Rod sued for promissory note -- So What
So Rod gets sued for a note due. This was mentioned here yesterday afternoon in the "piling on" topic. The link at A2.com is: http://www.annarbor.com/sports/post-2/
Basically:
"Rodriguez’s financial advisor, Mike Wilcox, released a statement through Michigan spokesperson Dave Ablauf late Monday, saying Rodriguez is the victim of a real-estate Ponzi scheme.
“Several other coaches and prominent individuals are involved in this transaction that was initiated in 2004,” Wilcox said. “This is a personal issue, and as Coach Rodriguez’s financial advisor, I and his legal counsel will be handling this matter moving forward. We are evaluating legal actions and solutions since the promoter of the scheme is currently awaiting trial on criminal charges.”
This shows a bad financial decision on Rod's part. No more. No less. It happens to people daily. Given the time commitment to football he probably relied on a financial advisor who didn't know what he was doing (or did and didn't have Rich's interests in mind).
September 1st, 2009 at 1:41 PM ^
I love me a good conspiracy, but usually dont truly believe them. But whats up with all this crap coming out right before the first game? It cant be coincidence.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:48 PM ^
Rosenberg, Sharp, Michigan State, some affluent WVU fans, and the Illuminati are conspiring to destroy Rodriguez!
September 1st, 2009 at 2:09 PM ^
but real estate fraud has been so rampant in the US since 2000 and the ri-goddamned-diculous Fed policies for Alan Greenspan and GED guys pretending to be loan officers.
With hundreds of thousands of Americans moon walking away from their mortgage obligations, a tidal wave of Alt A and prime loan foreclosures coming in late 2009 to mid 2010, and everyone challenging the banks to "produce the note" (and then *shocker!* they can't because they chopped it all up into CDOs and sold them), the sentiment about what transpired in such real estate deals and the complete lack of good faith in lending is starting to change things in the courts. I, for one, would not be at all surprised to see Rodriguez escape this one scott free.
Many hundreds of American banks are teetering on failure right now as a result of lackluster underwriting and phony docs.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:31 PM ^
"This shows a bad financial decision on Rod's part."
This is an example of an unfair, teleology-based judgment. What we see (now) is a bad outcome of a decision made in the past. The present was not available in the past. The decision could very well have been sound at the time. The quality of a decision should be judged based on the situation at the time is was made (e.g., information available, etc.), not on an outcome that was most likely quite unforeseeable.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:37 PM ^
to start Nick Sheridan in the opener last year over Steven Threet was not a bad decision either . . . .
Uh. Yeah. Got it.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:47 PM ^
Right - based on the information RR had from practice, Nick was the best man to start. RR could only predict what would happen on that first Saturday from what he saw in practice. Only after he saw actual play on a Saturday could he make a new decision. So yes, starting Sheridan was a good decision. It was also a good decision afterward to start Threet instead.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:37 PM ^
that most of the time we cannot tell the future. But we can predict it. Sometimes relatively well. Sometimes we can't predict things b/c we don't do our homework. Or we dont' think things through.
For example, was it a good decision or a bad decision to offer Justin Feagin a scholie -- You would say yes. I would say he probably should have inquired a little more based on the flags and therefore the incomplete set of information was his own fault, and therefore a bad decision.
Did Justin Feagin make a good decision in offering to get drugs for a guy? Well, I don't think so. But if he didn't get caught would that have been a good decision, too?
Was it a good dedision for Tom Goss to hire Brian Ellerbe? I think that's pretty clear. He had no experience and was a total prick.
On the other hand, what you're saying is the decisin to hire Gary Moeller was a good one even though he went ona drunken rampage and got himself fired. I agree with you. We probably wouldn't have been able to predict that, and it wan't a bad decision to hire him . . .
When it comes down to it, Rich obviously had a bad team advising him, as alluded to in the article. He got involved with a Ponzi scheme apparently. My expeience is that a thorough investigation of real estate deals reveals potential shadiness. Not always, but usually.
Kinda like having two quartebacks with no difference in experience and one being a walk-on and the other being relatively highly recruited. Chances are . . .
September 1st, 2009 at 5:28 PM ^
Try reading what I said again - "The quality of a decision should be judged based on the situation at the time is was made (e.g., information available, etc.), not on an outcome that was most likely quite unforeseeable."
Of course I would not say that every decision is a good one. We agree that the quality of a decision is based on the information available at the time (inherent in that is predictability). I disagree with any assertion that decision makers can tell the future - with any judgment of a decision based on UNFORESEEABLE outcomes. I am not sure why that is difficult to grasp.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:53 PM ^
what I said is that the decision to invest in this based on poor advisors and questionable participants would make a prudent person question it; ie. that it is not entirely unforeseeable had one hired competent professionals . . . and therefore was not a good financial decision.
I have a bridge from Ludington to Milwaukee for sale. If you'd like a prospectus I'll send it.