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!

     

Michael Rubin Serious Contender For Panthers Ownership


Saca312

Recommended Posts

This is interesting

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22722780/fanatics-owner-michael-rubin-serious-bidder-carolina-panthers?sf184214817=1

Quote

Another bidder has emerged in the race to buy the Carolina Panthers: Michael Rubin, the owner of sports apparel retailer Fanatics.

Sources say Rubin, whose primary residence is in Pennsylvania and who currently owns a stake in the Philadelphia 76ers, New Jersey Devils and the Premier League team Crystal Palace, is considered a serious bidder in the race to buy the first NFL team up for sale in three and a half years.

...

Rubin has a solid reputation in the business world and is not scared to use his platform for things he believes in. He recently voiced his support for Meek Mill, the rapper whom he befriended and is now serving two to four years in prison for a controversial probation violation. Rubin has reportedly tried to use his influence to get him out of prison.

If he prevails in his bid for the Panthers, Rubin, 45, would be the second-youngest owner in the league behind the San Francisco 49ers' Jed York, who turned 37 this week.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of thoughts posted in the Ownership Options thread, but I like the Rubin option, and think the NFL will as well.  Tepper might be the favorite because of money, Steelers ties, and he seems more likely to be part of the old boys club.

But Rubin, kinda like the Observer article mentioned, represents more of where the NFL is going.  Online/E-commerce ties, partnerships with Amazon, and an important one that cannot be understated if Rubin needs a partner as he likely will....Alibaba.  If I'm Rubin, I make a pitch based solely on hey, y'all want to sell a TON of merchandise and licensing agreements in China?  Well I'm your guy. Now sell me this team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some owners are already familiar with him,  and the NFL already has a 3% stake in Fanatics. It would take basically all his net worth if he were to do it alone,  but he is still a serious contender for obvious reasons.  

I like him.  No baggage, already familiar with the industry,  and has a conscience. And he's a relatively young guy which probably means he's a little more in touch with today's athletes.  

Rubin is a guy I can get behind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also having a guy like Rubin would make FA interesting.  A lot of good relationships with players already, could either mean guys want to flock here to play for him...or he plays the Richardson role wanting contracts given out to his favorites and hurts us.  I think it would be the former, for the most part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple things I notice...

The article lists "the other bidders" but doesn't mention Sabates. I think that could be telling.

The "second youngest" thing isn't necessarily a good thing to me, especially not when you look at Jed York.

Also, the news that the Fertitta brothers dropped out because they didn't want to divest their casino holdings is new. I thought things might have just gotten too rich for them.

Sounds like the price could go either way. More bidders drives it up. People holding off because other teams will be available soon could drive it down. I guess we'll see.

If the price does go up, that certainly favors the guys with the deepest pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, CarolinaNCSU said:

Couple of thoughts posted in the Ownership Options thread, but I like the Rubin option, and think the NFL will as well.  Tepper might be the favorite because of money, Steelers ties, and he seems more likely to be part of the old boys club.

But Rubin, kinda like the Observer article mentioned, represents more of where the NFL is going.  Online/E-commerce ties, partnerships with Amazon, and an important one that cannot be understated if Rubin needs a partner as he likely will....Alibaba.  If I'm Rubin, I make a pitch based solely on hey, y'all want to sell a TON of merchandise and licensing agreements in China?  Well I'm your guy. Now sell me this team. 

His business is defined as a competitor to Amazon not a partner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...