Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Would you drink donkey urine/semen for 50k


Iceberg Slim

Recommended Posts

1) we have a thread on this

2) the episode was pulled.

3) no.

yeah I know the show was pulled, thread, well didn't know that it existed but really how many threads here are duplicates...e.g. the millions upon millions of threads that talk about the panthers new uniforms, logo, etc...but I digress, I am still curious as to how much folks are willing to do to get some money:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone says no but if you had $50,000 in cash in front of you???

On this though, you have to win the final stunt before you get the cash. So in theory, you can drink the poo and walk away with nothing.

But hypothetically 50K for drinking semen straight up. Well. fug idk. I'd want a price negotiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this though, you have to win the final stunt before you get the cash. So in theory, you can drink the poo and walk away with nothing.

But hypothetically 50K for drinking semen straight up. Well. fug idk. I'd want a price negotiation.

Yeah if you drank donkey jizz and ended up with nothing you would look really silly. Thats why I don't gamble. But if it was a sure $50,000, bottoms up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a video you should look at.......this chick has a 4 year old McDonalds cheesburger that looks like it is about a day old....if I can find the link I will post it.....she describes the fries that accompany it as being still greasy.....it will change your opinion about taking the fam to McDonalds for a little take out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...