[Locke]

Originally Posted by Split98

Some will think this is unnecessarily insensitive, but what a loser Chris Simon is.

1. Making $15M is enough for any human to live VERY comfortably. You give me $15M when I turn 20, and if I never work again I still have $300,000/year to spend until I'm 70.

If I want to live it up until I'm 50, and settle in for my silver years... I can budget $1,000,000 from 50-70 and still have $50,000 a year. As a senior, who would own my home and seen the world, I'm a pretty happy guy.

That leaves me $14,000,000 to spend from 20-50 or $466,666.67/year. I could comfortably pay off a very nice house before I'm 30, I'm in the market for an Aston Martin, and I can travel anywhere I want.

I know athletes destroy $466,666.67 budgets every year, but the self-aware will admit it's gluttonous.

2. Take care of your children, you dork. For three YEARS he missed payments? I'd be shocked if he wasn't enjoying his jetski or Ferrari in the time he avoided caring for his children.

That he wants the courts to forgive him of his child support debts is unreal. This guy has a ton of nerve to selfishly spoil himself for years and give the 'poor me' story that he hasn't collected a cheque in a while.

3. He's collecting social assistance and disability cheques? As if that system wasn't strained enough, he's blown through millions and lined up for a helping hand.


Simon played for 20 years. This isn't a guy who had a long playing career ahead of him when he retired. It mentions that he hasn't worked since he was 43. How much was he planning on earning as an NHLer in his 40s? If not for the knee injury he was on his way out anyways. Surely no one should believe that the career he had infront of him would return enough salary to relieve his debts. I'm actually shocked that he was even working in 2015.

I'm reading his situation as 'poor me', and it's gross.

I'm not disagreeing on any singular point, but your math has to amended. He 'earned' $15M, he didnt get to keep it all. Start at $7.5M.

Despite the math being off, most of your assertions still hold, but aggregate earnings and 'take home' are not the same things.