Armstrong's financial situation

[Merckx index]

There has been a lot of speculation here that enough lawsuits could bankrupt LA. Can anyone here fill out this argument with some numbers? Betsy I think estimated that he could owe SCA $12-15 million all told. A while back a writer at Forbes estimated that if he had to return his winnings from the Tours, that would be about $7 million. The London Times case would be another million or so. If the feds re-open their investigation, there could be a lot more, is there any way to make even a wild-a** guess?

Are there any other potential lawsuits that could go into the millions? I’m thinking that as a maximum, including legal fees, he might have to come up with around $50 million. Anyone here think it could be more than that?

Would this break him? Forbes has estimated his net worth at $125 million, but these estimates may not be very good. I know some in the Clinic say he’s worth far less than that. Anyone have anything to support that contention? What is a minimum estimate of his net worth?

Then there is income. Does he have any at this point? It has been estimated the loss of sponsors will cost him $30-150 million over the next ten years. If the UCI upholds the USADA report, Oakley will surely follow all the others, cutting off all endorsement money. What would he have left? Speaking engagements? Don’t think he will be in much demand. Does he get any money from Livestrong? I understand they don’t pay him a salary.

The bottom line, as far as I can see, is that if his net worth is really in nine figures, as Forbes alleges, he could survive a worst case scenario. His lifestyle would certainly change, but he would have enough money left over to survive without any other source of income.

But even if he could do this, he might not. He might transfer much of his wealth to places where it couldn't be touched, then plead bankruptcy. Are there limits to this? Could he make most of his current wealth, whatever it is, safe in this manner, and still access it following a bankruptcy judgment? And assuming he could afford all the lawsuits, would it make better sense to pay off then to have to worry about accessing hidden funds?

Money minds weigh in here.

 

[ebandit]

$

lance is sure always to have more $ than myself

but no longer enough to 'hob ***' with the rich and famous

shame! the rich and famous are the only ones likely to consider lance a decent guy

 

[Huckleberry]

the rich and famous are the only ones likely to consider lance a decent guy

Nah, only the rich and shameless .........

 

[mountainrman]

There has been a lot of speculation here that enough lawsuits could bankrupt LA. Can anyone here fill out this argument with some numbers? Betsy I think estimated that he could owe SCA $12-15 million all told. A while back a writer at Forbes estimated that if he had to return his winnings from the Tours, that would be about $7 million. The London Times case would be another million or so. If the feds re-open their investigation, there could be a lot more, is there any way to make even a wild-a** guess?

Are there any other potential lawsuits that could go into the millions? I’m thinking that as a maximum, including legal fees, he might have to come up with around $50 million. Anyone here think it could be more than that?

Would this break him? Forbes has estimated his net worth at $125 million, but these estimates may not be very good. I know some in the Clinic say he’s worth far less than that. Anyone have anything to support that contention? What is a minimum estimate of his net worth?

Then there is income. Does he have any at this point? It has been estimated the loss of sponsors will cost him $30-150 million over the next ten years. If the UCI upholds the USADA report, Oakley will surely follow all the others, cutting off all endorsement money. What would he have left? Speaking engagements? Don’t think he will be in much demand. Does he get any money from Livestrong? I understand they don’t pay him a salary.

The bottom line, as far as I can see, is that if his net worth is really in nine figures, as Forbes alleges, he could survive a worst case scenario. His lifestyle would certainly change, but he would have enough money left over to survive without any other source of income.

But even if he could do this, he might not. He might transfer much of his wealth to places where it couldn't be touched, then plead bankruptcy. Are there limits to this? Could he make most of his current wealth, whatever it is, safe in this manner, and still access it following a bankruptcy judgment? And assuming he could afford all the lawsuits, would it make better sense to pVay off then to have to worry about accessing hidden funds?

Money minds weigh in here.

i doubt very much the tour will come back at him for prizemoney other than a pittance for 2009 they are way out on SOL times,

I am not conviced that SCA wil win either. The judgement did not centre on whether he doped, turned out they failed to put a clean clause un, but on whether he won! So all the evidence on doping , which was there entire case was rendered useless.. The agreement was binding in eternity. A case about whether he won would be a separate new case unconnected They are out of time on SOL to now claim he did not win - in short they may agree a couple of mil but not enough to hurt him.

Sunday times will win and may get him on criminal perjury stoppingnhim going to the UK, again small change. he has several houses and a plane each worth up to 10 mil. SOL in uk is longer at 7 years.

Biggest threat is if sponsors want money back from history with a clean clause, but I suspect that LA is fly enough not to have signed one, and as part of the sign off deals with livestrong, I am guessing a no clawback is part of the deal.

Lemond may well win a few dollars in punitive, not enough to hurt

And sadly, I suspect his money is protected in trusts set up in anticipation of all this.

Sadly A guy earning 20 mil a year for a decade is unlikely to go short of dollars to eat, even if his income disappears, but even then he has fingers in a lot of pies no doubt earning dollars.

the real punishment would have been criminal - i cannot see it happening now.

 

[Maxiton]

i doubt very much the tour will come back at him for prizemoney other than a pittance for 2009 they are way out on SOL times,

I am not conviced that SCA wil win either. The judgement did not centre on whether he doped, turned out they failed to put a clean clause un, but on whether he won! So all the evidence on doping , which was there entire case was rendered useless.. The agreement was binding in eternity. A case about whether he won would be a separate new case unconnected They are out of time on SOL to now claim he did not win - in short they may agree a couple of mil but not enough to hurt him.

Sunday times will win and may get him on criminal perjury stoppingnhim going to the UK, again small change. he has several houses and a plane each worth up to 10 mil. SOL in uk is longer at 7 years.

Biggest threat is if sponsors want money back from history with a clean clause, but I suspect that LA is fly enough not to have signed one, and as part of the sign off deals with livestrong, I am guessing a no clawback is part of the deal.

Lemond may well win a few dollars in punitive, not enough to hurt

And sadly, I suspect his money is protected in trusts set up in anticipation of all this.

Sadly A guy earning 20 mil a year for a decade is unlikely to go short of dollars to eat, even if his income disappears, but even then he has fingers in a lot of pies no doubt earning dollars.

the real punishment would have been criminal - i cannot see it happening now.

I think you'd better get a second opinion.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No offense?

But I really don't care, one little bit, and wonder why there needs to be yet another Armstrong thread discussing him. He's done, let him fade into the background and let's deal with the current dopers!!?

 

[trailrunner]

Then there is income. Does he have any at this point? It has been estimated the loss of sponsors will cost him $30-150 million over the next ten years. If the UCI upholds the USADA report, Oakley will surely follow all the others, cutting off all endorsement money. What would he have left? Speaking engagements? Don’t think he will be in much demand. Does he get any money from Livestrong? I understand they don’t pay him a salary.

They may not pay him a salary, but they generously pay him for speaking engagements and other endorsements. There is another thread here how he made ~$1.5M for a weekend charity ride. Those opportunities will certainly be going way down now, but it still would be a source of income -- that is, if Livestrong survives.

And even though his sponsors are dropping him, he could still get some residual income from sales of his branded clothing and stuff.

The bottom line, as far as I can see, is that if his net worth is really in nine figures, as Forbes alleges, he could survive a worst case scenario. His lifestyle would certainly change, but he would have enough money left over to survive without any other source of income.

A big factor in whether or not he wind up in the red or black depends on how leveraged with debt he is. If you were to give me a ranch in Texas that was paid for, a garage full of bikes and cycling gear, and, say, a paltry (to him) $1M annual income from a couple of Livestrong speaking engagements, residual royalties from Nike clothing, and a couple of annual appearances signing posters at baseball card conventions, and I could live the rest of my life very comfortably. But Lance would need to continue the rock-star life to bring his groupies around, so he'd have to be hosting a lot of expensive Michelob Ultra parties at his place.

 

[mountainrman]

I think you'd better get a second opinion.

Time will tell. it seems to me SOL is out on the SCA case for perjury., although not on the UK case because of longer SOL there - I am not aware of any extradition proceedings ever occurring for perjury.

The feds closed the case , and USADA have added no more evidence to what the FEDS already knew, It is hard to know why it was closed, but potential for a damaging political fiasco if less than a surefirevcase has to be up there,

It would be interesting to know what ifl any sworn statement was made to the sparks trial, and whether perjury might attach there.

 

[Benotti69]

Time will tell. it seems to me SOL is out on the SCA case for perjury., although not on the UK case because of longer SOL there - I am not aware of any extradition proceedings ever occurring for perjury.

The feds closed the case , and USADA have added no more evidence to what the FEDS already knew, It is hard to know why it was closed, but potential for a damaging political fiasco if less than a surefirevcase has to be up there,

It would be interesting to know what ifl any sworn statement was made to the sparks trial, and whether perjury might attach there.

Have you evidence the Feds case is closed?

It is understood to have been shelved. Big difference.

 

[doolols]

Paradoxically, he would be better off if he confessed, even if he did some jail time for perjury. Once that admission came in, people would sigh, and would then want to draw a line. IMO, there would be no appetite for punitive subsequent lawsuits. If the UCI ratify the USADA TdF decision, then SCA could come after him (subject to SOL) as he didn't win those Tours, and therefore the money was paid in error. My best guess would be an out of court settlement for a few million, subject to confidentiality clause.

Having seen his performance on Friday night, I'm now convinced he will never confess. In his mind, he's drawn a line. No matter what anyone does, he thinks he won the titles fair and square, and he'll continue to hob-*** with the great and the good (Robin Williams et al) and appear at Livestrong events, "dedicating his life to fighting this terrible disease" etc etc ad nauseum.

One other thing which occurred to me was what he's told his kids. Having imagined the conversation "Did you cheat daddy?" "Why, of course not." he would be unwilling to make a full confession in the face of showing his true colours to them.

So, to answer the OP, no admission, loss of a few mill which is loose change for him. Life goes on.

 

[ebandit]

deal with

No offense?

But I really don't care, one little bit, and wonder why there needs to be yet another Armstrong thread discussing him. He's done, let him fade into the background and let's deal with the current dopers!!?

no offence taken

deal with?

remember the forum...................is e n t e r t a i n m e n t ............
for the delight of those posting / reading

 

[racyrichuk]

Yes, whether he won those Tours is going to come down to a definition of the word 'official'.
Here's the contract
http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/C001.pdf

I know one thing. The only winners will be the lawyers.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Money is probably not a problem for Wonderboy now. He seems to have a number of fingers in so many pies that even though some PR distance has been established from some, he doesn't have to worry too much.

American law is such that there's probably not much money to get back from Wonderboy at this point for civil lawsuits. He has plenty and it's well protected from the courts. The visible civil Wonderboy cases ended in a out-of-court deal. In the end it's a civil matter equivalent to someone's very expensive hobby to claw back money from Wonderboy. I had hopes that this would generate long-run legal misery for the guy, but I have doubts.

It's Michael Vick all over again: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57530893/report-michael-vick-confirms-he-has-a-dog/

Let's hope the criminal process is restarted.

 

[benzwire]

Money is probably not a problem for Wonderboy now. He seems to have a number of fingers in so many pies that even though some PR distance has been established from some, he doesn't have to worry too much.

I agree, Lance will likely never be in need of money. Even if he is slapped with multiple lawsuits and people try to recoup money, he has a lot of assets in many different places.
The initial disgust with Armstrong that is starting to spread through the general public will fade. The American public has an amazingly short memory when it comes to things like this. Think Michael Vick, Tiger Woods, Bill Clinton, etc. They all have comeback from scandals. Jesus, think of Kim Kardashian. Unless you murder someone, anything can be overcome it seems.
Lance will continue to play the cancer crusader, it is his only selling point now. His sporting record is tarnished, but people will eventually give him a pass saying his good deeds outweighed his doping. Right now, there is the initial shock of insurmountable evidence after his continued denials (with the general public at least). As cycling fans and Clinic members, this isn't news to us. For "Joe Public", Lance right now is a cheater. With time they will realize he was doping along with everyone else (they won't get into the specifics and understand the advantages he had).
He won't have the star power that he did, but he will not be broke by any means. If he ultimately confesses, he'll probably take the Millar route and become the posterboy for clean sport. Hell, Schwarzenegger became the chairman for the President's Council on Fitness despite his history with steroids. With time, people probably won't care. Such is American society today.

 

[veganrob]

He most likely will never run out of money. Unless he made some really stupid investments.
Just to be safe though he will keep a few secrets.

 

[tofino]

Income lost

Advertising Age had an article that said Lance likely lost $30 million in total income.

http://adage.com/article/news/implosion-lance-armstrong-s-endorsement-empire/237854/

 

[Big Daddy]

Have you evidence the Feds case is closed?

It is understood to have been shelved. Big difference.

Maybe it was media manipulation by Armstrong's attorney that the Federal investigation was closed? I actually thought it was too. If it isn't that maybe there is still a chance to prosecute Armstrong.

 

[balkou]

Another potential loss: I don't think Holywood studios will be so eager to flood him with money for a film about his life.

 

[superleicht]

He will still have considerable assets but won't be nearly as liquid as before.

Of course, we don't know the details re the money laundering investigation out of Italy or any potential tax "shelters" he may have been involved with. If the feds put a lien on your assets or seize your bank accounts . . .

Superleicht

 

[bikeGURU]

I think people are forgetting that he owns part of several companies that were sponsoring him. I believe he is part owner/investor in Trek, and Honey Stinger, etc. SRAM bought back his investment in 2011 I believe. I'm sure he has investments in other areas and with companies he was closely tied to.

 

[trailrunner]

I think people are forgetting that he owns part of several companies that were sponsoring him. I believe he is part owner/investor in Trek, and Honey Stinger, etc. SRAM bought back his investment in 2011 I believe. I'm sure he has investments in other areas and with companies he was closely tied to.

His shares in Trek are very small, less than 0.25 percent.

http://roadcyclinguk.com/news/racin...ioshack-among-sponsors-to-drop-armstrong.html

 

[Maxiton]

Given that, in terms of protecting his titles, reputation, and future earnings, the smart thing was to come to agreement with USADA and cooperate, my assumption has been that the only reason he didn't do this was because he couldn't: his lawyers forbade it on grounds that it would expose him to too much criminal jeopardy.

If this is not the case; if there was no criminal jeopardy to speak of because of SOL, then the man is truly an idiot. Most of what he's lost he could have kept. By being so needlessly intransigent, he's allowed what would have been merely a serious blemish (and potentially the road to redemption and further enhancement) to instead completely consume him. Like a metaphorical cancer - left untreated this time.

As for his finances, I have no idea, but one thing is sure: his overhead is high, his lawyer expenses considerable, and his earnings greatly diminished. It's not going to get better, either.

 

[mountainrman]

Have you evidence the Feds case is closed?

It is understood to have been shelved. Big difference.

True, but with no investigtation ongoing and SOL running out or run out it is hard to know what else - other than a confession - could ever reopen it again
One other factor is a change of administration that sidelines armstrongs pals in politics, in favour of someone at the top determined on his destruction. I cannot imagine it happening because there cannot be many votes in prosecuting such as lance.

If ferraris supposed money laundering could be proven to involve him, Things would change.

 

[Velodude]

i doubt very much the tour will come back at him for prizemoney other than a pittance for 2009 they are way out on SOL times,

I am not conviced that SCA wil win either. The judgement did not centre on whether he doped, turned out they failed to put a clean clause un, but on whether he won! So all the evidence on doping , which was there entire case was rendered useless.. The agreement was binding in eternity. A case about whether he won would be a separate new case unconnected They are out of time on SOL to now claim he did not win - in short they may agree a couple of mil but not enough to hurt him.

Sunday times will win and may get him on criminal perjury stoppingnhim going to the UK, again small change. he has several houses and a plane each worth up to 10 mil. SOL in uk is longer at 7 years.

Biggest threat is if sponsors want money back from history with a clean clause, but I suspect that LA is fly enough not to have signed one, and as part of the sign off deals with livestrong, I am guessing a no clawback is part of the deal.

Lemond may well win a few dollars in punitive, not enough to hurt

And sadly, I suspect his money is protected in trusts set up in anticipation of all this.

Sadly A guy earning 20 mil a year for a decade is unlikely to go short of dollars to eat, even if his income disappears, but even then he has fingers in a lot of pies no doubt earning dollars.

the real punishment would have been criminal - i cannot see it happening now.

In the past your posts have been in support of LA. That continues.

There is no SOL in UK for obtaining a judgment by fraud. A court stamped settlement is deemed at law to be a judgment.

Texas law would have to be visited about the SCA settlement and Armstrongs now known perjury. SCA lawyer, Tillotson, is publicly informing confidence for SCA about an outcome. Only known "hearing" where Armstrong was under oath and was cross examined.

Perjury is a crime. No?

Don't know how a "sign off deal" with Livestrong offers Armstrong protection from his former sponsors. Unless you are of the opinion that Armstrong and Livestrong have confounded law by morphing into a single entity.

Arrangements to defeat creditors can be, depending upon jurisdiction, retrospectively set aside.

 

[Slava101]

I am not conviced that SCA wil win either. The judgement did not centre on whether he doped, turned out they failed to put a clean clause un, but on whether he won! So all the evidence on doping , which was there entire case was rendered useless.. The agreement was binding in eternity. A case about whether he won would be a separate new case unconnected They are out of time on SOL to now claim he did not win - in short they may agree a couple of mil but not enough to hurt him.

A lot of litigation is a question of moral soundness vs the external form of an agreement. The external form of the contract was indeed valid but that was never the SCA's argument. Lance needed to be declared the winner by the relevant organisations. The SCA were always going to struggle with the case at that particular time in part due to the fact they would have to at least convincingly proved Armstrong's guilt in order to get a court to rule in their favor.

However the case is totally different now. If the UCI accepts the USADA verdict and Lance is officially stripped of his 7 Tour De France titles, there will be questions over both the external form of the agreement and the moral soundness of the said agreement. The SCA could have a real shot at winning.

In fact the Lance Armstrong vs SCA case is similar in some ways to some of the classic cases still studied today in Jurisprudence courses. e.g Riggs et al v Palmer (New York, 1889). The law doesn't always rule in favor of external form.