Tony Finau being sued for $16 million

[bladehunter]

There’s also the idea of 20% of income In perpetuity ..... is it gross or Net ?   Is it likely that the two are discussed in a verbal agreement ?  Doubtful. maybe  Tony decides to become non profit and donate profit after operation costs to his foundation.  That could cut out the residuals all together.   Principle would stand , but that’s not too much.  

[straightshot7]

9 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

There’s also the idea of 20% of income In perpetuity ..... is it gross or Net ?   Is it likely that the two are discussed in a verbal agreement ?  Doubtful. maybe  Tony decides to become non profit and donate profit after operation costs to his foundation.  That could cut out the residuals all together.   Principle would stand , but that’s not too much.  

20% of income/earnings would probably be 20% of after tax income. 

 

Tony has made around $20 million on the PGA Tour (not counting Nike endorsement which is probably over $5-$10 million total by now).

 

What "operating costs" are going to offset $20+ million?

 

Tony would be donating his entire fortune to his foundation? Then what? Is he going to pay himself from the foundation?

 

Tony already has a foundation but he's not going to give all of his money to it and play for free. Sorry, not feasible. And wouldn't stand in court if they actually had an agreement. 

Edited October 1, 2020 by straightshot7

[nsxguy]

2 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

There’s also the idea of 20% of income In perpetuity ..... is it gross or Net ?   Is it likely that the two are discussed in a verbal agreement ?  Doubtful. maybe  Tony decides to become non profit and donate profit after operation costs to his foundation.  That could cut out the residuals all together.   Principle would stand , but that’s not too much.  

 

Good grief Blade, so now you're trying to argue net and gross ? If it's net and Tony gives away everything he earns how does HE live the good life ?

 

C'mon Dude. 80% of something is better than 80% of nothing.

 

"OK folks, I pay all your expenses for living in Florida for a year+ and getting Tony and Gipper all the instruction he can possibly want and the boys will give me 20% of their lifetime earnings. Deal ?"

 

"Deal".

 

Done and done. (I should note that I'm relatively sure that if it was a verbal agreement that it probably would be a bit more than that but,,,,,,,,,,,)

[nsxguy]

10 hours ago, straightshot7 said:

20% of income/earnings would probably be 20% of after tax income.

 

Pre-tax would be my guess.

 

After tax means it's no longer deductible as he'd have already used all his deductions to GET to an after tax income $.

 

Pre-tax, the whole thing is deductible.

 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2020 by nsxguy

[bladehunter]

10 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Good grief Blade, so now you're trying to argue net and gross ? If it's net and Tony gives away everything he earns how does HE live the good life ?

 

C'mon Dude. 80% of something is better than 80% of nothing.

 

"OK folks, I pay all your expenses for living in Florida for a year+ and getting Tony and Gipper all the instruction he can possibly want and the boys will give me 20% of their lifetime earnings. Deal ?"

 

"Deal".

 

Done and done. (I should note that I'm relatively sure that if it was a verbal agreement that it probably would be a bit more than that but,,,,,,,,,,,)

Maybe he sits on his own board and is paid a living wage for doing so ? after all being the largest donor affords that a lot of times.  
 

besides. Sometimes principle comes into it.  I’ll be damned if I’d give 20 % of my sweat equity to a shark my dad made a deal with.  I’d go drive a truck first after I drained him a while with legal fees.  But that’s just me. 
 

 

 

[bscinstnct]

7 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Good grief Blade, so now you're trying to argue net and gross ? If it's net and Tony gives away everything he earns how does HE live the good life ?

 

C'mon Dude. 80% of something is better than 80% of nothing.

 

"OK folks, I pay all your expenses for living in Florida for a year+ and getting Tony and Gipper all the instruction he can possibly want and the boys will give me 20% of their lifetime earnings. Deal ?"

 

"Deal".

 

Done and done. (I should note that I'm relatively sure that if it was a verbal agreement that it probably would be a bit more than that but,,,,,,,,,,,)

 

But it’s not that simple.

 

The leverage that each party has when entering a negotiation is taken into account to determine if the agreement is ultimately enforceable.

 

In this case,

 

“The suit claims Hola paid for the Finau family’s mortgage payments, medical insurance, a new car as well as golf-related travel expenses for Tony and Gipper, including living expenses for the Finau family to reside in Florida for approximately a year while they received lessons from renowned golf instructor David Leadbetter.”

 

 

And here is a quote from Tony himself,

 

 

“When he was 14, Tony and his mother slept in their car at a PGA Junior Series event in Milwaukee because they couldn’t afford a hotel room. With only enough cash to buy Tony a few McDonald’s hamburgers, Ravena didn’t eat for three days.”

 

So, if the family was so impoverished that the roof over their head, their medical insurance, and even keeping their stomachs full was in jeopardy, they may not have had the ability to rationally assess the contract or any leverage to negotiate.

 

 

 

 

 

[nsxguy]

1 minute ago, bladehunter said:

Maybe he sits on his own board and is paid a living wage for doing so ? after all being the largest donor affords that a lot of times.  
 

besides. Sometimes principle comes into it.  I’ll be damned if I’d give 20 % of my sweat equity to a shark my dad made a deal with.  I’d go drive a truck first after I drained him a while with legal fees.  But that’s just me. 
 

 

 

 

Wouldn't he then owe the guy 20% of his living wage from that board ?

 

You'd drive a truck first ? You're the guy who cuts off his nose to spite his face ?

 

 

[nsxguy]

4 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

But it’s not that simple.

 

The leverage that each party has when entering a negotiation is taken into account to determine if the agreement is ultimately enforceable.

 

In this case,

 

“The suit claims Hola paid for the Finau family’s mortgage payments, medical insurance, a new car as well as golf-related travel expenses for Tony and Gipper, including living expenses for the Finau family to reside in Florida for approximately a year while they received lessons from renowned golf instructor David Leadbetter.”

 

 

And here is a quote from Tony himself,

 

 

“When he was 14, Tony and his mother slept in their car at a PGA Junior Series event in Milwaukee because they couldn’t afford a hotel room. With only enough cash to buy Tony a few McDonald’s hamburgers, Ravena didn’t eat for three days.”

 

So, if the family was so impoverished that the roof over their head, their medical insurance, and even keeping their stomachs full was in jeopardy, they may not have had the ability to rationally assess the contract or any leverage to negotiate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe that's the basis for the Finau's to contest ?

 

As with most of the details of this lawsuit, don't know. Certainly possible I imagine.

[bladehunter]

1 minute ago, bscinstnct said:

 

But it’s not that simple.

 

The leverage that each party has when entering a negotiation is taken into account to determine if the agreement is ultimately enforceable.

 

In this case,

 

“The suit claims Hola paid for the Finau family’s mortgage payments, medical insurance, a new car as well as golf-related travel expenses for Tony and Gipper, including living expenses for the Finau family to reside in Florida for approximately a year while they received lessons from renowned golf instructor David Leadbetter.”

 

 

And here is a quote from Tony himself,

 

 

“When he was 14, Tony and his mother slept in their car at a PGA Junior Series event in Milwaukee because they couldn’t afford a hotel room. With only enough cash to buy Tony a few McDonald’s hamburgers, Ravena didn’t eat for three days.”

 

So, if the family was so impoverished that the roof over their head, their medical insurance, and even keeping their stomachs full was in jeopardy, they may not have had the ability to rationally assess the contract or any leverage to negotiate.

 

 

 

 

 

Yahtzee !!!!  That’s why  guys like this are sharks.    He was looking to take advantage to setup a revenue stream for himself for next 30 plus years.    Let’s call it as it is.  He’s not a saint for helping.  He’s a guy making a buck.  And I’m absolutely for that.
 

but.  When you do it to people who aren’t on level footing  , you run the risk of cutting corners because it’s too easy to close the deal.  They are thinking food  for tonight.  Not 20 years out.  And a verbal agreement for 20% or a guys income going forward is woefully irresponsible on his part.  If he’s on the up and up and not taking advantage of an obvious sure thing , why not a written and formal agreement  ?  

[bladehunter]

3 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Wouldn't he then owe the guy 20% of his living wage from that board ?

 

You'd drive a truck first ? You're the guy who cuts off his nose to spite his face ?

 

 

Depends on the verbal agreement  that that isn’t on tape I guess.  Lol.    Did he also commit his income from other jobs ? 

Edited October 1, 2020 by bladehunter

[bladehunter]

Just now, bladehunter said:

Depends on the verbal agreement  that that isn’t on tape I guess.  Lol.    Did he also commit his income from other jobs ? 

Or more accurate did  his dad commit his income from all employment in perpetuity?  😂.... 

[Dr. Block]

5 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Yahtzee !!!!  That’s why  guys like this are sharks.    He was looking to take advantage to setup a revenue stream for himself for next 30 plus years.    Let’s call it as it is.  He’s not a saint for helping.  He’s a guy making a buck.  And I’m absolutely for that.
 

but.  When you do it to people who aren’t on level footing  , you run the risk of cutting corners because it’s too easy to close the deal.  They are thinking food  for tonight.  Not 20 years out.  And a verbal agreement for 20% or a guys income going forward is woefully irresponsible on his part.  If he’s on the up and up and not taking advantage of an obvious sure thing , why not a written and formal agreement  ?  

Wouldn't papering it be the more unscrupulous avenue?  That's been my thought anyway.  If he was really thinking in terms of long term gain and greed, then you'd think he would have been smart enough to get some sort of documentation.

[nsxguy]

2 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Yahtzee !!!!  That’s why  guys like this are sharks.    He was looking to take advantage to setup a revenue stream for himself for next 30 plus years.    Let’s call it as it is.  He’s not a saint for helping.  He’s a guy making a buck.  And I’m absolutely for that.
 

but.  When you do it to people who aren’t on level footing  , you run the risk of cutting corners because it’s too easy to close the deal.  They are thinking food  for tonight.  Not 20 years out.  And a verbal agreement for 20% or a guys income going forward is woefully irresponsible on his part.  If he’s on the up and up and not taking advantage of an obvious sure thing , why not a written and formal agreement  ?  

 

Once again you sound very strongly BOTH ways. You're all for a guy making a buck but suggest he's not on the up and up for taking advantage of an obvious sure thing.

 

Make up my mind, will ya ?

 

And "obvious sure thing" ? Good grief (#2). Do you realize how FEW talented youngsters ever amount to anything ? He'd have been far more likely to have been throwing away his money.

 

And $600K to live in Florida and have both boys get all the lessons and have the family want for nothing is hardly thinking "food for the night".

 

That said, if you were a promising athlete but had NO chance at realizing your dream and someone came along to stake you in exchange for 20% of future earnings, you'd say "No thanks, I'll just drive a truck". Somehow I doubt it.

 

You'd actually be getting off easy as I believe true venture capitalists, because that's what this guy is, generally want far more than a 20% piece of the pie on such a long shot.

[bladehunter]

1 minute ago, nsxguy said:

 

Once again you sound very strongly BOTH ways. You're all for a guy making a buck but suggest he's not on the up and up for taking advantage of an obvious sure thing.

 

Make up my mind, will ya ?

 

And "obvious sure thing" ? Good grief (#2). Do you realize how FEW talented youngsters ever amount to anything ? He'd have been far more likely to have been throwing away his money.

 

And $600K to live in Florida and have both boys get all the lessons and have the family want for nothing is hardly thinking "food for the night".

 

That said, if you were a promising athlete but had NO chance at realizing your dream and someone came along to stake you in exchange for 20% of future earnings, you'd say "No thanks, I'll just drive a truck". Somehow I doubt it.

 

You'd actually be getting off easy as I believe true venture capitalists, because that's what this guy is, generally want far more than a 20% piece of the pie on such a long shot.

The truth is there is no kid whose good enough and driven enough to win on tour that can’t or hasn’t done it because of $.  He could have walked in at any D1 school in the country and got on the team. And then quickly a scholarship.  He didn’t take that route.    The guys on tour are not there because some guy paid their parents bills or for some expensive instructor.  If you’re good enough truly , there’s an instructor who’ll take you on for nothing in most cases.  Doesn’t need to be a Big name like leadbetter.  Coaches live to find a real stallion to train.  They are that rare. 
 

and  no.  Considering all angles is the right way to think.  Making up ones mind with zero info isn’t.   The truth usually is in the middle. 

[bladehunter]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

Wouldn't papering it be the more unscrupulous avenue?  That's been my thought anyway.  If he was really thinking in terms of long term gain and greed, then you'd think he would have been smart enough to get some sort of documentation.

Yes. That’s what makes me question anything he says.  If playing that long game and you’re legit , who doesn’t pay a $200 attorney to make it iron clad ? 

[nsxguy]

4 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

The truth is there is no kid whose good enough and driven enough to win on tour that can’t or hasn’t done it because of $.  He could have walked in at any D1 school in the country and got on the team. And then quickly a scholarship.  He didn’t take that route.    The guys on tour are not there because some guy paid their parents bills or for some expensive instructor.  If you’re good enough truly , there’s an instructor who’ll take you on for nothing in most cases.  Doesn’t need to be a Big name like leadbetter.  Coaches live to find a real stallion to train.  They are that rare. 
 

and  no.  Considering all angles is the right way to think.  Making up ones mind with zero info isn’t.   The truth usually is in the middle. 

 

D1 college ? This apparently began/happened when Tony was 8. Sure there are prodigies at 8 but not every 8 year old is a prodigy.

 

There are many steps even getting TO the point of being noticed by a Leadbetter. THAT is what the guy was paying for.

 

And I confess I'm not sure what you mean by your last paragraph with the "considering all angles".

[bscinstnct]

21 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Once again you sound very strongly BOTH ways. You're all for a guy making a buck but suggest he's not on the up and up for taking advantage of an obvious sure thing.

 

Make up my mind, will ya ?

 

And "obvious sure thing" ? Good grief (#2). Do you realize how FEW talented youngsters ever amount to anything ? He'd have been far more likely to have been throwing away his money.

 

And $600K to live in Florida and have both boys get all the lessons and have the family want for nothing is hardly thinking "food for the night".

 

That said, if you were a promising athlete but had NO chance at realizing your dream and someone came along to stake you in exchange for 20% of future earnings, you'd say "No thanks, I'll just drive a truck". Somehow I doubt it.

 

You'd actually be getting off easy as I believe true venture capitalists, because that's what this guy is, generally want far more than a 20% piece of the pie on such a long shot.

 

TF would be in exactly the same place without this guys help. 
 

Nonetheless, if he provided that level of support and there was an agreement that he participate in TFs future success, assuming such an agreement is legal in principe, he should certainly be reimbursed and have a reasonable return on his investment. 

[Valtiel]

On 9/29/2020 at 10:28 AM, ckay said:

A lot of assumptions in this thread, including the citing of 90 Day Fiancee as a source for Samoan culture and finances.  Great job WRX.

I just came here to say this cracked me up, that is all I have to contribute. 😆

[Hawkeye77]

The earth over Lee Marvin's grave just shifted a little.