37% of $50,000 income wants. He must get the rest from his personal savings.

So what constant portion of his paycheck must he save for those 43 years, from when he first joins the workforce, to achieve his goal? He must save somewhere between 8% and 9% of his gross income.

That doesn't sound too drastic, but it's still far more than the average saving rate in the U.S. And it's probably something of a minimum. It uses some very generous assumptions. For example, if you take Social Security out of the equation, his savings rate would have to be 15%. So if its impact is lessened, then his saving would have to be somewhere between 9% and 15%.

This analysis also assumes his saving's investment will grow at a brisk 7.5% per year. If it only averages 6% growth, then his savings rate would need to approach 14%. If his rate of return only matches inflation at 3.5%, then his savings rate would have to be a whopping 30%.

The example above also assumes that he begins saving the moment he enters the workforce and that he never deviates from his savings rate. Many young people do not save much immediately, particularly if they have big college loans to pay back. And if a person experiences a period of unemployment as some point in his or her life, that not only prevents saving for a period of time, but the hardship might also cause the person to dip into savings to cover daily expenses until new work is found.

Although determining how much you must save takes some mathematical know-how, these days there are a number of websites that can help you create an estimate. One can be found at choosetosave.org. It has a pretty good ballpark estimator that matches up closely with the model that I created independently. It's also quite versatile, so most people will find it useful.

In a consumerist society, it always seems like there's a cool new gadget to buy or nicer car you want. But resistance has its benefits. Saving now can allow for more leisure later. And by having money automatically deducted from your paycheck, you might not miss it as much as you would think.
or a billion others out there. Now, it may help you to notice that I did not say that majority of Americans end in the poorhouse. However, that does not mean that the majority of Americans have satisfactory skills in money management. A big chunk of Americans simply live paycheck to paycheck and hope for no major changes in life. The big difference with these football players is that they are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions and they live a lifestyle of one that they are going to get paid hundreds of thousands to millions for the rest of their life but their careers are a few years. After football, most of their earning potential is extremely limited and their lifestyles don't change as fast. Thus, the high rate. If you threw all of America into the same situation, the rate would be nearly as high if not as high.

Argue all you want but you are wrong. The knowledge of how to manage money in America is woeful.

 
Everyone should know how to handle their money and the vast majority of Americans have no clue.
If you used outlandish hyperbole does it help to convince someone else you're right in this assertion? I would argue you are very wrong here. The vast majority of Americans don't end up in the poorhouse.
Outlandish hyperbole should not but my 10 year of experience in retail banking in which my job was working with customers and their money as well as a huge amount of evidence such as this article:
Shocking Facts About Americans Personal Finances

March 4, 2011 by

Filed under Personal Finance

The majority of our high schools, colleges and even graduate schools don't have a course teaching the really needed skill of personal finances. This is the reason why most Americans never took this kind of training and don't know how to handle their personal finances. I have read about high school principals saying that this kind of knowledge doesn't help the students on their preparation for the real world.

And when some school do provide some kind of personal finance class, it is more probable to be related with economics. There are a few lucky people that get the opportunity to study with great success the financial basics reading some books, doing internet research or talking to friends illustrated on that matter. But sadly, there are others that never do or they do it the tough way losing their money and assets. This deficiency in personal finances education causes severe problems and concern on the individuals. Next I will present some facts about personal finance that will shock you:

United States, one of the most economically powerful countries in the world, is actually having filled near 1.5 million personal bankruptcies annually, which represents almost 1 in every 80 households. This means in the next 10 years, almost 10% of all households will fil bankruptcy.

If you ask American adults about 401(k), less than 10 percent of them understand it well enough to explain it to another person. And when we go to a municipal bond, less than 1 in four will do it.

Twenty five percent of the adults between the ages of 35 and 54 have not yet started to save for retirement and studies show that only one fifth of baby boomers are saving correctly for retirement.

Financial stress is one of the main reasons for marital problems. And remember that one of every two marriages ends in separation in America.

Do you know how the grace period on a credit card works? Almost 80% of American consumers don't know it. And even more people doesn't get that credit card interest starts accumulating straightaway on any purchase when you have a credit card with already outstanding debts.

On a test made by a well-known Survey company, almost 35 percent of the individuals who took the test responded correctly less than 50 percent of the questions. These outcomes become shocking when you discover that the questions only had two or three multiple choice answers!

A little more than half of the people who took a multiple choice investing test didn't know that when you need to know the best measure of a mutual fund's return you have to look at their total return.

There are huge consequences in our society because of this lack of personal finance knowledge. People spend too much money year after year buying inefficient and low quality financial products and all this lower the long term economic growth of the country. People just spend too much but save too low!
or
Are You Saving Enough for Retirement?

Mar 17 2011, 1:47 AM ET By Daniel Indiviglio

Even with Social Security, most Americans need to save well in excess of 5% of our income. But we don't.

How much money are you saving for retirement? If you're a savvy saver, then you know one of the best ways to do so is to have some percentage of each paycheck automatically placed into a savings plan. You can often defer paying taxes on savings that way, and some companies even match some portion of your savings in a 401(k) or other retirement plan. But how much of each paycheck should you be saving to retire at a reasonable age? Unfortunately, the number is different for everyone, but there's little doubt that most Americans aren't saving enough.

It always helps to think about saving with some historical context. Here's a chart showing the portion of personal income that Americans have saved since 1959, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis:

Link to Article with Graph

You can see that saving grew to be at or above 8% until the 1980s. During that decade it declined to around 6%, before moving to 4% in the 1990s. In the last decade, it went even lower, but has rebounded recently, settling at around 5%.

Through a little financial analysis, it's pretty clear that this 5% savings rate is woefully inadequate for most Americans, no matter what career stage they are in, if they hope that savings will produce an adequate income after the age of 65. Social Security may help, but necessary deficit cutting over the next several years could dampen its impact. Even at Social Security's current rate, however, most Americans need to save well in excess of 5%.

The Money Report

How much you need to save is determined by a number of variables. First, it depends on your age, when you intend to retire, and how many years you estimate you will live. You also need to decide how much money you want your savings to provide each year during retirement. Then, you must make assumptions about the rate of inflation and the rate of return on your savings.

So how much you should save can't be summed up in a quick article, because it's different for everyone. But let's consider an example to get an idea of a minimum that might be required. So we'll start with a 22-year-old college grade named Fred. He just got a job making $50,000 -- the average starting salary this year for college grads, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers. Fred wants to retire when he's 65 years old. He also wants his retirement income derived from savings to match his starting income out of college, after adjusting for inflation. Now let's make some assumptions about the future:

1) Inflation will be 3.5% per year (reasonable, as it's been 3.7% since 1950).

2) His compensation will increase by 3.5% per year, on average (reasonable, since average wage growth has virtually matched inflation since 1979).

3) He will invest in the S&P500, which will average a nominal 7.5% annual return on his savings (a favorable assumption, as the index has averaged 7.4% annually since 1959, but U.S. growth will likely be a little slower going forward).

4) He will live to be 85 years old.

Next, we have to estimate how much Fred will be provided by Social Security. Luckily, there's an easy way to estimate this through a government website. In 2054 dollars (when he will retire), Social Security would provide an initial annual benefit of $89,508. In 2011 dollars, that would be $18,372 -- about 37% of $50,000 income wants. He must get the rest from his personal savings.

So what constant portion of his paycheck must he save for those 43 years, from when he first joins the workforce, to achieve his goal? He must save somewhere between 8% and 9% of his gross income.

That doesn't sound too drastic, but it's still far more than the average saving rate in the U.S. And it's probably something of a minimum. It uses some very generous assumptions. For example, if you take Social Security out of the equation, his savings rate would have to be 15%. So if its impact is lessened, then his saving would have to be somewhere between 9% and 15%.

This analysis also assumes his saving's investment will grow at a brisk 7.5% per year. If it only averages 6% growth, then his savings rate would need to approach 14%. If his rate of return only matches inflation at 3.5%, then his savings rate would have to be a whopping 30%.

The example above also assumes that he begins saving the moment he enters the workforce and that he never deviates from his savings rate. Many young people do not save much immediately, particularly if they have big college loans to pay back. And if a person experiences a period of unemployment as some point in his or her life, that not only prevents saving for a period of time, but the hardship might also cause the person to dip into savings to cover daily expenses until new work is found.

Although determining how much you must save takes some mathematical know-how, these days there are a number of websites that can help you create an estimate. One can be found at choosetosave.org. It has a pretty good ballpark estimator that matches up closely with the model that I created independently. It's also quite versatile, so most people will find it useful.

In a consumerist society, it always seems like there's a cool new gadget to buy or nicer car you want. But resistance has its benefits. Saving now can allow for more leisure later. And by having money automatically deducted from your paycheck, you might not miss it as much as you would think.
or a billion others out there. Now, it may help you to notice that I did not say that majority of Americans end in the poorhouse. However, that does not mean that the majority of Americans have satisfactory skills in money management. A big chunk of Americans simply live paycheck to paycheck and hope for no major changes in life. The big difference with these football players is that they are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions and they live a lifestyle of one that they are going to get paid hundreds of thousands to millions for the rest of their life but their careers are a few years. After football, most of their earning potential is extremely limited and their lifestyles don't change as fast. Thus, the high rate. If you threw all of America into the same situation, the rate would be nearly as high if not as high.

Argue all you want but you are wrong. The knowledge of how to manage money in America is woeful.
Agreed and it is a fact.
 
Agreed and it is a fact.
I take Hoopers silence as agreement as well. ;)
Hardly. What's the point of having a conversation with Ricky Bobby logic? If someone doesn't meet your personal standard for financial aptitude they have no clue.
So your standard of financial aptitude is not going bankrupt? What exactly are you saying? What evidence do you have to support it? What expertise do you have or what experts can you show saying otherwise? You throw out this Ricky Bobby crap but all you have pretty much said is 'nah uh times infinity'. :rolleyes:
 
So your standard of financial aptitude is not going bankrupt?
Of course you would say that. Just as I pointed out your initial hyperbole, I can point it out here too. You don't seem to be able to engage in conversation without immediately going to extremes.
What exactly are you saying?
In my opinion NFL players are very different than average citizens in this country. To compare the two groups is folly. You opted to engage in meaningless hyperbole. Why? Who knows? Its pointless. Fine. Define your terms.1. What is a "vast majority of Americans"?2. What does it mean to "have no clue"?
 
So your standard of financial aptitude is not going bankrupt?
Of course you would say that. Just as I pointed out your initial hyperbole, I can point it out here too. You don't seem to be able to engage in conversation without immediately going to extremes.
What exactly are you saying?
In my opinion NFL players are very different than average citizens in this country. To compare the two groups is folly. You opted to engage in meaningless hyperbole. Why? Who knows? Its pointless. Fine. Define your terms.1. What is a "vast majority of Americans"?2. What does it mean to "have no clue"?
I will answer your questions once you answer mine. You have yet to offer anything in terms of an argument. You just keep saying 'nah, your wrong and I am not even going to discuss it.' Well, present your argument. Give me something other than harping on hyperbole. The only difference for NFL players as a group vs the average American citizen is the huge jump of income and huge decrease of income in their 20's. Their money management knowledge and skills is roughly about the same as your typical citizen. Again, you can see this over and over again with many articles, polls, studies, etc that will back that up. I presented two that were published recently with a short google search, there is a mountain of objective evidence to back me up. I further have experience in this subject as a professional in the financial industry and my personal experience in this capacity further backs this up. You have yet to present anything to show that Americans have satisfactory money management skills. You ignore facts pointed out in one article like: -1.5 million personal bankruptcies annually, which represents almost 1 in every 80 households. This means in the next 10 years, almost 10% of all households will fil bankruptcy.-Asking Americans about 401k's, less than 10 percent of them understand it well enough to explain it to another person. And when we go to a municipal bond, less than 1 in four will do it.-Twenty five percent of the adults between the ages of 35 and 54 have not yet started to save for retirement and studies show that only one fifth of baby boomers are saving correctly for retirement.-Almost 80% of American consumers don't know how credit card grace periods work. Come on guy. Quit your hyperbole and Ricky Bobby logic remarks and actually present something. Anything.
 
Say hello to Warren Sapp.

AP reports former Tampa Bay Buccaneers DT Warren Sapp has filed for bankruptcy in South Florida.

According to the docs, Sapp owes more than $6.7 million to various creditors, including hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support payments and alimony to at least 4 different women. :bag:

Among the debts, Sapp says he owes $853,000 to the IRS for 2006 and another $89,000 for 2010.

Owns 200+ pairs of Jordan sneakers. :lmao: Loser! Man these guys are dumb.

 
Say hello to Warren Sapp.

AP reports former Tampa Bay Buccaneers DT Warren Sapp has filed for bankruptcy in South Florida.

According to the docs, Sapp owes more than $6.7 million to various creditors, including hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support payments and alimony to at least 4 different women. :bag:

Among the debts, Sapp says he owes $853,000 to the IRS for 2006 and another $89,000 for 2010.

Owns 200+ pairs of Jordan sneakers. :lmao: Loser! Man these guys are dumb.
They aren't the brightest, but those child support and alimony payments are ridiculous. Some states have pretty terrible laws in that area.
 
Say hello to Warren Sapp.

AP reports former Tampa Bay Buccaneers DT Warren Sapp has filed for bankruptcy in South Florida.

According to the docs, Sapp owes more than $6.7 million to various creditors, including hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support payments and alimony to at least 4 different women. :bag:

Among the debts, Sapp says he owes $853,000 to the IRS for 2006 and another $89,000 for 2010.

Owns 200+ pairs of Jordan sneakers. :lmao: Loser! Man these guys are dumb.
They aren't the brightest, but those child support and alimony payments are ridiculous. Some states have pretty terrible laws in that area.
I typically agree with you but if a guy owns 200+ pair of shoes...he deserves whatever stupid tax you can possibly lay onto him.
 
I typically agree with you but if a guy owns 200+ pair of shoes...he deserves whatever stupid tax you can possibly lay onto him.

? The guy was ambitious all his life, working hard on becoming a top athlete, where he got paid MILLIONS of dollars. what is 200+ shoes to someone that has millions? It is such a little amount that it is obvious to anyone that isn't covetous that it had nothing to do with him going broke, but you go ahead and applaud all the worthless taxes.

 
Maybe it's been mentioned but got to think a guy who played one year in the league as oppossed to three plus years in the league is in a different position financially. Probably still bad but would like to see the stats on guys who played three years in the league. Three years in the league figure you are making 1mill+ total and taking home 600k.

Got to think these stats get useless when we include guys who played two games.

Guy makes a million dollars what are the stats? That's what I want to know.

 
How did they arrive at that number?
I don't understand why the league and union together don't partner to do the following:1) Host mandatory rookie seminars on financial investment and planning2) Provide league and union approved financial planners to give individual advice. This way they won't get swindled at least.3) Require that players contribute 4% of salary, with a 4% match by teams, to fund a league pension plan.Problem solved.
 
if warren sapp is in the poorhouse with 6m in reported assets and 200+ pair of nikes, I wish I could rent a room there.

A bad week for NFL analyst Warren Sapp was tipped to get worse, with a report indicating the bankrupt former defensive tackle will be ditched from his TV analyst gig.

The NFL Network was expected to drop Sapp in the wake of his comments over the Saints bounty scandal, The Boston Globe reported Sunday, citing two league sources.

Sapp, who reportedly filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in Florida amid debts of up to $6.7 million,

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top