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!

     

More NFL News


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, The NFL Shield At Midfield said:

They should have stuck with Washington Football Team.  That was a unique name in the NFL and is something they could have built on.

Problem was they were about to be sued for false and misleading advertising.

On a similar note, I took a job in and moved to northern Virginia when the NBA team renamed themselves to the Wizards.  The standing joke was that the name Washington Bullets was too violent, so they were going to change it to just the Bullets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sgt Schultz said:

It does.  I didn't like it when they unveiled it, but that aside it will now be linked to Dan Snyder.

Time for them to flush the toilet.  The Commanders name is part of that, I think.

Weren't they also having issues getting it trademarked? So anyone could just rip it off to sell merch with 0 repercussions 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, toldozer said:

Weren't they also having issues getting it trademarked? So anyone could just rip it off to sell merch with 0 repercussions 

If I remember correctly, when it was rumored that would be the name, some guy applied for a trademark on it.

Back in 95, some dickhead did the same thing to the Panthers.com web domain thinking the team would pay him for it. They didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 45catfan said:

How about Warriors?  It fits DC and is a nod to the old nickname.  They could even use the old 70's spear logo.

I like Warriors but they would have to do a slight modification to the logo. They may want to stay away from anything native and instead of the spear, maybe a medieval sword or something like that have a knight as a mascot. On the other hand, the Chiefs use an arrowhead on their logo. I guess they would have to have discussions about the spear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to look it up, but the problem in trademarking Washington Commanders was that the Patent and Trademark Office ruled it could be confused with the annual Commanders Classic game between Air Force and Army.

2 hours ago, 4Corners said:

mtv style film GIF

If they are going to go the route of a movie gang, I would suggest the Washington Black Widows. 

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

    • 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...