What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Ozark on Netflix (2 Viewers)

Really good show so far. Just finished the season today. Like has been said, not the best show ever, and nothing like Breaking Bad (despite some reviews making comparisons), but still really good.  I'm sold for the next season. :yes:  

 
I was mostly making a pun on the minor eye incident between Del and his previous golf and wife cheating money launderer that Marty replaced.

While I wouldn't call it the best one, I liked the flashback episode and thought it provided a good foundation and backstory.
It wasn't just about the plot details for me.  I thought it was a really well done episode

I liked the time jumping, with the context cluing you in to the time period as the scene developed.  Also while I know they did the circular intro thing (where the first scene of the episode is actually the beginning of the last scene of the episode) in several episodes I thought it was done by far the best in the flashback episode.  The Buddy Holly monologue that was a bit of a narrative about the show, then finishing with the complete scene and the conversation that led to that dialogue, the now known implications of the crash, and the cut to the other driver with the same Buddy Holly song playing.

There were also some nice touches and callbacks through the episode, like Louis' eyes which I assume are the ones that Wendy opened in the package from Del a few episodes back.

 
Really enjoyed season 1, aside from ep8. The jumping all around was annoying. 

The season finale was awesome. 

 
It wasn't just about the plot details for me.  I thought it was a really well done episode

I liked the time jumping, with the context cluing you in to the time period as the scene developed.  Also while I know they did the circular intro thing (where the first scene of the episode is actually the beginning of the last scene of the episode) in several episodes I thought it was done by far the best in the flashback episode.  The Buddy Holly monologue that was a bit of a narrative about the show, then finishing with the complete scene and the conversation that led to that dialogue, the now known implications of the crash, and the cut to the other driver with the same Buddy Holly song playing.

There were also some nice touches and callbacks through the episode, like Louis' eyes which I assume are the ones that Wendy opened in the package from Del a few episodes back.
But what was the point of gay FBI guy's mom and her "issues"? Character development to show why he is how he is?

It just seemed unnecessary. 

Regarding the back story for Marty, I did/do feel a lot less bad for them after that episode.

 
Finished this last night. Solid show and agree with some eye roll moments but still good. Looking forward to next season.

 
How do you launder money by inflating your expenses?  How does buying more carpet and more AC units end up as clean cash in a bank account?   
I think the idea is that it makes it seem like the business is bringing in more money than it really is. If your expenses are $500k instead of $100k, it should follow that the business is raking in a lot more to cover the higher expenses. I'm just guessing though.

 
How do you launder money by inflating your expenses?  How does buying more carpet and more AC units end up as clean cash in a bank account?   
Good question  :confused:

Maybe the inflated expenses are used as tax breaks against inflated income, resulting in lower taxes against the inflated income.  

Then the income goes into the bank as clean money.

 
One other criticism I forgot about

Why do we have to have a some psycho, ego-maniac, sociopathic FBI Agent or cop in every show like this?


That trope seems extremely played out to this point.
Yeah, they're usually only one of the three (usually the 2nd or 3rd); being all 3 is somewhat rare.

 
How do you launder money by inflating your expenses?  How does buying more carpet and more AC units end up as clean cash in a bank account?   
He's not actually buying that carpet/AC units.  He's creating fictitious expenses for tax purposes.  If his strip club has 500k in a year of revenue, but also has 450k in "expenses", he claims the profit was only 50k, and only has to pay taxes on that amount.

 
As for how inflating expenses helps launder money:

-You've got to own all of the businesses in question (which they do).

-Business 1 (hotel) shows more income than is legit...paid for with cash from renters, which is deposited into the bank.

-To keep from showing an insane profit, they show high expenses in the form of upgrades and remodeling materials that never actually exist (or are much cheaper than shown).

-Those actual payments are then made from the bank of the first company into the bank of the second company who is a construction company.  Boom, cash is legitimately in the system.

-Then presumably the cash in the construction company is then "paid" to the drug cartels dummy company, a construction material supplier for materials that are never actually sent (or much cheaper material or lower quantities is actually sent).  If you can base this company and the materials out of Mexico, it is probably difficult for the IRS to verify or invalidate those purchases.

I'm not 100% sure, but that's how I'd do it if I was running this thing.  Obviously, the paperwork is the key.  Showing all of the shipping documents, invoices, and payment receipts for all of the companies is the paper trail necessary to legitimize it all.

If I was doing it, I'd have paper trails a mile long through multiple states showing company A owns company B who owns company C, all in different states with as many illegitimate addresses as I could get away with.

 
my memory is terrible, but I'm pretty sure this happened...

his partner at the cafe/dock/hotel took all that cash, right? that should go well.
 
Ned said:
Who else had no idea that was his wife he was watching and not some random pron? :bag:  
Had no idea.  I kept wondering why he kept watching this one clip obsessively.  Then, "ah."

 
The writing wasn't good.  It was all too convenient to drive the story but not really well thought out.

The acting was great however.  Some great performances throughout and the best was Julia Garner/Ruth Langmore, nailed that trailer park girl.

I almost gave up midway through due to the writing, glad I finished but not sure if I would watch season 2.

 
The writing wasn't good.  It was all too convenient to drive the story but not really well thought out.

The acting was great however.  Some great performances throughout and the best was Julia Garner/Ruth Langmore, nailed that trailer park girl.

I almost gave up midway through due to the writing, glad I finished but not sure if I would watch season 2.
Which parts of the writing didn't you like?

 
The writing wasn't good.  It was all too convenient to drive the story but not really well thought out.

The acting was great however.  Some great performances throughout and the best was Julia Garner/Ruth Langmore, nailed that trailer park girl.

I almost gave up midway through due to the writing, glad I finished but not sure if I would watch season 2.
Completely agree, especially on Ruth. What a great actress. And yeah, there are huge plot holes everywhere. But it's got suspense, eye candy with the daughter, and boats/lake scenes. I'm in for season 2.

 
The writing wasn't good.  It was all too convenient to drive the story but not really well thought out.

The acting was great however.  Some great performances throughout and the best was Julia Garner/Ruth Langmore, nailed that trailer park girl.

I almost gave up midway through due to the writing, glad I finished but not sure if I would watch season 2.
The writing was incredibly lazy, but they peppered in some nice zingers every now and then.

Agree on the acting.  Even the kids do a good job.

 
Can someone explain the money laundering aspect - asking for a friend.

I don't understand how inflating expenses allows money to be laundered.  Seems like you need to inflate revenue to get the cash into the banking system :shrug:

ETA - nevermind - see the post above - but I did not see that Marty had acquired the other businesses.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can someone explain the money laundering aspect - asking for a friend.

I don't understand how inflating expenses allows money to be laundered.  Seems like you need to inflate revenue to get the cash into the banking system :shrug:

ETA - nevermind - see the post above - but I did not see that Marty had acquired the other businesses.
I mostly get the concept, but it seems mind-bogglingly complicated, and impossible to do it on such a large scale with relatively low-revenue businesses like strip clubs and marinas in hickville. 

 
Can someone explain the money laundering aspect - asking for a friend.

I don't understand how inflating expenses allows money to be laundered.  Seems like you need to inflate revenue to get the cash into the banking system :shrug:

ETA - nevermind - see the post above - but I did not see that Marty had acquired the other businesses.
I mostly get the concept, but it seems mind-bogglingly complicated, and impossible to do it on such a large scale with relatively low-revenue businesses like strip clubs and marinas in hickville. 
yeah. this.

and also his attempts at throwing money around to all the local businesses which somehow didn't raise any flags either.

 
yeah. this.

and also his attempts at throwing money around to all the local businesses which somehow didn't raise any flags either.
:confused:

He was trying to become a partner in the businesses so he could utilize them to launder more money.  He would pay for the "upgrades" and manage the finances for them in exchange for a portion of the "profits".  I can't remember if there was an expected % cost to the laundering or not.  Normally, there would have to be some usage of the cash for actual purchases, etc.  No way could you funnel 100% without having something already established that could handle that volume of cash.

 
:confused:

He was trying to become a partner in the businesses so he could utilize them to launder more money.  He would pay for the "upgrades" and manage the finances for them in exchange for a portion of the "profits".  I can't remember if there was an expected % cost to the laundering or not.  Normally, there would have to be some usage of the cash for actual purchases, etc.  No way could you funnel 100% without having something already established that could handle that volume of cash.
Of course. I didn't buy all of his approaches not raising red flags in the community.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top