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!

     

I could see Tepper moving the team.

Brent Gregory

By Brent Gregory,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

ForJimmy Grand Master

ForJimmy

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, top dawg said:

Tepper is not moving the team, he is digging in, and it's pretty obvious with all the moves he is making,  enquiring about property and actually acquiring property.

That's kind of what I thought.  He seems interested in building his portfolio in Charlotte to me...

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PanthersATL Grand Master

PanthersATL

Posted
Posted

If the NFL is going to EXPAND, they'd be looking at London or Mexico City first to get the ball rolling for more International play.

If Austin is going to get a team, it would more likely be a relocation -- like how the Bills previously threatened to move there.  But.. the Dallas area is clamoring for an AFC team (since New York and LA both have two teams in their metro areas) so there's potential for that to happen before Austin.

Still, as many others have said in this thread - the NFL likes having a team in the Charlotte/Carolinas area. While fans may be sour on the current edition of the team, Tepper has shown he's willing to throw $ around (still would have liked to have seen the Rock Hill facility built out, even if local gov't couldn't figure it out)

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RayRedd Collaborator

RayRedd

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, PanthersATL said:

If the NFL is going to EXPAND, they'd be looking at London or Mexico City first to get the ball rolling for more International play.

No chance either happens, ever.  It's the National Football League, not International.

The Panthers are here to stay, the business climate in the region is just too damn good to ever look elsewhere.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PanthersATL Grand Master

PanthersATL

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, RayRedd said:

No chance either happens, ever.  It's the National Football League, not International.

"International House of Pancakes" didn't start as an international business. 🤣

A more serious counterpoint: MLB's "World Series" is not World Wide.  

Better example: KFC is not isolated to Kentucky, and the three-letter branding de-emphasizes the original "Fried" name. The NFL can get by as an international brand, even with "National" as part of their name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RayRedd Collaborator

RayRedd

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, PanthersATL said:

"International House of Pancakes" didn't start as an international business. 🤣

A more serious counterpoint: MLB's "World Series" is not World Wide.  

Better example: KFC is not isolated to Kentucky, and the three-letter branding de-emphasizes the original "Fried" name. The NFL can get by as an international brand, even with "National" as part of their name.

Care to walk us through the economics of player compensation for the owner/players of an NFL franchise domiciled in London?  Maybe compare & contrast with with the owner/players of say, Miami?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PanthersATL Grand Master

PanthersATL

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, RayRedd said:

Care to walk us through the economics of player compensation for the owner/players of an NFL franchise domiciled in London?  Maybe compare & contrast with with the owner/players of say, Miami?

This economic analysis doesn't appear to cover the specifics you're asking about with regard to player compensation - but it does show the type of analysis that London and the NFL go through for some cost/benefit work:

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/8925_attachment.pdf 

ESPN's coverage of the report: http://en.espn.co.uk/more/sport/story/361901.html

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...