[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

I am genuinely confused as to why the OP should have to pay back the entire roll.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody "has to" (whatever that means) do anything. The OP could take the stake and buy a TV with it, and there's not much anyone can do about it.

What I'm suggesting is what I think is a reasonable course of action based on the limited information I have gleaned here.

[ QUOTE ]

If that were the agreement, then what risk did the backer take? With your reasoning, the backer either gets back his initial investment or somewhere between 2-4x his initial investment.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. Since a backee can buy out at any time, he could play to a standstill, decide he's not winning, pay back the stake and everybody's even.

[ QUOTE ]

That's one hell of a deal with no risk on the backer's part.


[/ QUOTE ]

The backer obviously has the good end of the deal, because he's the one with the cash. The backee is at the backer's mercy because he (presumably) doesn't have any other options. Such a backing deal is nothing more than loan sharking (this is not a value judgment on Irie's deal - I don't actually know the details of his deal, express or implied). This is why I would never accept such a deal, but obviously people might choose this over the alternative of having no earning power because they have no stake.

eastbay