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!

     

Is this true? Can anyone confirm?


GhostOfDocAnderson
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, GhostOfDocAnderson said:

I came across an interesting comment on Youtube. I have no idea if it's true, but I wonder if anybody here was at the event or knows somebody who was there. If so, please help confirm or debunk. I want to know because if the account is true, then the chance of Tepper being forced to sell the team is not zero.

 

53514294338_ccbd1a0690_k.jpg

CASUAL FRIDAYS ARE BACK BABY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

There is where we are as a society? Fact checking the comments section on YouTube?

Jesus Christ, this is how you end up believing in lizard people.

Wait lizard people AREN’T real?? I knew I shouldn’t have trusted that video on YouTube .

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go..........you know the Panthers franchise is looking more and more like a combination of the movies....

North Dallas 40

The Longest Yard.

and the old HBO TV show call "First and Ten" about a NFL franchise owned by a woman played by Delta Burk.

Whoever said being a Panthers fan is fun these days really hit on something.

The way I figure it........if you can't have a playoff team then you have to have something to keep the interest going.......... strange/crazy/weird or bad news is better than no news at all..........LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2024 at 8:16 AM, rayzor said:

i probably will eventually, but there's just too much fun to be had with this thread.

I really don’t care either way, and I usually keep my thoughts to myself, but if the Canales threads were locked for not being “football related” (and they were in bad taste), isn’t this one pretty much the same?

Yes, Tepper has made his mistakes, lots of them, and I’m in no way an apologist, but this is as much or more non-football related as those other threads.

Its easy to pile on the owner, but the closed threads were pretty specific in their reasons…..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, electro's horse said:

Sexual harassment in the workplace is literally a federal crime and has been for sixty years. 

Yes, and that did not stop him from commiting the crime for twenty years before he was forced out. And do you seriously think he is the only owner committing it? Yet, he is the only one being forced out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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
    • 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.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...