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!

     

Want to send a real message?


Zod

Recommended Posts

Want to send a real message to the front office?

Don't boycott the games. Still go and cheer for your team. But...

Do not spend a dime on concessions. No beer, no food, no shirts, nothing. Do all of your drinking at the tailgate.

Believe me, if there is a noticeable difference in the concession receipts at the next home game, drastic changes will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Want to send a real message to the front office?

Don't boycott the games. Still go and cheer for your team. But...

Do not spend a dime on concessions. No beer, no food, no shirts, nothing. Do all of your drinking at the tailgate.

Believe me, if there is a noticeable difference in the concession receipts at the next home game, drastic changes will happen.

I like your idea, but no way word gets out to enough people to make a meaningful dent in concessions revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, you're right.

How about we all refuse to buy gas on Sundays, too?

Gas, unfortunately is a necessity to most. Over-hyper-inflated fatty factory foods, however, are not. Gorge yourselves at the Huddle...alas I can never join you until I'm back on the correct coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gas, unfortunately is a necessity to most. Over-hyper-inflated fatty factory foods, however, are not. Gorge yourselves at the Huddle...alas I can never join you until I'm back on the correct coast.

I know. My point is only that it's very difficult to get enough people to act corporately to make a difference. I suppose the "We want Moore" chants were as close as I've seen a unified Panthers nation. If this weren't an away game, I have a feeling we'd be hearing them in Charlotte this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know. My point is only that it's very difficult to get enough people to act corporately to make a difference. I suppose the "We want Moore" chants were as close as I've seen a unified Panthers nation. If this weren't an away game, I have a feeling we'd be hearing them in Charlotte this week.

There's our whole problem right there!! They thought everone meant "We Want More!" Delhomme turnovers. We need to change the chant to "We Want Matt!" Glad we clarified this. Matt will now be starting the 2nd half of the AZ game. Bank on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know. My point is only that it's very difficult to get enough people to act corporately to make a difference. I suppose the "We want Moore" chants were as close as I've seen a unified Panthers nation. If this weren't an away game, I have a feeling we'd be hearing them in Charlotte this week.

I would have been there just like the last AZ game but my parents were visiting from SC and it kinda made things difficult to make plans. :(

I'll just yell at my TV any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...