Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Ranking the Owners - JR #19


tailg8or

Recommended Posts

19. Jerry Richardson, Panthers

 

You probably didn’t know that Richardson played in the NFL. This is because his career was undistinguished. In two years as a Baltimore Colt, Richardson caught just 15 passes. “Undistinguished” can also be applied to Richardson’s ownership career. In the 21 years (19 seasons) since the Panthers’ founding, there have been only five playoff appearances, and little consistency. Before 2013, the Panthers had won 11 or more games four times. All four times, they won eight or fewer the following season. As a person, Richardson’s humble persona is sometimes belied by surprisingly vicious actions. He infamously fired his own sons before even more infamously insulting Drew Brees and Peyton Manning during 2011’s CBA negotiations. Throughout the talks, Richardson was billed as the “least flexible and most pessimistic” of the owners, and didn’t seem to want to mediate with the union so much as break it. Finally, there’s Richardson’s stadium machinations. Despite Bank of America Stadium’s relative youth, Richardson has already ransomed the fine people of Charlotte for $87.5 million, and a favorable lease. With the team instructed to be sold within two years of Richardson’s death, it’s conceivable it could jump town. Richardson is to be commended for bringing football to the Carolinas, and seemingly doing his best to field a competitive team. But his actions in recent years have suggested that his ego comes before all else.      

By Patrick Daugherty  Rotoworld

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfls-best-owners-221600785--nfl.html

 

 

Interesting.?.  What is this garbage about the team being sold within 2 years of his death.  That's news to me ... and not very good news.  I wonder how this tidbit hasn't been discussed before, or did I miss it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole instructed to sell the team came up before. I think there's some legitimacy to it, but that doesn't mean much. It'll most likely go to one of the major partners in the company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team is to be sold two years after his death with stipulation that it remains in Charlotte.

I don't think they're really being fair towards Richardson. I think we have one of the better owners.God forbid he wants some help in paying for stadium improvements since the stadium was built using nothing but private funds.

Sent from my XT1080 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...