Glad this dude lost this battle
- Thread starter paindonthurt
- Start date
Shocking that people are expected to abide by contracts they willingly signed. Somehow I think Tatis still managed to come out ok on this deal.
Even more shocking the victims talking about predatory lending.
According to google, tatis sr earned over $18 million in his career. Shocked they felt the need for this $2mm
You are assuming tatis saved a single DAMN dollar
He apparently spent it all on a trainer, a better crib, and food.
Sorta like people who accept a job knowing the pay and Bennie’s then ***** that they don’t make enough. You knew going in!
A contract was upheld. Seems reasonable.
And not surprised to see it challenged. Companies and individuals challenge contracts all the time when they turn and become a bad deal for the party suing.
And not surprised to see it challenged. Companies and individuals challenge contracts all the time when they turn and become a bad deal for the party suing.
It’s extremely rare to see the plaintiff have to pay the winning sides legal bills. The case was so week it had 0 chance from the beginning. I’m sure he can afford it though.
It is way more complicated than that. I have not gotten my hands on the written opinion yet, so some of my info may be wrong, but heres what I have gathered so far:
First, the reason Tatis has to pay legal fees is because thats what his contract says.
Second - and this is kind of shocking - the Judge said the agreement IS a predatory loan, and future players may be able to get out of their deals. But Tatis went to arbitration first, and did not raise the legality of the contract in his arbitration, and therefore he has waived that argument as far as his current case goes.
So, he could have gotten out of his deal, he just needed to challenge rhe contract earlier.
At least, thats what I have pieced together so far...
His next move should be to get a regular job and go to work like the rest of us.
How da fook is this predatory in any way? I continue to be amazed at what somehow becomes mainstream thought because of public perception.
It seems slightly predatory to me. What is the APR on a payback of 34 million vs a 2 million advance? It’s got to be astronomical and exceed usury limits even if it technically isn’t a loan in the traditional sense. He also signed up for it willingly so I don’t have a problem with it being enforced either.
Predatory lending is a real thing. Companies do it all the time and take advantage of people.
They convince them to sign a contract on something they cannot pay. The get collateral, trade ins, down payments and then squeeze them for every dime they can get and still take their stuff. They make tons doing this crap making loans to people they know most likely can't pay. It's criminal behavior and against the law but so is driving over 55. They rarely get caught but they do ruin a lot of lives.
Having said that, I do not think this applies. The courts do work sometimes.
They convince them to sign a contract on something they cannot pay. The get collateral, trade ins, down payments and then squeeze them for every dime they can get and still take their stuff. They make tons doing this crap making loans to people they know most likely can't pay. It's criminal behavior and against the law but so is driving over 55. They rarely get caught but they do ruin a lot of lives.
Having said that, I do not think this applies. The courts do work sometimes.
This is one of those cases where there needs to be a sliding scale. Musicians get caught up in this all the time. If I was one of those lenders/agents I would go with graduated scale of future earnings. So for example 10% on first 30 million, 5% on next 30, 2.5% on rest or something of that fashion. That first part gets your investment back plus some interest. Then it's better to get a much smaller percentage of the additional earnings and not piss off the golden goose.
Pay too much in interest isn’t predatory.
lying to people and manipulating them might be.
is it predatory to charge 26.5% interest on used cars? Bc I know a ton of people who are happy as heck to have a used car even at 26.5% interest.
and when you factor in defaults, junking cars, etc they aren’t making 26.5% profit.
Yeah it definitely happens but people often think high interest means predatory. That’s not even close.
you know what was predatory? Banks being pushed to create BS loans so “everyone” could afford a house.
banks didn’t do that on their own. They were pushed by politicians to do it. So they did what they could to make money.
The issue here is it wasn’t a loan.
If he didn’t make $2 million he didn’t owe them money back. They lose a lot of times. They won on this one.
why did tatis need $2 million?
why not ask for $5,000 a month for 5 years? Thats $60,000 a year on top of his minor league bonus and salary. $300,000 total
or heck double that.
Don't blame it on just politicians, lots of loan companies do a lot of sketchy things. My wife worked for one a long time and saw all kinds of stuff being done by some very greedy people.
I understand that it wasn't a loan. It's an advance against future earnings. What I am saying is eventually they will lose this in court because it will end up being deemed unfair to get that much of a return. I am saying a smart business decision will be to decrease the percentage as the earner gets more income so you don't piss them off. This type of thing happened to Springsteen and Billy Joel and the original money men ended up losing in court and collected 0% of their earnings after the law suit. It would have been smarter to get 1% of the future earnings as they earned more and more.
This was not a loan. It was an equity investment. Maybe there was something more going on, but on the face of it, making them give him money back would be like requiring early stockholders in Google, Facebook, or Amazon to give money back to the founders.
If you take that approach you cut certain minor leaguers out completely. You need the potential of a lottery ticket essentially to justify giving them a substantial some of money. That's not exactly a big negative effect on society in the context of minor league sports. But we should be wary of reducing people's options because we want to protect them. For every guy like this that saves millions of dollars, there will be some unknown number of others (but probably at least tenor more) that don't get their initial payoff and then also don't make it in the MLB.
I didn’t blame predatory lending just on politics. I did say politicians had a ton to do with bad housing loans. And that’s a fact.
How is it unfair?
I’m willing to bet when you offset their losses compared to their wins their ROI is somewhere reasonable.
but here’s what will happen.
Courts will get involved.
Regulation will happen
The product will be worse in the long run for everyone.
rinse and repeat
Agreed. Just don’t limit it to just them. They are a reflection of our society.
Because the few guys that make it and earn big money pay for everyone else. So say 1 in 10 make money, 9 guys get 1 million dollars and the one guy pays for all those guys and more.
It's not a deal I would negotiate.
But if you make it “unfair” then none of the 10 guys are gonna get money.
the lesson learned here is to not make dumb deals!
In your own words you say it is a dumb deal. What makes it a dumb deal? It's a dumb deal because it is "unfair".
It’s dumb bc some retard was greedy. The person making the money is making a fair return on their overall investment.
the dumb greedy retard is the guy wanting $2 million when he hasn’t earned it.
on the other hand the person giving the money has money they are risking that they may never get back.
but again, go ahead and regulate it and then players won’t be able to get loans in the future and then they’ll whine bc rich people hoard their money.
AI sucks, but at least it makes it a ton easier to respond to these zombie lies:
Banks were generally not forced to make loans they didn't want to. While the federal government did implement policies encouraging homeownership for underserved communities—such as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)—major financial institutions willingly created and issued subprime mortgages. They did this to generate substantial profits through loan origination fees and packaging risky loans into mortgage-backed securities to sell to investors.The narrative of forced lending stems largely from debates surrounding the CRA. While the CRA did encourage banks to lend in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, numerous economic analyses—including reports by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and various academic studies—have concluded that the CRA was not the primary cause of the subprime crisis. Most of the high-risk, subprime loans were made by non-bank lenders and institutions not heavily bound by CRA requirements.Ultimately, the decision to loosen lending standards and issue loans to borrowers who ultimately defaulted was driven by the private sector's pursuit of short-term profits and deregulation.
We will see. Pretty sure these guys are not giving money to any minor leaguer. Pretty sure they give money to likely money makers. All I'm saying is if I was in the business I would have a graduated scale as the earner makes more money. It can be front loaded so I recover my investment quickly and as they make more money I can accept a lower percentage so the person feels they are not paying all this money to someone who is not doing anything for them.
The bottom line is if I borrow 2 million dollars from you to start my life, I don't think I should have to pay you back 34 million, plus more if I get another contract.
They give it to a lot of guys. It’s a pool of players. Some hit and some don’t. I believe the initial pay out based on potential. The ones that hit pay for the ones than don’t. This has been around for a few years. This guy just doesn’t want to be the one who pays for all the misses.
There was a similar method being used instead of college loans at a couple of universities. Idk if it’s still going or not.