Tony Finau being sued for $16 million

[nsxguy]

24 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

Financial backing in exchange for a percentage of future earnings is a fairly common arrangement for aspiring professional golfers.  I know a few guys in that situation, and they are incredibly grateful for it.  It's actually pretty far from predatory lending in that the person extending the backing is doing so with no security and often never sees full repayment.  They do it because they can afford to, and because they want to see someone they believe in succeed 

 

Great post.

 

Of course it's common !!!

 

Many business startups rely on venture capital to get going. And in turn the get a percentage.

 

Venture capitalists invest money and expect to see large percentage returns because so FEW of them ever generate ANY returns/profits. It is a very risky business.

 

"Predatory lending" ? Good grief.

 

 

 

 

[PrettyGood]

8 hours ago, 1s1k said:

Good luck gold digger without a signed contract.  

 

Implied contracts... oral contracts... super common, really.

 

And just as enforceable as a written contract.

[Krt22]

16 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Great post.

 

Of course it's common !!!

 

Many business startups rely on venture capital to get going. And in turn the get a percentage.

 

Venture capitalists invest money and expect to see large percentage returns because so FEW of them ever generate ANY returns/profits. It is a very risky business.

 

"Predatory lending" ? Good grief.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely predatory lending, huge difference between making such contracts with an adult and making one with a minor. And how many VCs do you know lend 6 figure sums without an explicit contract with detailed deliverables and repayment schedules? Trying to collect on a debt potentially 15+ years old? Give me a break if you think that is remotely common. 

[bscinstnct]

Guy seems legit

 

 

https://mauinow.com/2017/05/16/molonai-hola-featured-speaker-at-maui-native-hawaiian-chamber/

 

 

 

[bubbagump]

5 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Absolutely predatory lending, huge difference between making such contracts with an adult and making one with a minor. And how many VCs do you know lend 6 figure sums without an explicit contract with detailed deliverables and repayment schedules? Trying to collect on a debt potentially 15+ years old? Give me a break if you think that is remotely common. 

 

Unless you have some other source, you seem to be insinuating quite a few details that have yet to be revealed.  As the article states, sounds like the contract was with the family (ie: parents) as much of the financial assistance went toward expenses they incurred.

 

Its hardly predatory, or uncommon in life, sports let alone golf.     

Edited September 28, 2020 by bubbagump

[jgonz69]

10 minutes ago, PrettyGood said:

 

Implied contracts... oral contracts... super common, really.

 

And just as enforceable as a written contract.

True. The same people who would say my hand shake is my word of honor are the same people trashing Hola.

[Krt22]

8 minutes ago, PrettyGood said:

 

Implied contracts... oral contracts... super common, really.

 

And just as enforceable as a written contract.

But harder to enforce unless the verbiage is documented somewhere, along with a shorter statute of limitations, and not still not valid if one party is a minor. 

 

 

[MtlJeff]

26 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Great post.

 

Of course it's common !!!

 

Many business startups rely on venture capital to get going. And in turn the get a percentage.

 

Venture capitalists invest money and expect to see large percentage returns because so FEW of them ever generate ANY returns/profits. It is a very risky business.

 

"Predatory lending" ? Good grief.

 

 

 

 

 

I would think though that 20% of future income forever is not a common ask. That seems like a shark tank deal haha.

 

The percentage seems a bit predatory...if true....

 

No?

[Krt22]

Just now, bubbagump said:

 

Unless you have some other source, you seem to be insinuating quite a few details that have yet to be revealed.  As the article states, sounds like the contract was with the family (ie: parents) as much of the financial assistance went toward expenses they incurred.

 

Its hardly predatory, or uncommon in sports let alone golf.     

Then why isn't he suing the family?  

[Dr. Block]

22 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Great post.

 

Of course it's common !!!

 

Many business startups rely on venture capital to get going. And in turn the get a percentage.

 

Venture capitalists invest money and expect to see large percentage returns because so FEW of them ever generate ANY returns/profits. It is a very risky business.

 

"Predatory lending" ? Good grief.

 

 

 

 

Haha thanks. I used to play a fair amount of pool, and I saw some similar arrangements in the tournament and gambling scene years back. Those arrangements didn’t end in civilized lawsuits, they ended in some bulging goon putting on a pair of leather gloves followed by somebody swallowing a near future with a healthy vig.  That was probably closer to predatory lending 

[bubbagump]

2 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Then why isn't he suing the family?  

 

Well because he wants money, TF has it lol.  The way I read it was it was a deal with the parents/family at the time specifically regarding the future of TF and his bro and THEIR earnings.  History ran its course, so Im not sure why he wouldnt be suing TF?  

Edited September 28, 2020 by bubbagump

[Dr. Block]

5 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I would think though that 20% of future income forever is not a common ask. That seems like a shark tank deal haha.

 

The percentage seems a bit predatory...if true....

 

No?

The arrangements I’ve known of were capped to an amount or a period of time.  I would guess this one was as well. 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Dr. Block

[Krt22]

1 minute ago, bubbagump said:

 

Well because he wants money, TF has it lol.  The way I read it was it was a deal with the parents/family at the time specifically regarding the future of TF and his bro and THEIR earnings.  History ran its course, so Im not sure why he wouldnt be suing TF?  

Because the law? If that agreement was made between TFs parents and this fellow, then the only person(s) that can be liable are the parents. Even more so if TF and his brother where minors at the time, which seems clear given the time tables that were detailed. Minors cannot enter legally binding contracts and parent's cannot legally sign away their children's future earnings. 

[MtlJeff]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

The arrangements I’ve known of were capped to an amount or a period of time.  I would guess this one was as well. 

 

That would make sense if both parties are rational. Suffice to say,  interested in seeing more details emerge!

[nsxguy]

10 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Absolutely predatory lending, huge difference between making such contracts with an adult and making one with a minor. And how many VCs do you know lend 6 figure sums without an explicit contract with detailed deliverables and repayment schedules? Trying to collect on a debt potentially 15+ years old? Give me a break if you think that is remotely common. 

 

Sounds like you feel very strongly both ways.

 

First you suggest the guy made a contract with a minor (which hardly sounds likely).

 

And then you express doubt about people loaning over half a mil without a written contract, deliverables , payment schedules, etc. which wouldn't have been possible to make WITH a minor.

 

There a so many details missing from this that everybody is GUESSING. Do you KNOW there's no contract ? Do you know that ANY of those items you mentioned are NOT in writing ? Do you have any idea who signed what ?

 

Me neither.

 

Personally I think it highly unlikely that this guy made an agreement with a minor, especially not for over half a million dollars. Tony's family almost HAD to be involved.

 

But as I mentioned earlier, there are hardly ANY facts and until there are any, I'll withhold judgement. Rather than leaping to conclusions.

[bubbagump]

3 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Because the law? If that agreement was made between TFs parents and this fellow, then the only person(s) that can be liable are the parents. Even more so if TF and his brother where minors at the time, which seems clear given the time tables that were detailed. Minors cannot enter legally binding contracts and parent's cannot legally sign away their children's future earnings. 

Tony turned pro at 17, so the "early part of his pro career" would feature him being an adult.  Again, given all those named in the suit range from tony, his bro, his dad, his agent etc....more details would be of value before rash assumptions lol.  

[Krt22]

1 minute ago, nsxguy said:

 

Sounds like you feel very strongly both ways.

 

First you suggest the guy made a contract with a minor (which hardly sounds likely).

 

And then you express doubt about people loaning over half a mil without a written contract, deliverables , payment schedules, etc. which wouldn't have been possible to make WITH a minor.

 

There a so many details missing from this that everybody is GUESSING. Do you KNOW there's no contract ? Do you know that ANY of those items you mentioned are NOT in writing ? Do you have any idea who signed what ?

 

Me neither.

 

Personally I think it highly unlikely that this guy made an agreement with a minor, especially not for over half a million dollars. Tony's family almost HAD to be involved.

 

But as I mentioned earlier, there are hardly ANY facts and until there are any, I'll withhold judgement. Rather than leaping to conclusions.

I am not a lawyer, but I enjoy these sorts of gymnastics. Even if Tony's family was involved, the outcome likely will be the same, as one cannot legally sign away the future wages of their child. Someone already stated it on the first page, if this agreement was as it was all stated, it would be too separate contracts. One with the parents and one with TF once he turned 18 and consented to the agreement. 

[nsxguy]

18 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I would think though that 20% of future income forever is not a common ask. That seems like a shark tank deal haha.

 

The percentage seems a bit predatory...if true....

 

No?

 

"forever" ? But "shark tank" ? Yeah, probably given it's such a long shot (usually).

 

"Not a common ask" ? I thought I'd heard that venture capitalists often ask for a 50% cut but I could be mistaken about that. Such deals are often incredibly risky

 

But once again, there are so many details missing, how can one even guess the terms ?

Edited September 28, 2020 by nsxguy

[Krt22]

1 minute ago, bubbagump said:

Tony turned pro at 17, so the "early part of his pro career" would feature him being an adult.  Again, given all those named in the suit range from tony, his bro, his dad, his agent etc....more details would be of value before rash assumptions lol.  

Last time I checked, 17 is still considered a minor. 

[bubbagump]

5 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

I am not a lawyer, but I enjoy these sorts of gymnastics. Even if Tony's family was involved, the outcome likely will be the same, as one cannot legally sign away the future wages of their child. Someone already stated it on the first page, if this agreement was as it was all stated, it would be too separate contracts. One with the parents and one with TF once he turned 18 and consented to the agreement. 

 

Not entirely true.

 

"Many jurisdictions recognize an exception to this rule, where the contract is either to provide necessities for the minor (e.g., food, clothing and shelter) or where “the contract is for a purpose benefiting the minor's employment or business” (Valencia v. White, 134 Ariz. 139, 141, 654 P.2d 287, 289 [App. 1982]).  Under this rule, sports contracts might be enforceable as long as the contract is “for the benefit of the minor.”  But the minor cannot back out of the contract without a consequence. For example, he or she may have to return the benefits they received from the contract.

Edited September 28, 2020 by bubbagump

[Krt22]

6 minutes ago, bubbagump said:

 

Not entirely true.

 

"Many jurisdictions recognize an exception to this rule, where the contract is either to provide necessities for the minor (e.g., food, clothing and shelter) or where “the contract is for a purpose benefiting the minor's employment or business” (Valencia v. White, 134 Ariz. 139, 141, 654 P.2d 287, 289 [App. 1982]).  Under this rule, sports contracts might be enforceable as long as the contract is “for the benefit of the minor.”  But the minor cannot back out of the contract without a consequence. For example, he or she may have to return the benefits they received from the contract.

Source? This does not say anything about their future wages once they are an adult.

 

 

 

 

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on!"

(Samuel Goldwyn, allegedly)

 

[bubbagump]

15 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Source? This does not say anything about their future wages once they are an adult.

 

 

 

 

Sources are a couple diff legal spots via google:

https://www.soarizonalaw.com/professional-athletes/contracts#:~:text=While a minor is allowed,the parent sign the contract.

https://www.globaltennisprofessionals.com/contracts/gtp-minor-engagement-contracts/

https://lawnk.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/minors-agreements-in-sports/#:~:text=However%2C contractual promises made between,usually binding on the adult.&text=Even if a parent or,to enter into the contract.

 

 

Its quite possible for the Finaus (parents) and tony (even as a minor) to have entered into a binding contract with this dude (one including future earnings), and it hold up.  Also quite possible its a money grab with no basis.  Will be interesting if the guy has documentation to support himself.  Tony's dad is named in the lawsuit, so the Finau family is being included. 

 

My guess is this dude backed Finau financially to a degree and this will get settled out of court.  Guy just went hard in the paint and threw out 16m for the hell of it lol.  Either way, its def pretty common in the world of sports.  

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by bubbagump

[Dr. Block]

32 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

I am not a lawyer, but I enjoy these sorts of gymnastics. Even if Tony's family was involved, the outcome likely will be the same, as one cannot legally sign away the future wages of their child. Someone already stated it on the first page, if this agreement was as it was all stated, it would be too separate contracts. One with the parents and one with TF once he turned 18 and consented to the agreement. 

For not being a lawyer you sure like to play one on TV, lol 

[Krt22]

8 minutes ago, bubbagump said:

Sources are a couple diff legal spots via google:

https://www.soarizonalaw.com/professional-athletes/contracts#:~:text=While a minor is allowed,the parent sign the contract.

https://www.globaltennisprofessionals.com/contracts/gtp-minor-engagement-contracts/

https://lawnk.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/minors-agreements-in-sports/#:~:text=However%2C contractual promises made between,usually binding on the adult.&text=Even if a parent or,to enter into the contract.

 

 

Its quite possible for the Finaus (parents) and tony (even as a minor) to have entered into a binding contract with this dude, and it hold up, also quite possible its a money grab.  Tony's dad is named in the lawsuit, so it appears the Finau family is being included.  Either way, my guess is this dude backed Finau financially to a degree and this will get settled out of court.  Either way, its def pretty common in the world of sports.  

 

I didn't read anything in those links that eludes to this scenario being ok, more so just detailing how a minor can even be in a contract in the first place. If anything there was much more info in the links that would make this agreement completely invalid. The main ones being if the contract can't be enforced within a year, it needs to be written and in order for the contract to be valid in the first place it needs court approval. 

[Krt22]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

For not being a lawyer you sure like to play one on TV, lol 

I did happen to stay at a Holiday in Express last night. That is the nice part of the law, it can all be researched and read if you are bored enough

[bscinstnct]

Kinda smart for the guy to bide his time until TF racked up some big pesos. 

[aenemated]

2 hours ago, Dr. Block said:

Financial backing in exchange for a percentage of future earnings is a fairly common arrangement for aspiring professional golfers.  I know a few guys in that situation, and they are incredibly grateful for it.  It's actually pretty far from predatory lending in that the person extending the backing is doing so with no security and often never sees full repayment.  They do it because they can afford to, and because they want to see someone they believe in succeed 

 

You don't seriously believe it was because this guy - a "defense contract consultant" - wanted to see some kids succeed? Gimme a break, man. This guy is a trashbag exploiting a poor family with talented kids for his own personal gain and the exorbitant amount he's looking for in the lawsuit proves this. 

 

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to defend the exploitation of the poor by the rich. And now that Tony has a few bucks, some equally trashbag lawyer is trying to help him take it. 

[Krt22]

6 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

Kinda smart for the guy to bide his time until TF racked up some big pesos. 

Not really, Im guessing TF legal team will ask for the whole thing to be dismissed because it's well outside the statute of limitations for personal debt. 

[miamistomp]

 If they go to court on a Sunday Finau will lose for sure 😝