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!

     

No more BOA


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Cdparr7 said:

Maybe stupid, but I’m actually considering companies that have enough money for naming rights and not just what sounds cool.

What you are suggesting is sailing far above these guys heads somehow.

I suppose they think sponsors are chosen based on their name? No idea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BOA sponsorship ends with the 2024 season, so this isn't really a premature conversation.  I expect it to be a major talking point next off-season after we see how successful the new regime is vs previous years.  Better team = higher demand to be associated with it 

Other reports suggest an increase to $8-10m/year, which may lean towards a 10 year contract vs BOA's 20 year investment. I can't see a company paying $200m (20 yr at $10m, assuming it's a one-time payment)    and there are only so many businesses that can fork over $10m/yr without issue

https://www.espn.com/nfl/playoffs03/news/story?id=1710458

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, PanthersATL said:

The BOA sponsorship ends with the 2024 season, so this isn't really a premature conversation.  I expect it to be a major talking point next off-season after we see how successful the new regime is vs previous years.  Better team = higher demand to be associated with it 

Other reports suggest an increase to $8-10m/year, which may lean towards a 10 year contract vs BOA's 20 year investment. I can't see a company paying $200m (20 yr at $10m, assuming it's a one-time payment)    and there are only so many businesses that can fork over $10m/yr without issue

https://www.espn.com/nfl/playoffs03/news/story?id=1710458

I think the going rate to be an "Official Sponsor of the Carolina Panthers", at least within the industry I work in, is roughly 5 million per year.

I would assume the naming rights to the stadium might be significantly higher.

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

    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...