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!

     

Would you put it past Tepper to move the team?

Jmac

By Jmac,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Luciu5 Veteran

Luciu5

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

In large part because we keep investing in awful QBs from the NFL's rubbish bin and we don't have the type of football organization to attract decent vets with other options. This is a mess of their own doing.

No doubt, and they should have seen it coming, particularly with Darnold. But this team will be a bottom dweller until we luck into a QB. Personally, I had no issue with tearing down the defense and rebuilding it, because frankly that entire side of the ball has probably been on the team since the 90's. I mean our defense was old, really old.

Imo, until we find a QB, nothing else matters. Do we need to reset the coach and/or GM to find a QB? Maybe if they keep being dumber than bricks when it comes to that position. The fact Baker Mayfield isn't on our roster right now is promising though. (The bar for this crew is set pretty low at this point)

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CPcavedweller Veteran

CPcavedweller

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Carl Spackler said:

It’s so hilarious how everything I predict ends up getting flamed and then 6-12 months later, people say the same thing. 

Me, Fall 2020: Matt Rhule is the worst coach in the NFL.
Huddle, Fall 2020: Shut up idiot. Be patient. Matt has a plan. 
Huddle, Fall 2021: Matt Rhule is the worst coach in the NFL. 

Me, Fall 2021: Tepper is gonna end up moving the team to a different city. 
Huddle, Fall 2021: Shut up idiot. Be patient. Tepper would never move this team. 
Huddle, Spring 2022: Tepper is gonna end up moving the team to a different city.

 

 

You're one person on a forum of a few hundred regular posters and readers. I've been here since 2011 and for some reason I don't recall seeing you post anything until now. Your opinion isn't worth a hill of beans in this arena fam. BET!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teddy2SuperBowlHeartBreaks Rising Star

Teddy2SuperBowlHeartBreaks

Posted
Posted

First of all, yes, of course he would move the team if there was an option that made financial sense. You are insane if you think any of these owners care about the locations of these teams. Every single year one of these assholes begs their respective city council for billions of dollars to build a stadium at the tax payer expense. It isn't the "government" that pays for these stadiums, its literally you and me, and somebody, somewhere absolutely has to tell them  to kick rocks at some point. 

I don't understand why any sports league needs "owners".  It is an outdated concept that causes more problems than not. Look at the Washington situation, or the Miami situation, or the Houston situation or the Detroit situation etc. These out of touch crybabies rake in millions every year and demand the tax payers build their stadiums, while getting what in return? Seriously, why does this league need owners? I honestly had a lot of hope for Tepper, but he has literally made me believe that owners in sports need to go. That is how bad this regime has been. It might be for the BEST if he does decide to skip town. Then in 5 years maybe the Carolinas would finally get a competent franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teddy2SuperBowlHeartBreaks Rising Star

Teddy2SuperBowlHeartBreaks

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It's been shown by deep dive economic analyses that flashy new stadiums provide terrible ROI for municipalities. I hope they tell Tepper to pound sand.

55% of people disapprove giving the Bills 850M to build a new stadium, while  22% approve. These stadiums are nothing more than welfare for the rich. Its  the city council saying well you're rich and connected so here is MORE MONEY even though NOBODY gets ANYTHING in return. Across the board people need to shut this poo down. It is the clearest example of crony capitalism imaginable. And fug Tepper in my Baker Mayfield voice

  • Pie 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Spackler Grand Master

Carl Spackler

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mother Grabber said:

why the fug would i want to waste my time looking up old threads so i can determine if your egotistical, pay attention to me post is correct? who cares what you posted 6 months ago?

Ngapa Reaction GIF by MOODMAN

You decided to waste your time looking up dogshit gifs to illustrate how much you care. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DeeJay Mentor

DeeJay

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, BrisbanePanther said:

I keep seeing people say this, but where would he actually move them to outside the Carolinas? The pickins are slim.

St Louis? They still have no stadium, have lost teams twice, and probably not the base to add value.

Salt Lake City? No stadium and probably at their limit for teams to split local corporate dollars.

Portland? No stadium, unlikely to build one, and probably too close to Seattle.

Oakland? A dump of a stadium, soon to lose the A's, already lost the Raiders, and the region has moved on. 

San Antonio? No stadium, decent market size when combined with Austin, but the Texans AND Cowboys won't let it happen.

Orlando? Maybe, but FL may be at it's market max.

Louisville? Colts territory likely--and again, no stadium.

Toronto? Maybe--definitely better choice than any US option.

London? Maybe--same situation as Toronto.

 

So it's Toronto or London--and if we hear of them starting discussions with either place, I wouldn't worry as a fan. The government will and give them new digs, but that's the extent of it.

San Antonio would happen once jerry jones goes because he doesnt want 3 teams in texas and wants it all about the cowboys. I do like toronto or london because fug it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...