timezonein: Making Money Through

Now I know not every player in the league is making as much as Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. Most not even close actually. So I wanted to layout what certain players are making now and use the formula the NFL Union laid out to them and said to save their last three game checks for the possibility of a lockout next season.

As per PFT (Pro Football Talk) here is a breakdown of NFL minimum salaries for the 2010 season.

Rookies - $320,000
1 Season - $395,000
2 Seasons - $470,000
3 Seasons - $545,000
4-6 Seasons - $630,000
7-9 Seasons - $755,000
10 or more Seasons - 855,000

So let’s take a rookie at a salary of $320,000 as an example and divide it by 17 weeks (NFL season/year minus playoffs). That comes out to be $18,823 per week in those 17 weeks. The letter was said to have stated to save your last three game checks to help you through a "non income time". So three game checks would roughly be around $56,469 for a rookie.

Now, according to the US Census Bureau, the overall median personal income for all individuals over the age of 18 was $25,149 (and $32,140 for those ages 25 or above). These are individual stats not for families.

And yes I know you are not "suppose" to compare what the so called average person makes towards what a professional athlete makes. But no one is twisting these guys’ arms to buy $500,000 homes, have five cars and take tens of thousands of dollar vacations each year. They are complaining they are not going to have enough money to live on because they are not going to be making their entire salary for at least a year due to a lockout.

Give me a break.

It is hard for me to have sympathy for a guy that plays a game for 17 weeks of the year. And yes I know they train in the off-season too but the point is still they only play for 17 weeks during a season and make the sort of money they do. Then turn around and complain about it when they are told to save three game checks in case of a lock out.

Especially when a rookie making the league minimum makes pretty much double what the average American makes in one year in three weeks. It cannot be that hard to not go out and buy a new car or a new watch with diamonds all over it so you can be financial secure if there happens to be a work stoppage.

This is what normal people have to do to make ends meet. If you have bills to pay, you don’t go out and drop money in a night club or buy another car, no. You save your money so you can have a place to live or food to eat.

If it is “that” hard for them, they are in far more serious trouble than financially.

The bottom line for me is that they are more people sacrificing a heck of allot more for our protection like our military members that are not making anywhere near as much as these guys. Not to mention this is entertainment, NOT life or death.

Some will argue that their job puts more stress on their bodies or they get injured more so they need more money due to their jobs being more dangerous than mine. Or taking away a football player’s health care is just wrong as their jobs are so rough.

To me this is one of the dumbest arguments out there. I don't see fireman or police officers making six figure salaries and they put their lives on the line every time they go to work in something far more dangerous than being on a football field for 60 minutes a week. Their job is for our protection and freedom so we can go watch some guys play a game for hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars on Sundays.

If NFL players cannot survive on what is usually twice as much as the normal person makes in a year (based on a rookie’s salary) I actually think they have bigger issues than just the NFL lockout. They are most likely going to be broke before they are done playing in the NFL.

In this case however, both the players and owners have been so greedy for so long they both come off looking bad. As well as they should to me. Both parties have made more money in a few months or years than most of us will ever see in a life time.

So NFL players and owners, if you are looking for sympathy or compassion from some of us, you are looking in the wrong direction.

It's as if the Fed was functioning in a complete vacuum and has never heard of foreclosure fraud.

WASHINGTON — As Americans continue to lose their homes in record numbers, the Federal Reserve is considering making it much harder for homeowners to stop foreclosures and escape predatory home loans with onerous terms....

Since 1968, the Truth in Lending Act has given homeowners the right to cancel, or rescind illegal loans for up to three years after the transaction was completed if the buyer wasn't provided with proper disclosures at the time of closing.

Attorneys at AARP have used the rescission clause for decades to protect older homeowners stuck in predatory loans with costly terms. The provision is also helping struggling homeowners to fight a wave of foreclosure cases in which faulty and sometimes-fraudulent disclosures were used....

Critics say the proposed change by the Fed would render the rescission clause useless. The Fed proposal would require homeowners who seek a loan rescission through the courts, to pay off the entire loan balance before the lender cancels the lien.

"This, of course, would be almost impossible for most consumers to do because they can't come up with the money until they get out of the loan. And they can't get out of the loan until the lien is released," said Barry Zigas, director of housing and credit policy at the Consumer Federation of America. "None of us are quite sure what purpose is being served by this proposal or what prompted it."

According to the New York Times which ran an editorial against the proposal earlier in the week, the Fed wants to eliminate this protection for homeowners because of their “concern over banks’ compliance costs." Since the Fed certainly can't be concerned about banks fraudulently taking people's homes from them.

What Zach Carter says:

It’s hard to imagine a way for the Fed to disgrace itself any further than it did by failing to rein in the mortgage mess over the past decade. But if it proceeds with this effort to protect banks that engaged in predatory lending, it will not only be guilty of falling down on the job and looking the other way, but of actively encouraging illegal mortgage lending.

bench craft company scam

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Making Money Through

No comments:

Post a Comment