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!

     

Strong Armed 18 Month Old Destroys Tv


pantherclaw

Recommended Posts

Was at work Thursday for a couple of hours, when I got a phone call from my wife informing me our three an a half year old TV was broke.

My beautiful, strong 18 month old, while throwing a fit, picked up one of his weeble wobbles, and threw it.....hitting our 46 inch Samsung TV, effectively destroying the TV.

Wasn't anticipating having to replace our TV this soon.

Just one NFL contract my son..juat one. Or a MLB contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was at work Thursday for a couple of hours, when I got a phone call from my wife informing me our three an a half year old TV was broke.

My beautiful, strong 18 month old, while throwing a fit, picked up one of his weeble wobbles, and threw it.....hitting our 46 inch Samsung TV, effectively destroying the TV.

Wasn't anticipating having to replace our TV this soon.

Just one NFL contract my son..juat one. Or a MLB contract.

You'd be surprised at how much this happens actually. When I was selling TVs in college, I had several people come in that had to replace a TV for this reason.

A lot of screens were broken by kids throwing Wii controllers at the screen accidentally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is a chance to upgrade. Just wasn't planning on it for several years.

Found a good deal, just need to secure the funds out of thin air....

just finished going through his toy box, got all the weebles and other small, hard objects removed from the house. Until he learns tbat he can't throw everything, he don't nees them.

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...