Well first of all you couldn't even get me to work for those rat bastards who run Walmart. They wouldn't want me anyway because I'd be handing out hand bills to everyone who walked through the door letting them know just how poorly they treat the employees that will soon be serving them. I'd get fired in my first hour.
So let's table that OK?
I'm sure your JD and the fact that you passed your bar exam and have a license to practice law in the courts of our fair land over qualify you for a post like that too. These guys have marketable skills. They're employable and despite what McMahon says few of them are truly broke. I don't see many of them in line for a free meal or living in a homeless shelter. Broke is a very relative term when you're talking about guys who made millions in their NFL careers.
The NFL
is doing something about current player safety so it's their complaints about how very well it was ignored in the past that's what this is all about. How much did they know and when did they know it? How long was that knowledge ignored before the NFL took action. You're and attorney. Add it up. They have a case and a good one if they can prove that the NFL willingly ignored the dangers for years and eventually we'll all find that out unless it is settled and a non-disclosure agreed upon.
I think both you and I know that a monetary settlement is what they're after. Why destroy the NFL itself. Then where would the settlement monies come from? Can't draw water from an empty well. That being the case I'd say this statement is pure nonsense. Furthermore it's totally selfish thinking and this wouldn't be your position if you represented them would it? You've sort of skirted my questions related to that and substituted answers I never asked for.
They'll probably try to go all the way with the damn thing when they should settle and in the end they'll ruin the product for me and future generations.
So just answer the questions I ask counselor. Tell me why in your opinion they wouldn't settle. If you were their attorney that's exactly what you'd be shooting for. Nobody really wins in court least of all the attorneys who actually have to work for their fee instead of just collecting one for negotiating the deal. Yeah, I realize that's taking a pot shot at your profession but it's not unwarranted or completely undeserved. I didn't just get off the boat yesterday and I've been through more than my fair share of civil actions on behalf of my clients too not to mention having to launch a few lawsuits of my own.
And I love this one;
I don't care how much they made back then, they were well paid. Even at 50,000 a year they should be fine. 50,000 to 100,000 in the 60's, 70's, and 80's makes you a top earner.
Being kind of judgmental here aren't we? That and a little confused as far as your application of mathematics. $50k in 1960 would be a fortunate income to have indeed but in 1980 it would be pretty much middle income. In 1982 I made around $35k. Certainly no great fortune that would have permitted me to become financially independent just because of it.
As I recall there was a time when attorneys worked for less than $100 per hour too. I remember paying around $70 per hour years ago. What do you get these days MM and should we all sit here and criticize how much you make? And since when does simply getting an insurer to cough up $10k to settle a claim for a fender bender with some minor injuries entitle you and your brethren to $3k to $4k just for making a few phone calls and filing some paperwork threatening a lawsuit?
And when was the last time you sustained multiple concussions while butting head with opposing counsel? Get any permanently crippling knee or hip injuries from opening courtroom doors anytime during your career? Eye strain from reading and devising "small print" I can see but that can be remedied with some readers like I use. I've never seen it cause permanent blindness.
If you lost your license to practice law what would be your "day job" of choice? Would you be handing me a shopping cart and wishing me a nice day when I walked through the doors of my local Walmart or bagging my groceries at Safeway?
My reference to players as being depreceable assets is correct.
I'm talking about tax law here not your personal opinion of them. I guess that's not a legal specialty of yours. Player contracts are depreciated over time just like football helmets and shoulder pads. Here's your own statement to confirm that.
Depreciable assets can be counted on for a readily determinable useful life, discarded, and easily replaced.
I'd say it's pretty damn easy to determine what the average career of an NFL player is and the IRS agrees with me. And when a football players career is over isn't he discarded and just as easily replaced as a broken helmet or worn out set of shoulder pads? They are depreceable assets, trust me.
I'd say that's a lot of what any lawsuit the old timers bring is all about. They were used up and discarded just like those pieces of equipment but they're different. They're alive and human and they have to go on and live out the rest of their lives in pain or do what a few have done and end theirs.
You bring up the example of just one overpaid former high draft pick and you want to use that as an example to umbrella all of the thousands of guys who never got a pay check like that? Sorry objection overruled counselor. Highly irrelevant. Stick to the mainstream here.
Of course owners take a risk handing out big bonuses to rookies. Why do you think they negotiated themselves out of that position in this last CBA and put limitations on themselves in that regard. They can't even police their own overspending without legislating it. It's also the reason they get those tax deductions MM. It's called being "At Risk" and that's the basis for it in tax law. Certain things can be expensed and other must be depreciated. They're businessmen not hobbyists.
Look the bottom line is that those former players have a case if they can prove the NFL knew about the long term effects of head injuries they may have sustained while playing yet insisted they play anyway in order to get paid and still did little or nothing to prevent further injury. There are other risky professions but for the most part those guys have OSHA to protect them.
If you're an attorney you can pretty easily evaluate the merits of their complaint if I can. Somewhere down the line it comes to judgement day either in or out of court and somebody wins a little and somebody else loses a little. That's the way it works isn't it? They're not gonna put the NFL under so I wouldn't worry about having our game taken away from us. Not gonna happen.
I just think that one anyone mentions the word "greed" in the same sentence with an NFL player that if that same person doesn't also include the NFL owners then they're ignoring half the issue. It's more than just a sport. It's big business and sometimes big business gets sued. Happens every day. I haven't seen Apple or MS go under from any of theirs yet and and neither will the NFL.
MM, I'd like to go up against you in court some day. I think I could beat you.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Originally Posted by soulman
Well first of all you couldn't even get me to work for those rat bastards who run Walmart. They wouldn't want me anyway because I'd be handing out hand bills to everyone who walked through the door letting them know just how poorly they treat the employees that will soon be serving them. I'd get fired in my first hour.
Reply With Quote
There were times when it wasn't and in those days I was seldom here or anywhere else in the world of daily living. I may have to live knowing it's not ever gonna go away but it's not due to any brain injuries like some of these guys have had. Where some of them are headed, like Alex Karras most recently, is frightening.
