Agents: They are good people!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:
    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people! : NAS, if you were to have said "... evidence that *some* agents are scum," I'd be with you—but to generalize undermines the effectiveness of your argument.
    Posted by felixwas


    It doesn't say "all", either.  The amount is determined by the reader. 

    You'll find people in conversations make up ridiculous percentages, exact numbers that have no exact backing, and then try to prove them.  That's not my style.

    The effectiveness of my argument lies inside the mind of each person that read what I've written.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:
    I'll agree with NAS on this.  I have firsthand experience - I have 2 agents, a manager, and a lawyer.  I'm in the movie biz - director/screenwriter.  An agent will always do what's in the best interest of the agent.  If it happens to benefit the client, then that's happenstance.  I've known many careers ruined by agents convincing their clients to take on bad film offers just to take their cuts.  The film flops, the actor or director or writer is screwed, and the agent moves on to the next flavor of the month. But, they are a necessary evil.  In sports, it's a little different because the client gets a long term deal, not one job offer at a time.
    Posted by ipotnyc


    You have 2 agents and apparently from experience it has made you feel this way. 

    Stating that agents think like this is such a wide based opinion which is hard to believe.  

    Time for a couple of new agents if this is how you feel. Sounds like you don't trust the one's you have.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:
    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people! : either.  The amount is determined by the reader.  You'll find people in conversations make up ridiculous percentages, exact numbers that have no exact backing, and then try to prove them.  That's not my style. The effectiveness of my argument lies inside the mind of each person that read what I've written.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    Felix's observation is irrefutable, you do say "all" when you refer to a group, not an individual.  Introducing flawed logic to an argument, isn't a "style".  The most insane, incoherant arguments imaginable, will be "effective" within the "mind' of some.  That's not the point of argument or debate.

     
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:
    I'll agree with NAS on this.  I have firsthand experience - I have 2 agents, a manager, and a lawyer.  I'm in the movie biz - director/screenwriter.  An agent will always do what's in the best interest of the agent.  If it happens to benefit the client, then that's happenstance.  I've known many careers ruined by agents convincing their clients to take on bad film offers just to take their cuts.  The film flops, the actor or director or writer is screwed, and the agent moves on to the next flavor of the month. But, they are a necessary evil.  In sports, it's a little different because the client gets a long term deal, not one job offer at a time.
    Posted by ipotnyc


    Your situation is really unfortunate ipot, but if they "always do what's in the best interst" of themselves, they're not a "neccessary evil"....they're thieves.  I'm positive there are at least a few out there with integrity.  If you're paying out your hard earned money to be convinced to take on "bad offers", "flops", and assorted other projects that will "ruin" your career, you do have to reconsider some things.  Maybe your manager and/or your lawyer can help you.  Maybe collegues in your field.  There has to be a solution somewhere.  In any event, there must be a better alternative than being stolen from.
    Hope it all works out.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    Fletch is making a strong case for why TT moved to Colorado.  Apparently "caveat emptor" resolves responsibility for fraudulent or unscrupulous behaviour in Colorado.  Good to know.  I'll go with it this far - suing someone because a real estate speculation didn't deliver the % of profit you were promised?  Good luck with that.  However, if the deal was made because Heatley was misled or because the agent/family/broker whoever didn't do what they said they would to realize those profits, then why should Heatley be the only one to take responsibility?  Because he's rich?  And why shouldn't he also "take responsibility" by using the means at his disposal to recover his lost money?  He made a mistake trusting this person/these people, and now he's trying to act on the consequences - that's taking responsibility too.  Would you just shake your head and say "Gaaaaw leee, I sure am dumb!"?

    Other things I find odd on this thread: there's a difference between a stereotype and a pattern.  When you see agent after agent being sued and pursued for misues of client funds, it's a pattern.  When one of those stories comes to light when you're debating the existence of the pattern, it's a timely example.

    Why does this stuff happen?  Certain kinds of transactions you hire an agent or business manager to conduct require that they have the authority to use your resources.  Saying that you're stupid to give them power of attorney is akin to saying that that entire field is an invitation to being criminal (i.e. you gave a scammer the power to scam you).  In fact, you can extend this to the whole caveat emptor thing too - if you start with the assumption that most agents are scum, then yes, you better be careful who you trust.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:
    Fletch is making a strong case for why TT moved to Colorado.  Apparently "caveat emptor" resolves responsibility for fraudulent or unscrupulous behaviour in Colorado.  Good to know.  I'll go with it this far - suing someone because a real estate speculation didn't deliver the % of profit you were promised?  Good luck with that.  However, if the deal was made because Heatley was misled or because the agent/family/broker whoever didn't do what they said they would to realize those profits, then why should Heatley be the only one to take responsibility?  Because he's rich?  And why shouldn't he also "take responsibility" by using the means at his disposal to recover his lost money?  He made a mistake trusting this person/these people, and now he's trying to act on the consequences - that's taking responsibility too.  Would you just shake your head and say "Gaaaaw leee, I sure am dumb!"? Other things I find odd on this thread: there's a difference between a stereotype and a pattern.  When you see agent after agent being sued and pursued for misues of client funds, it's a pattern.  When one of those stories comes to light when you're debating the existence of the pattern, it's a timely example. Why does this stuff happen?  Certain kinds of transactions you hire an agent or business manager to conduct require that they have the authority to use your resources.  Saying that you're stupid to give them power of attorney is akin to saying that that entire field is an invitation to being criminal (i.e. you gave a scammer the power to scam you).  In fact, you can extend this to the whole caveat emptor thing too - if you start with the assumption that most agents are scum, then yes, you better be careful who you trust.
    Posted by Bookboy007


    I don't think anyone is saying that.  My interpretation is that some don't consider this example as proof, that agents are scum.  I'm in agreement that in this particular instance, putting the blame on Heatley misses the mark.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    steve, these are Fletch's words:  "Instead of worrying about a code of morality in professions like that, people like Heatley need to rely on judgement and caution when managing their money."  And: "I'm not even disputing whether agents are sleazy or not.  They are what they are.  But the people who deal with them aren't forced into getting swindled.  Let buyer beware."

    "They are what they are" is the scorpion and the frog defense.  It fits right into NAS's argument that it is in the nature of being an agent, doing what agents are understood to do, that the sleaze lies.  Go back to the discussion of PC. PC was an agent, then a GM.  He was slimy, now he's not.  Is that because he went through a detox program or because the nature of his profession changed?

    It's not about the moral failing of the person; it's about the nature of the profession and its role, though there is the question of the kind of people attracted to that role that leads to Rosenhauses of the world.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    Yeah Book, you're all over the place and responding to a lot of points that nobody here is trying to make.  

    I don't blame Heatley for suing at all, if he thinks he has been wronged.  Maybe he was.  The argument I was responding to, was that Heatley suing his agent was some kind of evidence (concrete, no less) that agents are all sleazy.  I think it is just as likely that players aren't very good at managing their money.  I think that agents, and lawyers, and pimps, and car salesman, are all very unscrupolous about getting a piece of the action in general.  I would rather have players assume a role of personal responsibility than to default to crying foul over losing money after trusting the wrong person.  Unless the agent did something illegal to get the money -- has there been any evidence of that?  If there has, you would want to build that into your argument.

    You talk about a pattern, but you haven't shown one and neither has your cohort.  All we have in this thread is one singular example.  That example is an unresoleved lawsuit where none of us seem to know the details.  By your own words, that is not a pattern.  Making broad judgments off of one example is...a stereotype, at best.

    I don't know where you live, but I think caution and caveat emptor is a decent principle for business deals with agents and lawyers, in Colorado or anywhere else.  You use the words 'fraudulent behavior', but again, you show no evidence to back it up.  

    Sometimes agents are fraudulent, sometimes players throw away their money -- does anyone have any idea which one happens to be the case here? 

    I'm happy to take Heatley's side here, all I need is a reason.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:
    steve, these are Fletch's words:  "Instead of worrying about a code of morality in professions like that, people like Heatley need to rely on judgement and caution when managing their money."  And: "I'm not even disputing whether agents are sleazy or not.  They are what they are.  But the people who deal with them aren't forced into getting swindled.  Let buyer beware." "They are what they are" is the scorpion and the frog defense.  It fits right into NAS's argument that it is in the nature of being an agent, doing what agents are understood to do, that the sleaze lies.  Go back to the discussion of PC. PC was an agent, then a GM.  He was slimy, now he's not.  Is that because he went through a detox program or because the nature of his profession changed? It's not about the moral failing of the person; it's about the nature of the profession and its role, though there is the question of the kind of people attracted to that role that leads to Rosenhauses of the world.
    Posted by Bookboy007

    Book, what is meant in the quote above, is that you need to draw a line between what is illegal, and what is just morally questionable to you.  If the agent is committing fraud, than you have to side with Heatley.  But if Heatley just trusted someone someone with his money who acted selfishly and squandered the money, then you have to call for Heatley to use better judgment.  

    Expecting agents to live by a moral code seems woefully naive.  If you choose the wrong guy and get talked into a bad real estate scheme, maybe crying foul and suing isn't the best way to go.  If it makes you feel better to label the agent as sleazy, that's fine, but it doesn't get Heatley's money back.  A smarter approach would be to hold yourself accountable for bad decisions with your money.

    Pending the actual evidence of what happened, it's hard to say that the agent is solely to blame, no?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:
    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people! : Book, what is meant in the quote above, is that you need to draw a line between what is illegal, and what is just morally questionable to you.  If the agent is committing fraud, than you have to side with Heatley.  But if Heatley just trusted someone someone with his money who acted selfishly and squandered the money, then you have to call for Heatley to use better judgment.   Expecting agents to live by a moral code seems woefully naive.  If you choose the wrong guy and get talked into a bad real estate scheme, maybe crying foul and suing isn't the best way to go.  If it makes you feel better to label the agent as sleazy, that's fine, but it doesn't get Heatley's money back.  A smarter approach would be to hold yourself accountable for bad decisions with your money. Pending the actual evidence of what happened, it's hard to say that the agent is solely to blame, no?
    Posted by Fletcher1

    We keep referring to this guy as an agent even though he hasn't been certified as an NHLPA agent for quite some time now. Everything about the situation is confusing. Heatley fires McAlpine as his agent and then gets scammed by him 6 years later. Why was Heatley so trusting of someone that he'd previously fired? I'm not saying Heatley deserved it but he obviously needs to be less trusting.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:
    steve, these are Fletch's words:  "Instead of worrying about a code of morality in professions like that, people like Heatley need to rely on judgement and caution when managing their money."  And: "I'm not even disputing whether agents are sleazy or not.  They are what they are.  But the people who deal with them aren't forced into getting swindled.  Let buyer beware." "They are what they are" is the scorpion and the frog defense.  It fits right into NAS's argument that it is in the nature of being an agent, doing what agents are understood to do, that the sleaze lies.  Go back to the discussion of PC. PC was an agent, then a GM.  He was slimy, now he's not.  Is that because he went through a detox program or because the nature of his profession changed? It's not about the moral failing of the person; it's about the nature of the profession and its role, though there is the question of the kind of people attracted to that role that leads to Rosenhauses of the world.
    Posted by Bookboy007


    Absolutely.  I should have said "I don't think "everyone", instead of "I don't think anyone".
    My apologies.  I didn't mean to get into the middle of any conversation you were having with Fletch.
    Now that I am though, I want to argue any sense of intelligence anyone could fathom from the position you have hi-lited above.  It's a dumb over-generalization.  It has no merit.  It can be mixed, stirred and shaken with "patterns", "stereotypes", and assorted other descriptors, but it's still a ridiculous position to try and uphold as fact.  I can understand hyperbole when poking fun at lawyers, agents, car salesmen, et al, but attempting to introduce that ignorance as fact...in a public forum is mind boggling.   

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:
    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people! : Absolutely.  I should have said "I don't think "everyone", instead of "I don't think anyone". My apologies.  I didn't mean to get into the middle of any conversation you were having with Fletch. Now that I am though, I want to argue any sense of intelligence anyone could fathom from the position you have hi-lited above.  It's a dumb over-generalization.  It has no merit.  It can be mixed, stirred and shaken with "patterns", "stereotypes", and assorted other descriptors, but it's still a ridiculous position to try and uphold as fact.  I can understand hyperbole when poking fun at lawyers, agents, car salesmen, et al, but attempting to introduce that ignorance as fact...in a public forum is mind boggling.   
    Posted by stevegm

    I'll boil it down for you:

    Agents are sleazy.
    Why?
    It's just what they do.
    What do they do?
    They're sleazy.
    Why?
    It's just what they do.
    What do they do?
    They're sleazy...


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:
    steve, these are Fletch's words:  "Instead of worrying about a code of morality in professions like that, people like Heatley need to rely on judgement and caution when managing their money."  And: "I'm not even disputing whether agents are sleazy or not.  They are what they are.  But the people who deal with them aren't forced into getting swindled.  Let buyer beware." "They are what they are" is the scorpion and the frog defense.  It fits right into NAS's argument that it is in the nature of being an agent, doing what agents are understood to do, that the sleaze lies.  Go back to the discussion of PC. PC was an agent, then a GM.  He was slimy, now he's not.  Is that because he went through a detox program or because the nature of his profession changed? It's not about the moral failing of the person; it's about the nature of the profession and its role, though there is the question of the kind of people attracted to that role that leads to Rosenhauses of the world.
    Posted by Bookboy007


    ... or because the perception of this profession by some has always been ( and will always be ) " if you are one then you must be fill in the blank ".

    No exceptions accepted. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:
    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people! : ... or because the perception of this profession by some has always been ( and will always be ) " if you are one then you must be fill in the blank ". No exceptions accepted. 
    Posted by Chowdahkid-


    Actually, that's the point, yes.  It's the activity that I find lends itself to questionable behaviour skirting the edge of the illegal.  I don't think pimps are good people - to borrow one of Fletch's comparables - no matter how nice they are to their employees.  To use a comparable that's not illegal: If I think the secondary market for vehicles is inherently slimy - because it undercuts the market for new cars, which impacts on the wagest of workers and because the industry does not, as a rule, stand behind the product it sells even though that product is often too complex for the average person to fully understand - then anyone who sells used cars is guilty by association with an activity I don't believe in.  

    The argument has never been about all or none.  It's always been about where you start.  I tend to think agents start in the opportunistic weasel camp and can move over by doing the kind of things Orr has done since becoming an agent - including counselling for his clients on how to manage their own money and not get sucked into crazy spending.  That's a perfect example of a person who IS NOT sleazy working in a business that generally is.  
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!



    Never buy a "pre owned" car from an ex p!mp or agent without a carfax
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from felixwas. Show felixwas's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:
    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people! : It doesn't say "all", either.  The amount is determined by the reader.  You'll find people in conversations make up ridiculous percentages, exact numbers that have no exact backing, and then try to prove them.  That's not my style. The effectiveness of my argument lies inside the mind of each person that read what I've written.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    NAS, when you write, "The amount is determined by the reader," you have tacitly (if unknowingly) admitted you haven't made a clear point. Say exactly what you are trying to say so that I know—and other readers know—exactly what you mean. You're splitting a hair that isn't there when you say, "It doesn't say 'all,' either." But I really don't want to get into a discussion about semantics with you.

    And I wasn't trying to suggest that you extensively research the number of agents who have been found in court to be guilty of bilking their clients. That sounds more like a dissertation for a graduate student in economics; I don't have the time or the inclination to do the research, and I certainly wouldn't expect you to do the same. All I'm suggesting is that if solidly researched, documented numbers existed, it might change the tone of some of the the posts on this thread.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from heyoo. Show heyoo's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    NAS is always right no matter how off topic he is, no point in stating things that can be seen as actual information he will just try to find some way of basing his point off of the info provided like the vatican using the bible to side with there beliefs even though nothing could be further from the truth. When i read the statement "Agents" it meant all of the agents not one person.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:
    I think it is just as likely that players aren't very good at managing their money.  I think that agents, and lawyers, and pimps, and car salesman, are all very unscrupolous about getting a piece of the action in general.  I would rather have players assume a role of personal responsibility than to default to crying foul over losing money after trusting the wrong person.  Unless the agent did something illegal to get the money -- has there been any evidence of that?Posted by Fletcher1


    We'll agree to disagree that I was responding to arguments people no one is making.  Maybe that's also what I'm about to do here.

    The reason you hire an agent?  To manage your affairs.  Because you're not good at it and because you need to concentrate on managing your training not your contract.  If you conduct the search for an agent in good faith, and there is no evidence that that agent is more unscrupulous than the herd, why should you then take the lion's share of responsibility if that agent bilks you?  One of our points of difference here is that I read the filing of a high-profile suit in Calgary - where the burden to file "nuisance" lawsuits is relatively high - to mean that Heatley believes the McAlpines did do something actionable if not criminal.  I wouldn't take this as proof that we should lock up all agents, because it is an unresolved case, but you can't argue the fact that this is a player accusing his former agent of stealing his money.  And there have been many examples.  In this case, though, a default ruling has already awarded Heatley over $1M, so yes, we can assume there's merit in Heatley's accusation - story's here:
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/dany-heatley-sues-ex-agent-for-11-million/article4487673/

    Mike Danton tried to have his agent killed because he manipulated every aspect of Danton's life from a young age.  Look up Tank Black, Norby Walters and Mike Bloom.  Bus Cook broke a promise to Jay Cutler by agreeing to represent Vince Young - same position, same draft.  We all know the Eagleson example.  Reggie White's agent misled White because he was trying to secure his own job with the Eagles - and it was one of the reasons White eventually left for Green Bay.  This is tip of the iceberg stuff.  There's more literature on the history of unethical behaviour among sports agents than anyone here has mentioned, particularly in law reviews.  It's an industry basically is regulated and has its professional standards set by the individual leagues that certify agents.  There's a key distinction between attorney agents and non-attorney agents in that attorney agents are required to uphold the ethics of the bar.  That doesn't mean they do, but it does mean that the leeway to be unethical in negotiations allows non-attorney agents to promise more cash and perks to players.  Of course, that's dancing with the devil, but how many players know it? 

    Maybe the bulk of the questionable behaviour by agents has to do with the ways they attempt to sway the judgment of kids who aren't equipped with the critical skills to resist.  You're a 16 yr old kid in junior hockey and an agent says he'll buy you a car now and get you an endorsement with the local pizza place etc., just pay him back at 6% of your deal when you sign on in the NHL, you probably take that deal.  A lot of players have been doing what their agents told them to do since a very young age.  In some cases, they go to extents that are illegal. McAlpine was probably Heatley's agent since he was a 17 yr old kid finishing a high school diploma. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:
    That sounds more like a dissertation for a graduate student in economics; I don't have the time or the inclination to do the research, and I certainly wouldn't expect you to do the same. All I'm suggesting is that if solidly researched, documented numbers existed, it might change the tone of some of the the posts on this thread.
    Posted by felixwas


    This is full of good examples from football and baseball, and you can use the footnotes to track down some of the other key records trails.

    http:\\www.law.villanova.edu/Academics/Journals/Jeffrey%2520S%2520Moorad%2520Sports%2520and%2520Entertainment%2520Law%2520Journal/~/media/academics/journals/sportsandentertainmentlawjournal/docs/171/SPORTS%2520AGENTS%2520%2520ETHICAL%2520REPRESENTATIVES%2520171.ashx+pro+athlete+sue+agent+millions&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjSIfhI86nwOtoTEtYTY-QtUwJemq-SPQdmv9c6hL9i7TroFGx4fkF2C2Lfkj-_tC78-I-MotVrlVEBE8ZwjZ3rvQzJe5lkZZ1SP3iOHuTlg-ol-JHiI2HF0L7ja1ejN2LNCSV5&sig=AHIEtbSxfz4JiGseTNE1_bGDkBUp2l5EoA
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:
    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people! : We keep referring to this guy as an agent even though he hasn't been certified as an NHLPA agent for quite some time now. Everything about the situation is confusing. Heatley fires McAlpine as his agent and then gets scammed by him 6 years later. Why was Heatley so trusting of someone that he'd previously fired? I'm not saying Heatley deserved it but he obviously needs to be less trusting.
    Posted by dezaruchi


    A lot of comments here not reading the full story (not picking on you, dez, but this is a good kick off point).  Heatley didn't get scammed 6 years later, he's filing this suit, subsequent to an earlier suit, and it's a significant research product to put all of the pieces together. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from felixwas. Show felixwas's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    In Response to Re: Agents: They are good people!:


    I can't get that URL to open, Book. Could you double-check it, please? Thanks!
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    Fair enough Book, I don't know how long I want to battle this one, as I think we're just taking a different perspective on a general issue and would probably agree on specific examples, given full information.

    Sure you hire an agent to help you get your money, but not so much to manage it (get an accountant), and certainly not for real estate endeavors.  Unless you don't mind some risk.  

    I won't be the tiniest bit surprised if Heatley wins the lawsuit and was indeed swindled by a low character person.  I don't know the details.  But I will never believe that merely being an agent makes you sleazy (until you change professions), or being a banker makes you greedy, or being a lawyer makes you dishonest.

    I also know that if this happened to me I would be equal parts furious at the swindler and ashamed at my own bad judgments and decisions.  I research and vet the people I invest with, I research and vet the people who watch my kids, I research and vet the people who work on my house.  If we all agree that there are a ton of sleazy people in the world, I don't think it is unreasonable to call for a little personal responsibility to protect oneself.

    The best way to get rid of sleazy agents is not to hire them.


     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    "responding to arguments people no one is making.  Maybe that's also what I'm about to do here. The reason you hire an agent?  To manage your affairs."

    You hire an agent to handle getting you top dollar in contract negotiations, this has worked well for Danny. Heatley then ventured into doing an investment portfolio, which happened to be real estate, with an agent. Two very different relationships.

    Heatley didn't separate the two and he had plenty of examples of Eagleson type situations to see where athletes had been taken advantage of. Also you most certainly do not have to give "power of attorney", you can still right checks then ask for documentation to where the money is going.

    Still a crock to say that every agent is bad.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Agents: They are good people!

    I would rather assume that people drawn to being an agent are more suspect than others and work back.  Call it part of my due diligence.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share