Charles Cross didn't use an agent and got 4 year $21M and $12.7M signing bonus
- Thread starter onewoof
- Start date
Almost identical for what the #9 pick signed for last year except about $500k more for total and guaranteed. He’s the highest pick even to not use an agent. Wise move.
Sports agents don’t take as big a cut as many people think they do. I believe industry standard is between 1-3% of the value of the contract. Where they make more is on endorsements, where last I heard they take around 10%, which makes sense because they’re actively shopping their clients to companies.
With regard to attorneys, small civil claims and even some family law cases, I agree, no attorney necessary. However, if you’ve ever been in a courtroom with a Pro Se defendant in a criminal case, it’s rough. Attorneys totally necessary there, and with high dollar contract cases and complex civil litigation. Real estate brokers? I’m with you on that one, except in markets where it’s hard to find buyers and/or sellers.
Good for Mr. Cross.
With regard to attorneys, small civil claims and even some family law cases, I agree, no attorney necessary. However, if you’ve ever been in a courtroom with a Pro Se defendant in a criminal case, it’s rough. Attorneys totally necessary there, and with high dollar contract cases and complex civil litigation. Real estate brokers? I’m with you on that one, except in markets where it’s hard to find buyers and/or sellers.
Good for Mr. Cross.
remind me again why agents are necessary taking the huge cut they do? maybe next we can do without the attorneys and real estate agents
I don’t think there is much negotiation in the rookie contracts anymore. The NFL has a rookie wage scale. The only thing really negotiated is a signing bonus.
I see the benefit in using an agent when selling a house but when buying it makes almost zero sense.
Let’s add in CPAs for income tax purposes.
But that would require getting rid of a system that is overly complicated when it doesn’t need to be.
But that would require getting rid of a system that is overly complicated when it doesn’t need to be.
Pretty sure its the opposite. When you’re buying a house, it ain’t you paying the realtors….that comes out of the seller’s proceeds at closing. Its to your advantage to use a good buyer’s agent who can give you market specifics, pros / cons of any property that you may not think about, and most importantly…set up all your appointments and handle all the paperwork. Doesn’t cost you anything. Yeah, you can not use one as a buyer if you find a for sale by owner type place, but that greatly limits your available options of houses. Additionally, you might run into an issue with the contract or conditions that could delay or prevent closing in a timely manner. In the current national inventory shortage of homes, limiting your options 80-90% further is about the last thing you want to do.
Selling a house that doesn’t necessarily have to move super quick? Sure, you can list it yourself and deal with all the window shopping ******** and serious buyers and do the paperwork, and still probably have to pay 3% to the buyer’s realtor unless you want to cut your potential buyers by a **** ton by refusing to deal with any realtors.
Really just depends on the market and how ethical the seller's agent is. In a normal market, a listing agent that is looking out for their buyer will at least offer a discounted commission if there is no agent to pay on the other side. Of course not all agents are ethical and in this market, they will be able to hold out for full price. Of course, to the extent an agent is not fully looking out for their client, being unrepresented may be an advantage. If multiple offers are coming in and the realtor is advising the seller whether to value say appraisal gap protection or higher earnest money or quicker closing or whatever, I suspect a lot of them will probably hedge their recommendation towards the deal where they get both sides of the Commission.
Side story, if you ever want to piss off a realtor, if you are negotiating and not represented, point out that the difference is more than covered by the agent not having to pay 3% to another broker. You'd think that they'd be happy to get 4% of a sale instead of 3%, but apparently they get their heart set on that 6% once they get an offer from somebody that is unrepresented.
I've done real estate transactions both ways, w/ and w/out agents involved. Just did a land sale w/out agents and a home sale less than a year ago w/out a buyers or sellers agent. Both sales w/out agents went extremely smooth w/ no hick ups or unexpected surprises. They were the smoothest real estate transactions I've ever done. We both agreed on well known attorneys to use for both sides in both transactions and it worked out great.
That said, I've been a lot more comfortable during the "listing and looking" phases of property sales/purchases when I could just tell the agent I was using to "handle it" and I didn't have to do anything. My experiences w/ agents has been good since after the first purchase I made 35 years ago. He showed me a lot of homes, but, otherwise he was pretty worthless and I was new to the experience myself. He was a "friend of a friend" kind of deal, never again. You want someone that isn't afraid to hurt some feelings if they need to and will watch out for you and only you.
That said, I've been a lot more comfortable during the "listing and looking" phases of property sales/purchases when I could just tell the agent I was using to "handle it" and I didn't have to do anything. My experiences w/ agents has been good since after the first purchase I made 35 years ago. He showed me a lot of homes, but, otherwise he was pretty worthless and I was new to the experience myself. He was a "friend of a friend" kind of deal, never again. You want someone that isn't afraid to hurt some feelings if they need to and will watch out for you and only you.
Last edited:
I'm sure he will eventually sign with an agent once he gets closer to the end of his rookie contract. That is where he will need some help with interest around the league and free agency. I'm not sure how much offensive linemen make in endorsements. I don't see too many pushing products.
This is true. The seller, and by a certain extent the seller’s agent, has all the power in whether the property goes under contract or not. Nobody is entitled to a 3% discount right off the top just from not using a realtor for their side of the transaction. One good way to take a dump on the whole thing is by trying to take money out of either the seller or the seller’s agent’s pockets based on a decision you made for yourself that doesn’t involve the property.
Last edited:
It's not that they are entitled to a discount, it's just that most owners are only going to care about the money that goes into their pocket. If they are going to get the same amount and the broker is going to get a little more, it's hard for the broker to explain to the owner why they shouldn't take the deal but should hold out so the broker can get 6% instead of 4%. If it's 3% instead of 6%, they can at least argue that it's more work for them to deal with an unrepresented party (although in our case even that wasn't true except for the fact that there was no possibility of dealing with an agent more interested in closing the deal than in representing the buyer's interest). But if they are getting 30% higher commission than they otherwise would, it doesn't make a lot of sense logically for them to complain, it's just an emotional thing. It's a win/win/win situation, and the realtor acting pissy because they agreed to more or less 3%, then thought they were going to get 6% for no more work, but then had to settle for "only" getting 4%, was pretty entertaining.
This whole debate is one reason realtors get a bad reputation. Unfortunately it’s probably best to involve a buyers agent. Let him get his 3% for not doing much and hope he returns the favor somehow in the future.
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.