Gantt believes the league will force a sale to Tepper

[PantherBrew]

2 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

Well, a majority (or greater?) vote to approve a sale is by definition "collusion", I guess.

If they're pushing the guy they'll vote for because the other guy ain't gonna get the votes, what's the difference?

When it comes to the owners who own the organizations that ARE the NFL, I don't think "collusion" would be a problem.  They can probably do anything they want unless their by-laws say otherwise like "highest bidder always wins".  I'm betting they have enough qualifiers in defining the winners of franchise bids in their rules that they can do any damn thing they want.

And none of this is good for the future of this franchise IMO.

 

Where do they draw the line on this legalized collusion?  I am not disagreeing with anything you said.  But I am wondering, could they not vote for a guy cause he is black, or because she is a woman? 

Are these "sales" subject to civil protections, or are there limits to what they can be picky about?

 

 

[KBRed]

Interesting that the Peyton Manning story isn't on the NFL app. 

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

Well, a majority (or greater?) vote to approve a sale is by definition "collusion", I guess.

If they're pushing the guy they'll vote for because the other guy ain't gonna get the votes, what's the difference?

When it comes to the owners who own the organizations that ARE the NFL, I don't think "collusion" would be a problem.  They can probably do anything they want unless their by-laws say otherwise like "highest bidder always wins".  I'm betting they have enough qualifiers in defining the winners of franchise bids in their rules that they can do any damn thing they want.

And none of this is good for the future of this franchise IMO.

The word "Rooney" comes to mind.

The Rooneys are extremely powerful in the league. It was acknowledged a long time ago that if they want Tepper here, they have a lot of sway to push for it. Likewise, if I recall correctly, Bob Kraft is in Tepper's corner as well.

Going against those two just screams "uphill battle".

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, KBRed said:

Interesting that the Peyton Manning story isn't on the NFL app. 

Nor has it been mentioned by Ian Rapoport or any of the other NFL Network reporters.

[CatMan72]

First of all, you should take anything Gantt says with a huge grain of salt because he loves to invent drama (Olsen). I remember when Gantt was still the beat writer and accused Fox of "mutiny" because he started Brian St. Pierre over Tony Pike in the last year of his contract... he loves to invent salacious narratives. 

If this is true why wouldn't JR just announce he has selected Navarro and put all the pressure on the league? Now that the SI story is out I don't think JR cares that much about the results of the league investigation... the damage is already done. At this point there is only one outcome of the league investigation that the public will accept anyways, they can't suddenly decide to drop it or announce there is no credible evidence in the face of everything SI has already published... LOL

[Jon Snow]

11 minutes ago, PantherBrew said:

 

Where do they draw the line on this legalized collusion?  I am not disagreeing with anything you said.  But I am wondering, could they not vote for a guy cause he is black, or because she is a woman? 

Are these "sales" subject to civil protections, or are there limits to what they can be picky about?

 

 

Well for one this sale is of a franchise.  Which is a hell of lot more complicated than selling your car on Craigslist. 

The team only exists because the league allowed it to.  The ownership has to have league approval and pay hefty fees to even join the club and be granted a franchise.  So you are in essence buying a team and paying a franchise fee to even be part of the club.  The league rules prevent any Tom Dick or Harry buying in.  They hold the cards. 

There's nothing legally a buyer can do to force the league to allow his team in the club.  It requires a majority vote from the league owners which is what you see the front runners out campaigning for in the press.

You can sell your car to whomever you want without legal obligation regardless of the minority status of the potential buyers.

At least that's how I see it.

[Mr. Scot]

35 minutes ago, CatMan72 said:

First of all, you should take anything Gantt says with a huge grain of salt because he loves to invent drama (Olsen). I remember when Gantt was still the beat writer and accused Fox of "mutiny" because he started Brian St. Pierre over Tony Pike in the last year of his contract... he loves to invent salacious narratives. 

If this is true why wouldn't JR just announce he has selected Navarro and put all the pressure on the league? Now that the SI story is out I don't think JR cares that much about the results of the league investigation... the damage is already done. At this point there is only one outcome of the league investigation that the public will accept anyways, they can't suddenly decide to drop it or announce there is no credible evidence in the face of everything SI has already published... LOL

For whatever you think of Gantt, I don't believe this is invented at all.

And yes, Richardson does seem to value his legacy to the point that tarnishing it further would be seen as a legitimate threat. 

[Mr. Scot]

Person was also on the David Glenn show.  Some tweets from there...

 

[Mr. Scot]

 

[CatMan72]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

For whatever you think of Gantt, I don't believe this is invented at all.

And yes, Richardson does seem to value his legacy to the point that tarnishing it further would be seen as a legitimate threat. 

How much more can his legacy be tarnished after the most recent SI story?

[Carl Spackler]

2 minutes ago, CatMan72 said:

How much more can his legacy be tarnished after the most recent SI story?

It can be tarnished if he isn't allowed to sell to Navarro/chooses not to sell to Navarro. There are Panther diehards in the Carolinas who still revere the man

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, CatMan72 said:

How much more can his legacy be tarnished after the most recent SI story?

Are you talking about in the opinion of a rational person or in Jerry Richardson's opinion?

[pantherclaw]

I'm honestly more bothered by the good ol' boy society that is the NFL,  doing what the can to force the issue, than I am of jerry's allegations.

[PurityControl]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Are you talking about in the opinion of a rational person or in Jerry Richardson's opinion?

once she accepted his money (IF SHE DID) 

Yeah I don't know