Where ya getting that at?This statement could probably apply to about 70 percent of the league......
Where ya getting that at?This statement could probably apply to about 70 percent of the league......
Maybe the fact of 78 % of players are broke 2 years after retirement.Where ya getting that at?
That seems like an awfully high numberMaybe the fact of 78 % of players are broke 2 years after retirement.
I have to meet somebody or have seen them talk before I can judge their intellect.Maybe the fact of 78 % of players are broke 2 years after retirement.
It's according to a 2009 survey.That seems like an awfully high number
bucksoh said:Maybe the fact of 78 % of players are broke 2 years after retirement.
Classic example of statistics being used to tell a narrative.Andy Dufresne said:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_finances_of_professional_American_athletes
According to a 2009 Sports Illustrated article, 78% of National Football League (NFL) players are either bankrupt or are under financial stress within two years of retirement and an estimated 60% of National Basketball Association (NBA) players go bankrupt within five years after leaving their sport.[1]
Classic example of statistics being used to tell a narrative.
A Fortune magazine article states, however, that a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the percentage of NFL players who go bankrupt after two years is a much smaller 1.9%, climbing to 15.7% after 12 years.[4]
The clause "or under financial stress" is ambiguous at best". If you aren't at least toeing that "financial stress" line you probably aren't having enough fun in life. And that doesn't account for the fact the average NFL player plays less than 4 years at very close to a minimum salary. That's somewhere around $2M total earnings, so somewhere around $1M in-pocket. Not to excuse it, but given the company the keep and the life they are exposed to, it's got to be very easy to spend a large chunk of $250k per year just keeping up appearances - nice car to drive to work, nice clothes for travel and game day, decent house that you can at least invite high-roller peers to and not get laughed at.
that he isnt too bright. forgot to quote...what's the big news? :whoosh:
We might get some new Hill news soon....KCTV5 News @KCTV5
.@Chiefs star Tyreek Hill heads to court and only KCTV5 News was there. The exclusive story tonight at 5.
Classic example of statistics being used to tell a narrative.
A Fortune magazine article states, however, that a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the percentage of NFL players who go bankrupt after two years is a much smaller 1.9%, climbing to 15.7% after 12 years.[4]
The clause "or under financial stress" is ambiguous at best". If you aren't at least toeing that "financial stress" line you probably aren't having enough fun in life. And that doesn't account for the fact the average NFL player plays less than 4 years at very close to a minimum salary. That's somewhere around $2M total earnings, so somewhere around $1M in-pocket. Not to excuse it, but given the company the keep and the life they are exposed to, it's got to be very easy to spend a large chunk of $250k per year just keeping up appearances - nice car to drive to work, nice clothes for travel and game day, decent house that you can at least invite high-roller peers to and not get laughed at.
It seems odd that only that one local news station is running the story and it's a "teaser" to get you to tune in at 5:00. For all we know it could be jury duty.Court? So he IS being charged?
Not necessarily. I was charged and went to court for a class 4 felony 32 years ago and never went to the police station.It seems odd that only that one local news station is running the story and it's a "teaser" to get you to tune in at 5:00. For all we know it could be jury duty.
Also he wouldn't be heading to court if he was charged with a crime, he'd be heading to a police station first.
If this is accurate and Hill is an alleged perpetrator that is not good for him.
Wouldn't he be named on the citation like his fiance was if he was the perpetrator though?If this is accurate and Hill is an alleged perpetrator that is not good for him.
If the child service agency brought that case to court there is a great chance court will order services and state the child is in need of services. I have went to court hundreds of times for child services and only 1 time did the court not agree with the decision. Only one other time was a case later thrown out. You don't have to be charged criminally for child services to take you to court, in fact a majority of the cases brought court do not involve criminal charges.
All that being said, Hill could have been going to support his fiancé and have nothing to do with the report.
No. Charges and child service perpetrators could be different people. For DCS it would take someone mentioning his name and he becomes alleged perpetrator.Wouldn't he be named on the citation like his fiance was if he was the perpetrator though?
If they operate anything like Indiana everyone needs to sell their shares now.
Thanks. Good information - figured this was criminal and he’d need to be charged first but so would your felony.Not necessarily. I was charged and went to court for a class 4 felony 32 years ago and never went to the police station.
I'd personally slow down on all of that.If they operate anything like Indiana everyone needs to sell their shares now.
This means the court/child services removed the child from the parent. Removal of the child is done as a last resort when safety cannot be ensured. This means the child was deemed a child in need of services and he and the mother will be going through services. The services could last from 6 months to 2-5 years typically. If the NFL had any insight on what this means this would be very bad for his NFL status.
I work for child services and am quite familiar with the process. I am also quite familiar with the services they go through and you are selling those short. Just because criminal charges are not pressed does not mean he didn't commit this act. Child services act on preponderance of the evidence. This means more than likely the alleged perpetrators committed this act. That is why I included if the NFL has any idea what this means this is bad for him.I'd personally slow down on all of that.
I read a lot about this when the case first opened and from what I read it's rare that charges are pressed even when a child is temporarily removed from the home. Courts main goal is keeping families together and they understand some parents are overwhelmed or just not good parents and most of the time counseling and court supervision are what transpires, not criminal charges.
The child was removed from his home on April 5th per an earlier report I read. Hill has been to court multiple times since that date and in the company of Espinal.Due to both claiming no knowledge they remove the child from the home to ensure safety and that is what the court ruled today.
I trust the information I gathered and am also quite familiar with how these things transpire. I think you are jumping the gun.I work for child services and am quite familiar with the process. I am also quite familiar with the services they go through and you are selling those short. Just because criminal charges are not pressed does not mean he didn't commit this act. Child services act on preponderance of the evidence. This means more than likely the alleged perpetrators committed this act. That is why I included if the NFL has any idea what this means this is bad for him.
Removal is only done when child services cannot ensure safety of the child. I want to break down options for families before removal so we know where we are at.The child was removed from his home on April 5th per an earlier report I read. Hill has been to court multiple times since that date and in the company of Espinal.
Could you explain this. How would I be jumping the gun? my comment on sell now?I trust the information I gathered and am also quite familiar with how these things transpire. I think you are jumping the gun.
What's not to get?Could you explain this. How would I be jumping the gun? my comment on sell now?
I am explaining the process with firsthand knowledge. I dont work in the state this occurred otherwise I could speak with more confidence.What's not to get?
I am telling you I have an understanding how the process works but you think you know all and from what I gather you don't even live in Kansas.I am explaining the process with firsthand knowledge. I dont work in the state this occurred otherwise I could speak with more confidence.
I am telling you how child services operates.
You say I trust the information I gathered and I am jumping the gun. Let's dig deeper on that.
You have made quite a few leaps that I have already told you how it works, but I will directly reply line by line.1. I am telling you I have an understanding how the process works but you think you know all and from what I gather you don't even live in Kansas.
2. I've already stated that most of the time a child is removed from the home it does not result in criminal charges but instead counseling. You on the other hand think you know all and that he broke his kids arm, will get charged and we should all sale now because the NFL will hammer him all because of a process that usually does not involve a criminal charge.
3. For me this his outcome is as clear as mud, like it's been. I'm not ready to convict like you are thus the jumping the gun.
4. For the sake of this thread how about we agree to disagree.
He has been going to court with her so they don't appear to have turned on each other but we do know the investigation is still on-going. I don't think anticipate charges being filed myself, but not out of the woods on the front yet.And of course that's step one in the process.Yeah well if his wife doesn't turn on him and he doesn't confess to anything. What else could they get? It's been 40 plus days with no charges filed.
Calm down. He’s giving real life experience and has clearly said he’s not as familiar with the law in Kansas. It’s useful information for the rest of us. Ignore it if you want.I am telling you I have an understanding how the process works but you think you know all and from what I gather you don't even live in Kansas.
I'm also trying to relay useful information but ignore me if you want.Calm down. He’s giving real life experience and has clearly said he’s not as familiar with the law in Indiana. It’s useful information for the rest of us. Ignore it if you want.
They may be together now but they supposedly weren't for awhile. Whether what she told her parents etc can be used or not, I have no idea.Yeah well if his wife doesn't turn on him and he doesn't confess to anything. What else could they get? It's been 40 plus days with no charges filed.
We have had talks before, but this is not smoke without flame. If Goodell has any insight on what this means from child services perspective this would equal some type of suspension or exempt list status.I see lots of smoke and no flames at all. If i didn't own him I'd be trying to buy at the present time. That could change in the future though.
If the price is right I suppose. Certainly wouldn't give more than 50% of his prior value.I see lots of smoke and no flames at all. If i didn't own him I'd be trying to buy at the present time. That could change in the future though.
exactly why I'm being told sell sell sellWe have had talks before, but this is not smoke without flame. If Goodell has any insight on what this means from child services perspective this would equal some type of suspension or exempt list status.
Child services may not be able to pin it on T. Hill himself, but they (child services and a court system) are saying the child is not safe in his home. Think about that.