Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JR condescending to Peyton Manning during CBA meeting?

598 posts in this topic

Posted

Not related and don't work for him.

Why so much blind support then? I get it that he brought an NFL team to the Carolinas, but at what point do you take a critical look at Richardson's actions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why so much blind support then? I get it that he brought an NFL team to the Carolinas, but at what point do you take a critical look at Richardson's actions?

Why are you so dead-set against him?

I can take a critical look at his actions. I just happen to believe the things about them that you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm sure the fams are taking this far more personnally than the players. Typical over reaction from something the players leaked. There is no way it could be unbiased.

The players will still come to play for the Panthers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why are you so dead-set against him?

I can take a critical look at his actions. I just happen to believe the things about them that you do.

Proof is in the pudding. Watch, listen and read and you will see that Richardson is not working in the best interest of the NFL. The best negotiations end with a "win win" situation. Richardson is looking to win and he doesn't care whether the players and fans lose.

Richardson already tried the replacement player theory this season and the players and fans lost...while he cleaned up the books for the CBA negotiations.....he left 8 starting positions unfilled......2-14 is all the proof I need. Now he's disrespecting and demeaning hall of fame players intelligence? Give me a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Proof is in the pudding. Watch, listen and read and you will see that Richardson is not working in the best interest of the NFL. The best negotiations end with a "win win" situation. Richardson is looking to win and he doesn't care whether the players and fans lose.

Richardson already tried the replacement player theory this season and the players and fans lost...while he cleaned up the books for the CBA negotiations.....he left 8 starting positions unfilled......2-14 is all the proof I need. Now he's disrespecting and demeaning hall of fame players intelligence? Give me a break.

Listen, the owners/NFL have appointed him as their representative, and have confirmed their faith in him since this "incident."

You are believing the hype by the unnamed players, including the one who wasn't in the room, and dismissing the reports that the conversation wasn't that contentious. You have dismissed anything that is contrary to your apparent hatred of Jerry Richardson. The "offended" players have received an apology for any perceived disrespect/demeaning, and they have moved on. Why can't you?

There are some things I know for sure. Jerry Richardson wants to the NFL to continue playing football, he wants his own team to win, and he cares about the fans.

I know these things because I know the man.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Wow....that is ridiculous.

You actual think that every person out there deserves to see the financial record of a non-public company? Are you serious.

If so, then every person out there (including yourself) should be required to make their tax returns and personal data public.

Not exactly :)

Usuaully, I would err on the side of liberty and privacy. But we live in an era where billion dollar corporations which are ignored by the SEC end up being freakish nightmares:

real monopolies(Mama Bell)

economic shell games(Enron)

too-big-to-fail scams(AIG)

bottomless vortexes of defaulted debt(Fannie May)

inefficient public bailout projects(GM)

I am all for erring on the side of individual privacy and liberty, but when it comes to multi-billion dollar corporations that have isolated their market, that are publically underwritten by virtue of their tax exemptions, occasionally exercise emminent domain against other private land owners, etc etc etc, I err on the side of the public's right to know.

If they don't want to disclose that kind of data, NO PROBLEM!!!!

Simply remove the public's right to know by removing the public's sponsorship of their business: refuse to give NFL teams tax exemptions, refuse their use of emminent domain, refuse to let them do exclusive merchandising deals(already done this year), etc. etc. etc.

:smash:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am all for erring on the side of individual privacy and liberty, but when it comes to multi-billion dollar corporations that have isolated their market, that are publically underwritten by virtue of their tax exemptions, occasionally exercise emminent domain against other private land owners, etc etc etc, I err on the side of the public's right to know.

:

This is a right that doesn't exist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I know these things because I know the man.

Well, if you know him, then you should tell him he needs a PR rep. and a great deal of training when addressing the public. Most Panthers fans will support him blindly, but there are those of us that won't support these types of actions and I can assure you that the other 31 teams fans are going to hate Mr. Richardson before this is over. He has set himself up as the fall guy and all the NFL fans hate will be heading his way if this deal doesn't get done.

Richardson is being painted by the media and players as a guy who doesn't want a deal done and is still pissed over the labor contract from 2006.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not exactly :)

Usuaully, I would err on the side of liberty and privacy. But we live in an era where billion dollar corporations which are ignored by the SEC end up being freakish nightmares:

real monopolies(Mama Bell)

economic shell games(Enron)

too-big-to-fail scams(AIG)

bottomless vortexes of defaulted debt(Fannie May)

inefficient public bailout projects(GM)

I am all for erring on the side of individual privacy and liberty, but when it comes to multi-billion dollar corporations that have isolated their market, that are publically underwritten by virtue of their tax exemptions, occasionally exercise emminent domain against other private land owners, etc etc etc, I err on the side of the public's right to know.

If they don't want to disclose that kind of data, NO PROBLEM!!!!

Simply remove the public's right to know by removing the public's sponsorship of their business: refuse to give NFL teams tax exemptions, refuse their use of emminent domain, refuse to let them do exclusive merchandising deals(already done this year), etc. etc. etc.

:smash:

I understand your point. However, the issue is that these are NOT public companies. The SEC is in place to police publically owned companies because individuals rely on their financial data and information to invest funds in said companies. These are are privately owned organziations. And, the public has absolutely no right now entitlement to see what these organizations make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You're the moron that doesn't understand the meaning of words....

Operating profit of $15 million does NOT include taxes (I never said it did) and it also does NOT include subsidiary gains such as sponsors, naming rights, ect. ect.....The $15 million is a guestimate by Forbes (my link added on page 6 or something) and only that...only Richardson knows what the final profits are.

Here, make sure you read this before you respond again...thanks

Definition of SUBSIDIARY

1a : furnishing aid or support : auxiliary <subsidiary details> b : of secondary importance <a subsidiary stream>

2: of, relating to, or constituting a subsidy <a subsidiary payment to an ally>

That was pretty pathetic. That's really your best response?

Your definition stated that subsidiary gains such as the sell of an asset or the closing of a factory were examples of expenses not included in Operating Profit but that included in Operating Profit was anything that was seen as a annual income or expense.

Maybe in your made up world sponorships and naming rights occur as happenstance without plan or timelines but in the real world these types of deals are apart of the normal operation and would be included in any report on operating profit.

And for the record you were the one trying to use this report as proof to what the Panthers profit margins were. I've always trusted what JR said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He's an idiot, they said that everytime he speaks up in a meeting people just cringe, say the commish and everyone is sick of him. Gosh he has lost it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Here is what's next. The NLRB will require the owners to open the books, due to their duty to furnish information.

When an employer claims financial inability to meet a union wage demand, the financial information of the employer's company becomes relevant. The Supreme Court held that if such a claim by the employer is importan enough to be made at the table, it REQUIRES some proof of its accuracy. Refusal to grant wage increases because the employer claims it could not stay competitive or would lose the profit margin was held by the board to invoke finacial inability. Therefore, financial data become relevant.

It's all going to come out sooner or later, the owners should go ahead and get the books ready....:banghead:

I just want it noted this is Riddel's opinion and in no way fact as he would like for others to believe.

The courts can just as likely rule that the financial information from Green Bay is "some proof of it's accuracy..." And before you say it's not a large enough sampling, thats for the NLRB to decide, not you.

By the way, you haven't been on here that long and your comments really started me thinking. I really think you are actually a mole planted by the NFLPA as a tatic to try and sway fans opinions in favor of the players. I could see the union trying to do this...pay some MBA students money to just sit on NFL team's message boards and use text books to try and prove the players' points.

And the way you say things that are so obvious as being opinion but you present it as fact reeks of the ploy the NFLPA has used this entire process. Might just have my foil hat on too tight but I really can't for the life of me see an average fan being as blindlessly supportive of the players the way you are when you no doubt have some intellegence...unless your wallet is getting filled to be so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites