Of note….Mark Davis has no heirs. Wonder if Brady has first right of refusal and is playing the long game.
Tom Brady is retired
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
Raiders deal confirmed -
View: https://twitter.com/adamschefter/status/1660780569519853568?s=46&t=SM8KNBQ5qkrf8EOqnMV5BQ
View: https://twitter.com/adamschefter/status/1660780569519853568?s=46&t=SM8KNBQ5qkrf8EOqnMV5BQ
I’m ok with Brady being a part owner. Raiders fans hate this man. This has got to piss the fuck out of raiders fans… so naturally, im on board.
I really know one Raiders fan. He is convinced that the “Tuck Rule” is an absolute sham and it was the league trying to stick it to Oakland. He is convinced that if the raiders win that game they go on to win the Super Bowl and have a dynasty. Usually at that point I ask him “how the tuck rule game made the raiders lose the Super Bowl the following year??” That always shuts him up.
I really know one Raiders fan. He is convinced that the “Tuck Rule” is an absolute sham and it was the league trying to stick it to Oakland. He is convinced that if the raiders win that game they go on to win the Super Bowl and have a dynasty. Usually at that point I ask him “how the tuck rule game made the raiders lose the Super Bowl the following year??” That always shuts him up.
Yeah, it's like Ben Dreith (may he RIP -- Rot in Pieces) buying a share of the Pats.
I know a few, and it's one of the more baffling things out there. The Raiders had to play on WC weekend and were underdogs in the road in the divisional round of the playoffs. And they made the super bowl the following year. This news just makes me smile.
Isnt the obvious answer that Gruden would still be the coach so he wouldn’t be able to take Bill Callahan’s lunch money from the other sideline?
Sure. And Grady Little was going to lead the Red Sox to back to back titles in 2003-2004.
Brady has turned up in Novak Djokovic’s box for the French Open final. Nobody ask his opinion on the status of Kosovo.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=48h57PspBec
Brady also shows up in the latest Mr Beast YouTube video
Brady also shows up in the latest Mr Beast YouTube video
When I saw this Brady cameo video was about yachts, my mind went to him showing up with Dolphins owner Stephen Ross on his boat.
Important Brady watch content
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/CtZ9mT9tXfi/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/CtZ9mT9tXfi/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/technology/tom-brady-crypto-ftx.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
How Tom Brady’s Crypto Ambitions Collided With Reality
Uh-oh.
How Tom Brady’s Crypto Ambitions Collided With Reality
Uh-oh.
If his main exposure is that the shares he received in exchange for being a spokesperson are now worthless, I guess it's just a live and learn experience for him. I doubt it was too much work to film a few ads and while he deserves to be compensated, I'm sure he'll move on. I doubt he has the capacity to feel too guilt about the people he helped lead astray, but then I think that's true of all of these guys, from Matt Damon to all the stars rushing to promote sportsbooks.
But I guess the real concern is whether he has exposure under securities law. $32 billion is a scary number. I don't really know the law in this area. It doesn't seem like spokespeople generally get sued for promoting products, even if the claims are false. But, then again, there's probably not that much money to be made in a class action alleging that wheat flakes really didn't have as much fiber as Betty White said.
If these were in fact unregistered securities, then he could have some promoter liability based on the fact that he also had a financial interest. It also may very well depend on what he said. Again, $32 billion is a scary number.
What claims were false?
I mean, it's not the spokesperson's job to detail all of the risks of investing in the latest fad, or even vet the investment themselves. The Brady/Damon ads were obvious skits intended to entertain while also promoting. I don't recall any of the FTX ads or Brady saying that crypto was guaranteed to make everyone rich. If FTX investors, most of whom were wealthy hedge funds anyway, didn't understand the risks of the investment, that's on them, not Tom Brady.
Securities law is very complicated. If they were unregistered securities, liability does not always depend on whether you made affirmative material misrepresentations. You can also be charged with omissions about your own stake, and reliance need not be proved. Of the zillions of dollars that have been recovered for securities fraud since 1934 under the state and federal schemes, very little has been because of representations that "you're guaranteed to get rich." I understand that we love Tom Brady so people will bristle at the idea that he could get dragged through litigation, and I understand people will scoff at the idea of a spokesperson being taken seriously, but when you have a substantial stake in risky investments and you promote them, and people lose $32 billion, you should anticipate at a minimum making some lawyers a lot of money for a very long time.
There’s a reasonably plain-English explanation of certain touting regulations from the SEC regulatory perspective at https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2023/03/tout-tout-let-it-all-out-sec-continues-crackdown-on-celebs.
(I am not affiliated with the sponsoring law firm).
The article is largely silent on private rights of action for touting violations, but there might be other alleged violations that confer a private right of action, like ‘pump and dump’. This is above my pay grade. However, DDB states it accurately - when you have a stake in an enterprise you’re touting, plan on spending lots of expensive time in depositions. Justifiable reliance on the endorsement, to the extent its a safe harbor at all, is intensely factual and simply goes into the mix in the jury room.
(I am not affiliated with the sponsoring law firm).
The article is largely silent on private rights of action for touting violations, but there might be other alleged violations that confer a private right of action, like ‘pump and dump’. This is above my pay grade. However, DDB states it accurately - when you have a stake in an enterprise you’re touting, plan on spending lots of expensive time in depositions. Justifiable reliance on the endorsement, to the extent its a safe harbor at all, is intensely factual and simply goes into the mix in the jury room.
Tom Brady was paid in equity to appear in an ad for a securities firm that went bust. I get that securities law is complex, but going after paid celebrities who have literally nothing to do with the operation of the company seems absurd. The people that bought crypto on FTX just because Tom Brady was in an advertisement deserved to lose their money. Meanwhile, Fuld hoodwinked hedge funds to hand over billions to finance his Ponzi scheme; that's where the real money is (or was).
As DDB said, securities law is complex and sometimes counterintuitive. I guess the vernacular message for celebrities is this: Before you lend your persona to these projects, do some due diligence about the venture, because you’ll get charged with responsibility for consequences that could have been predictable had you done.due diligence.
Hedge fund investors OTOH aren’t directly or indirectly promoting anything unless they do something more than iinvest.
If you’re a deep pockets celebrity, involving yourself in these promotions is like swimming with sharks. There are lots of hungry plaintiff lawyers out there who live on 10b-5 litigation (anti-fraud provisions).
I’m just the messenger, not necessarily endorsing the reasoning,
Hedge fund investors OTOH aren’t directly or indirectly promoting anything unless they do something more than iinvest.
If you’re a deep pockets celebrity, involving yourself in these promotions is like swimming with sharks. There are lots of hungry plaintiff lawyers out there who live on 10b-5 litigation (anti-fraud provisions).
I’m just the messenger, not necessarily endorsing the reasoning,
Put another way, I’m assuming that because it’s a financial product, the rules are different than if you are spokesperson for a toaster that blows up. Dodd-Frank included some new protections that may or may not be relevant here as well.
I remain a little surprised that Brady, a guy who was notoriously very, very selective with endorsement offers during the bulk of his career, decided to jump in on this crypto stuff when anyone paying attention knew it was a ticking time bomb. Don't know if he changed his approach or if those advising him changed theirs.
Must have been one hell of a deal/pitch. They got Larry David, when do you ever see him in a commercial?
They all saw a boatload of potential cash for little effort that they weren’t getting offered from endorsing traditional products/services and decided the slickness of the company’s pitch was good enough for them.
Should’ve made them suspicious, but as we have seen rich people can do reckless shit.
Should’ve made them suspicious, but as we have seen rich people can do reckless shit.
I think it also mattered that he was actually given stock. If they had given him crypto, then he just would have been a loser like everyone else. But he actually had a significant interest in the performance of the company. He did not have anything close to enough to be an insider. But, when you have a significant personal financial stake in people believing what you say, and the thing being sold is an unregistered security, expect some turbulence.
In the end, it's hard to believe he would actually have liability, but then again we don't know what he did or what he knew and when he did it or knew it. But, the most simple way to value a case is roughly at X times Y, where X is the chance of a plaintiff recovering and Y is the exposure if the plaintiff does recover. X does not need to be very high here for the case to be scary as shit, even to a multi-millionaire.
So, you know if a personal injury plaintiff has $5 million in damages and estimates a 50 percent chance of winning the case, the case is roughly worth $2.5 million taking out lots of other variables. Even if the defendant loves their defenses and thinks there's a 30 percent chance the plaintiff recovers $3 million, the defendant still should seriously consider any settlement offer south of $900,000. This is very much oversimplified, but the points is that when the Y is $32 billion, the X does not need to be very high.
Wonder if this was a case of herd mentality. Once multiple high profile people joined in, perhaps a false sense of security came in? But, you figure that someone, somewhere would have had some counsel, business manager, family office person review and be like, "hold up here - not worth it".
But I think the bolded line is probably the best explanation. They all just got greedy and saw a quick, easy payday.
I have hidden the posts for now. If/when you are promoted to full poster you will have access to V&N.
DM me if you have any further questions.
I am the only person posting critical background regarding this conversation and you’re shutting me out? I have been disrespectful to no one and have done nothing but present facts to better inform this conversation as many here do not understand the nuances of what is occurring between the SEC/Gensler/FTX/crypto.
With all respect, it’s kind of alarming to be told “yeah kid, get a membership one day and we’ll hear from you” the minute a fairly inarguable counter-point about the current SEC and the realities of cryptocurrencies is made. Just disappointing. Does SoSH want to have these conversations or not?
With all respect, it’s kind of alarming to be told “yeah kid, get a membership one day and we’ll hear from you” the minute a fairly inarguable counter-point about the current SEC and the realities of cryptocurrencies is made. Just disappointing. Does SoSH want to have these conversations or not?
NVM - just messaged you.
All I’ll say is this (which is relevant to Brady): if TB12 was aware of the current SEC chair’s stance on cryptocurrencies when he was a blockchain/crypto professor at MIT (the lectures are public), then he thought he was promoting a commodity, not a security.
All I’ll say is this (which is relevant to Brady): if TB12 was aware of the current SEC chair’s stance on cryptocurrencies when he was a blockchain/crypto professor at MIT (the lectures are public), then he thought he was promoting a commodity, not a security.
Any content around politics in particular is kept in a hidden part of the forum. Its a cesspool, and when it leaks to other parts of the site, it turns those areas toxic as well. Keep the politics out of your posts, and they'll stick around.
I understand, I moderate a board myself and ditched the politics threads for this exact reason. I just thought it added context here (especially the video I shared), as I was pointing to Gensler’s background to shed light on his connections/background. Also, how those connections play into how he’s now very selectively smearing/destroying crypto projects and how just a few years ago he was a huge champion of crypto (going so far as to say they’re overwhelmingly commodities).
Here’s an overview of the legal controversy over whether cryptocurrencies are securities. It’s an unsettled issue.
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/what-makes-crypto-asset-security-us-2023-06-07/
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/what-makes-crypto-asset-security-us-2023-06-07/
I think it gets more complicated in the case of FTX. Some of the crypto people on this site can explain it better, and I'm not all that familiar with how these accounts work, but FTX was doing more than just providing a place where people could buy and sell cyrpto and store it in a wallet. They were effectively marketing yield bearing accounts in which the crypto was not actually staked, but entered on a ledger or on some kind of intra-company booking. My "what is a security" experience goes back to when I was in law school, but to me these really have all the hallmarks of a security, at least to the extent I understand them.
It's the YBA that is alleged to be a security. This can be true even if the underlying asset is not a security. (Or I guess in this case, the alleged underlying asset.) I think it's even more complicated here in that you alleged purchased one token, but really held some fiat token (or some book entered fiat token), and the case for fiat tokens to be securities is much stronger than the main blockchain coins like BTC.
That’s helpful. If there’s a grey area, you can imagine how regulators might be looking to bring down the hammer to dissuade companies in the future from entering into these relationships with celebrity spokespeople who actually serve as kind of celebrity salespeople.