Charlotte Group Eyeing Panthers Buy - This Thread is Informative

[Carl Spackler]

Irrelevant bc this group will not get the team

[Carl Spackler]

New ownership will want to keep the team here, government will balk at a new stadium or dome, team owners will whine to NFL, team will leave, people who disagree with me will cry and poo this post

[dldove77]

2 hours ago, Snake said:

Question did you attend games in Clemson? Has your family owned PSLs since the Panthers were born? Does your family name reside on the Panthers outside the stadium? 

I'm guessing not and it's why you think a dome is a bad idea. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

And I’ve attended Panthers games in Houston, Miami, Tampa, Tennessee, Jacksonville, Atlanta, Washington, Baltimore, Buffalo, East Rutherford, and San Francisco for the Super Bowl.

Anything else? Do I need to prove myself more to you? 

Football is played in the elements. BOA is a beautiful stadium. If you want to watch an indoor team or a concert, maybe football isn’t for you. 

[CPF4LIFE]

Aint no buyer comfortable with BOA stadium, that dome comin hell or high water. Lol

[Mr. Scot]

29 minutes ago, Iron Saint said:

Benson owns the Saints and Pelicans so unless there were new regulations introduced after 2012, I'm sure it could still fly.

Benson already owned the Saints when he bought the Pelicans. 

On the flipside, when Stan Kroenke was looking at becoming majority owner of the Rams, the NFL had him do some transfers of his interests in the Nuggets.

So yeah, if you're already an NFL owner and you want to buy into another sport, probably not a lot of opposition to that. But if you're the owner of another sport team, then the league will make you jump through some hoops.

You'll find it in a lot of the discussion about Cuban. One of the big reasons he doesn't want to buy an NFL team (besides his opinion of the league) is what they'd make him do with his Mavericks ownership.

[WesleyM]

6 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Not necessarily. The NFL doesn't like cross ownership. Might be okay for Sabates as a minority owner on both ends but a majority owner with a stake in another team would probably have to sell it.

Cross ownership is fine as long as it is same major market.  Only have to look at NO to find it happening.  They bent the rules because they wanted the giant relocation fee from Rams owner

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, WesleyM said:

Cross ownership is fine as long as it is same major market.  Only have to look at NO to find it happening

See above.

They're willing to work around some things, but they're not big on new owners already having ownership in other sports.

[Iron Saint]

30 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Benson already owned the Saints when he bought the Pelicans. 

On the flipside, when Stan Kroenke was looking at becoming majority owner of the Rams, the NFL had him do some transfers of his interests in the Nuggets.

So yeah, if you're already an NFL owner and you want to buy into another sport, probably not a lot of opposition to that. But if you're the owner of another sport team, then the league will make you jump through some hoops.

You'll find it in a lot of the discussion about Cuban. One of the big reasons he doesn't want to buy an NFL team (besides his opinion of the league) is what they'd make him do with his Mavericks ownership.

Possibly so, I see what you're saying.

NFL team first, then NBA team after = NFL a-okay with
NBA team first, then NFL team after = NFL says "no mas"

[Snake]

2 hours ago, dldove77 said:

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

And I’ve attended Panthers games in Houston, Miami, Tampa, Tennessee, Jacksonville, Atlanta, Washington, Baltimore, Buffalo, East Rutherford, and San Francisco for the Super Bowl.

Anything else? Do I need to prove myself more to you? 

Football is played in the elements. BOA is a beautiful stadium. If you want to watch an indoor team or a concert, maybe football isn’t for you. 

Why do you think you need to? 

 

Football is football and what elements do you get in carolina football? Extreme heat? Rain? A dome would allow us to host a super bowl and allow the Panthers to play in a consistent environment. I can tell you this. I enjoy hockey just as much indoors than freezing my ass off at the winter classic. 

[cookinbrak]

4 hours ago, Snake said:

A dome would allow us to host a super bowl

No, it wouldn't. It's already been said several times what the reasons are that Charlotte doesn't have the necessities to host a Super Bowl. A dome is not one of them.

New York had an open air Super Bowl. No dome.

[Snake]

2 hours ago, cookinbrak said:

No, it wouldn't. It's already been said several times what the reasons are that Charlotte doesn't have the necessities to host a Super Bowl. A dome is not one of them.

New York had an open air Super Bowl. No dome.

Dome is one of them. Just because one of the largest cities in the US. 

[Jakob]

Thought Sabates would be a good candidate, but he's out of his mind with some of these statements. 

[BudFox]

Think about the potential owners. They're NASCAR guys who make their money from sponsorship deals, not by selling tickets and managing a home fan base.  What better platform to continue that than a new stadium? The Panthers are an afterthought.

I'd rather the new owners invest in the team and staff and win a Super Bowl rather than try to host one.  It's the better formula... Look to Seattle, Denver, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, New England, and Green Bay. Super Bowl wins, back to back winning seasons, the fans keep coming...no domes.

[carpanfan96]

10 hours ago, Iron Saint said:

Possibly so, I see what you're saying.

NFL team first, then NBA team after = NFL a-okay with
NBA team first, then NFL team after = NFL says "no mas"

They let the Pegulas buy the Bills and they owned the Sabres already. So they will drop that rule of the owner is right.