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!

     

Charles Godfrey has $125,000 worth of watches stolen


beastson

Recommended Posts

According to Cleve Wootson of the Charlotte Observer, police are looking for $125,000 worth of watches stolen
from Godfrey’s uptown Charlotte home.

 

According to the police report, the luxury watches (one valued at $50,000, the other at $75,000) were scheduled to be delivered by FedEx, the company showed they were delivered, but Godfrey never saw them.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/23/charles-godfrey-has-125000-worth-of-watches-stolen/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who spends $125K on something they haven't seen in person?

 

ETA:  For those dreaming up witty things to say about him going broke because of purchases like this, watches, depending on what kind, hold their values relatively well, especially in this shitty economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can get that at Wal Mart for 20 bucks.

For that kinda money, they need to have a built in masseuse.

Sure some are $25. If you're cheap. But the fancy ones cost upwards of $75 or so. Then add in the $10 shipping and handling costs, plus a new battery, and before you know it, you're at $125,000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who spends $125K on something they haven't seen in person?

 

ETA:  For those dreaming up witty things to say about him going broke because of purchases like this, watches, depending on what kind, hold their values relatively well, especially in this shitty economy.

 

Not really. Unless they are very rare they don't appreciate in value at all.

 

There are MUCH smarter investments out there to be had if that was what his intentions were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...