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!

     

JAYSKI: NASCAR approves #12 paint scheme

hmsmike

By hmsmike,
in Charlotte Football Club

Recommended Posts

hmsmike Newbie

hmsmike

Posted
Posted

# NASCAR approves #12 paint scheme: NASCAR has approved a paint scheme and uniform for Penske Racing’s #12 car and driver David Stremme that has the Verizon and Penske red and black colors but neither with the Verizon logo featuring a thin red check. NASCAR must approve all uniforms and paint schemes, and the Penske team had to go through a more scrutinized process because of the Cup series sponsorship from Sprint. NASCAR is responsible for making sure that none of Sprint’s rivals have branding in the garage, and Verizon, which bought out Penske sponsor Alltel earlier this month, is a sponsor of the organization and has its logos on the Nationwide Series car. Penske Racing crewmen spent part of Friday morning covering up a little bit of red striping near the front of the car with black strips. NASCAR spokesman Ramsey Poston said NASCAR asked for the minor change but the rest of the paint scheme has been approved. None of uniforms nor the car has the red check that would make people think of Verizon. The red stripes are at angles but there are no markings in the shape of a check. Penske Racing officials had said last month that even though Verizon’s logos could not be on the Cup car, that the #12 Cup car would not need primary sponsorship at least through 2010 because Verizon had assumed Alltel’s commitment.(SceneDaily), see images of the scheme on my #12 Team Schemes page.(2-7-2009) Comment here

pic from jayski...

Stremme_Bud09.jpg

Personally I think this is just a damn shame -- with the economy this screwed up and everyone hurting for sponsors!! :mad:

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

    • 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.
    • jfra78
      Are all veterinarians this greedy ?

      By jfra78 · Posted

      Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...