Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

JR condescending to Peyton Manning during CBA meeting?


  • Please log in to reply
595 replies to this topic

#541 riddel

riddel

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 04:23 PM

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?

#542 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,065 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 15 February 2011 - 04:29 PM

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.

#543 pantherclaw

pantherclaw

    Wise Ass

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,585 posts
  • LocationGalveston

Posted 15 February 2011 - 04:35 PM

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.

#544 riddel

riddel

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 04:38 PM

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.

#545 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,065 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 15 February 2011 - 04:44 PM

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.

#546 Darth Bobo

Darth Bobo

    The Dude

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 259 posts
  • LocationRTP

Posted 15 February 2011 - 04:44 PM

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:

Edited by Darth Bobo, 15 February 2011 - 04:49 PM.


#547 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,217 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 04:53 PM


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

#548 riddel

riddel

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 05:00 PM

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.....

#549 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,720 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 15 February 2011 - 05:01 PM

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.

#550 mountainpantherfan

mountainpantherfan

    In Honor of Sam Mills

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,907 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 05:16 PM

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.

#551 PanthersGuy28

PanthersGuy28

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 627 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 06:01 PM

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.

#552 mountainpantherfan

mountainpantherfan

    In Honor of Sam Mills

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,907 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 06:21 PM

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.

#553 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,336 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 06:32 PM

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.


I think it is more likely that he is like any other kid with newfound knowledge wanting to educate the world and bring it to his "enlightened understanding".

It would be a nightmare for a company to open its books to the public, but I would like to see the public's collective faces when they see just how much money it takes to run an organization like the NFL. Then again, they may play like the NBA fans and simply claim that the numbers are fabricated.

#554 mountainpantherfan

mountainpantherfan

    In Honor of Sam Mills

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,907 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 06:40 PM

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.


I really wish the owners would ask every player to "open their books" and prove why they need that much of a raise every year.

Again, it's a catch 22 for the players. They don't want to be seen as just employees but they also don't want to be seen as businesses. They want the best of both worlds and none of the risk.

#555 ncbobcat

ncbobcat

    Beer Enthusiast

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,676 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 11:31 PM

Yep, the players are trying to pad their bank accounts in the hopes that they can "float" once they are out of the League. Of course, most of these guys are so horrible at finance that they don't figure out a few million dollars will last very long in a millionaire's lifestyle once the inflow has dried up. Many of these cats never finish school and are actually BEHIND the proverbial '8-ball' once they hang up the shoulder pads and hit the real world. They are just postponing the hardship by wanting a bigger chunk of the NFL pie. It must suck working 40+ hours a week! Geez........

Edited by ncbobcat, 15 February 2011 - 11:33 PM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com