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!

     

Panthers terminating Rock Hill project agreements


Dorian Gray
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, CRA said:

So what makes one county officials word more credible than one city officials word?  

RH official was talking about his direct dealings with Tepper Sports.  2 sides of that convo.  RH's and Tepper Sports.    How does the county official know RH is lying?   

I would assume the accusation the RH offical made would actually be pretty easy to prove if it were true or made up.  I mean, ultimately if Tepper Sports wasn't providing the needed info there is going to be a paper trail.   Which is why I said time and more info would be needed before you people give Tepper a complete pass in this clusterfug. 

*unless there is new info I assume this was a comment made during the pause several weeks ago and isn't something new out this week. 

I'm not entirely sure but a bond is basically a loan right? Why would tepper sports need to tell rock hill how to secure a loan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tbe said:

And there is a direct quote from a York county council member saying RH is lying.

The Councilman quoted also has isn't a fan of the current mayor, so there's that angle, too.  Not saying RH isn't at fault here, but there's too many moving parts and lack of transparency from BOTH sides to say one side or the other is to blame....

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, toldozer said:

I'm not entirely sure but a bond is basically a loan right? Why would tepper sports need to tell rock hill how to secure a loan?

they weren't needing Tepper to tell them how to secure the bonds.  That isn't the accusation.  

To get the bonds requires submitting information and specific details about the actual project.  The accusation is Tepper wasn't supplying the specifics needed and was part of the problem.   The same guy who apparently routinely goes dark and doesn't say poo about anything.   Another accusation.  And something we have seen elsewhere from Tepper. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, CRA said:

they weren't needing Tepper to tell them how to secure the bonds.  That isn't the accusation.  

To get the bonds requires submitting information and specific details about the actual project.  The accusation is Tepper wasn't supplying the specifics needed and was part of the problem.   The same guy who apparently routinely goes dark and doesn't say poo about anything.   Another accusation.  And something we have seen elsewhere from Tepper. 

The bonds were for road and city infrastructure,  no? I feel again they should have that plan based on the plans tepper gave. I mean weren't the plans publicly available? 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, blackcat said:

The Councilman quoted also has isn't a fan of the current mayor, so there's that angle, too.  Not saying RH isn't at fault here, but there's too many moving parts and lack of transparency from BOTH sides to say one side or the other is to blame....

yeah, I believe he ran and lost twice to the current mayor

he also has been the most vocal and pro Panther facility guy in the area. 

hard to call him a neutral 3rd party.  In addition to the fact York County taxpayers got skin in the game too. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, toldozer said:

The bonds were for road and city infrastructure,  no? I feel again they should have that plan based on the plans tepper gave. I mean weren't the plans publicly available? 

They definitely have the plans.  I mean... that giant bridge going over I-77 is more than halfway built.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, toldozer said:

The bonds were for road and city infrastructure,  no? I feel again they should have that plan based on the plans tepper gave. I mean weren't the plans publicly available? 

They advised they needed more info.   And yeah, it's not unreasonable to imagine additional info might be needed than just what was made avaliable to the public.  Pretty sure when they made the accusation they also cited the type info that they were requesting from Tepper. 

The city doesn't just pull bonds out of thin air. 

again, I am not attempting to universally defend RH.  They are going to be in the wrong.  It's just odd for some to dig in so aggressisvely to Tepper having no fault in this mess.  I'd say the odds are low but time will tell.  Well, time will probably only tell if the deal never happens. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CBDellinger said:

Wild part of this is that Tepper didnt even want the local govt of RH to be involved.  Per Brent Jensen.  

local government probably is tougher to deal with.  that probably is true.  Furthrer out you go the easier to get what you want.  Just look at how quick the governor made stuff happen for Tepper. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, toldozer said:

The bonds were for road and city infrastructure,  no? I feel again they should have that plan based on the plans tepper gave. I mean weren't the plans publicly available? 

I mean, for some people to be so confident RH is lying about everything....it doesn't seem like anyone actually has paid attention to what they have said. 

they detailed the type info they requested and why it would be requested. 

I think RH was in over their head.  Tepper appears to of wanted to make sure it stayed that way.  That's the way it reads to me.   RH is at fault.  I just don't think the billionaire gets off the hook for his involvement until all the facts are on the table. 

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not one single pick that is asking me why we drafted a guy in the first place. It was a guy we needed and/or a guy that had certain traits making them stand out. Best of all, I feel everyone we drafted are capable of stepping onto the field this year and have a meaningful role (even Kuwatch on special teams). Obviously, nothing is guaranteed but I'm not seeing any huge flags on guys because they're risky projects or massive overreaches.
    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...