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 the huddle being overly moderated?

Zod

By Zod,
in Carolina Panthers

Is the huddle overly moderated  

169 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the huddle overly moderated

    • Yes
      47
    • No
      74
    • My god you are sexay
      23
    • what does moderated mean?
      25

Recommended Posts

mantal Newbie

mantal

Posted
Posted

You asked for it - I mentioned that that was one of the silly reasons that they have been given out and you said it just like some guys spelled out f*ck in the no more f-bombs thread. Asking for it. :D

Are you trying to say that "sucks" is still a bad word? It's used by half the population, including kids, in public and is considered nothing more than a descriptive word anymore, (I've always thought that odd as well)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dimbee Newbie

dimbee

Posted
Posted

I feel that the way that the blessed moderators and administrators of this grand messageboard go about their business is done in a professional and top-notch manner. I pray that their stewardship continues in this most grand fashion. Blessed are the shepherds who watch over the flock, for their sacrifices will be rewarded.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go To Girl Newbie

Go To Girl

Posted
Posted

Are you trying to say that "sucks" is still a bad word? It's used by half the population, including kids, in public and is considered nothing more than a descriptive word anymore, (I've always thought that odd as well)...

I'm not sure if I get what you're asking - but no sucks is a common word so no, don't think there's anything wrong with that word used on this forum. However - kids saying it - that's a big no. In another thread in regards to infractions, I also talked about the silly way they are used using like or dislike towards various condiments, TV shows, or anything derogatory said about Dale Earnhardt. Hmsmike is the one who chose the word "suck"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go To Girl Newbie

Go To Girl

Posted
Posted

I feel that the way that the blessed moderators and administrators of this grand messageboard go about their business is done in a professional and top-notch manner. I pray that their stewardship continues in this most grand fashion. Blessed are the shepherds who watch over the flock, for their sacrifices will be rewarded.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!

I've always wonder why does the pope meditates. I would expect more of a genuflect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      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.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      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...