JR Addresses Accusations of Being Cheap

[Urrymonster]

He dumped 8 starters....and plenty of backups....no contracts were extended to deserving players....a lame duck coach was left with a stripped down team....it was very clear what Richardson was doing during an uncapped year...he has stated over and over he had a plan and he was the lead for the CBA re-negotiations....do you really not believe he tanked 2010 in order to prepare for the new CBA? That really is not a question is it?

Other owner's did a very similar thing and hardly any 'splashed the cash' in the uncapped year.

[carolinarolls]

a large portion of seats were purchased for investment and for perks to offer clients. When the team is bad they are not getting a return. For those people it is easy to blame the ownership for bad performance as their reasoning for buying is not necessarily to celebrate live football and a passion of theirs each week. To be fair to them the packages were and still are advertised every bit as much as investments as they are for other reasons.

That said we all understand that each buyer will have his/her own reasons behind stroking the check. I believe it is better if the hardcore fan had the seat that would be there regardless and cheer them on regardless. That is just not going to happen.

So each fan has a right to complain for whatever reason they want but they have to understand that their investment did not come with a vote or any say whatsoever when it comes down to the operations of the team and while their investment may be at a higher level, it does not mean their arguments or complaints carry any additional weight.

[riddel]

I'm not forced to pay for the tickets. I don't buy the tickets 'cause I don't want to sit on the now-broken-down boat anymore. I don't lose anything I bargained for , except a crappy seat.

If our contract doesn't say the boat will be in a particular "tip-top" shape forever, then I have no beef. I can walk away and I lose nothing.

I may be able to sell my seat right ... somebody may enjoy a broken down boat.

When I purchased my PSL, there wasn't an "original boat." We didn't have a TEAM yet ... we hadn't won, we hadn't lost. All we had was potential, and nobody guaranteed me anything about where that potential would go -- up or down or all around on the rollercoaster we've been on.

So no, I don't have a lawsuit in this instance or in the scenario you present.

PSL owners purchased a seat based on Richardson's commitment.

The yacht seat owner purchased a seat based on the yacht owners commitment.

Richardson removed key components to the team knowing it would affect the teams performance and the PSL seat value.

The yacht owner removed key components to the yacht knowing it would affect the boats performance and the PSL seat value.

PSL owners are required to purchase tickets or they forfeit their PSL, so basically they are stuck buying tickets to an inferior product and have no recourse to resale the tickets, because Richardson tanked the 2010 season. If Richardson knowingly damaged the PSL owner's seat value, then he should be liable. Look if this wasn't the case then Richardson wouldn't have written the letter to the PSL owners in the first place. He didn't have to write it and in hindsight it was a really stupid idea especially if enough PSL owners complain about the fact Richardson knowingly damaged the 2010 PSL product.

[Panthers_Lover]

There is an implied performance agreement and that is to field the best team possible and do everything possible to bring home a championship. Look at richardson's last letter to PSl owners and it is right there in black and white. Most years he has done that but last year he didn't and it was painfully evident to everyone. And yes there is a partnership, he against said so. And no you can't just walk away without losing thousands of dollars so that is really a stupid argument you keep using.

Not a legal partnership. No implied performance agreement. No implied or stated performance measures.

If you purchased PSLs, you paid for the right to the seat as long as you pay each year. The initial payment guaranteed you had the right of first refusal on that seat until you choose not to pay the annual fee (season ticket price).

You have not lost thousands of dollars at all. You paid your initial fee for the rights that you have used throughout the years, per the agreement you signed. If you walk away today or next year or the next, you haven't lost anything monetarily that you reasonably should have had an expectation of gaining. PSLs are not an investment, period.

Contrary to what Riddell keeps saying, the contract between the organization and the individual states expressly that you should not consider your initial PSL payment as an investment. That's pretty damn legal, if you ask me.

[Urrymonster]

Some people think they are entitled to things and thus do not get the enjoyment from them when they have them. Others realise that you are entitled to nothing in life and therefore enjoy everything they do out of the 'norm'.

It wasn't an investment, you chose to spend the moment that way and you can simply stop spending money that way. In the grand scheme of things, the amount you paid out is not a lot of money. When you are in your retirement or working away as a pensioner, you will look back and realise how insignificant that money was.

[carolinarolls]

PSL owners purchased a seat based on Richardson's commitment.

The yacht seat owner purchased a seat based on the yacht owners commitment.

Richardson removed key components to the team knowing it would affect the teams performance and the PSL seat value.

The yacht owner removed key components to the yacht knowing it would affect the boats performance and the PSL seat value.

PSL owners are required to purchase tickets or they forfeit their PSL, so basically they are stuck buying tickets to an inferior product and have no recourse to resale the tickets, because Richardson tanked the 2010 season. If Richardson knowingly damaged the PSL owner's seat value, then he should be liable. Look if this wasn't the case then Richardson wouldn't have written the letter to the PSL owners in the first place. He didn't have to write it and in hindsight it was a really stupid idea especially if enough PSL owners complain about the fact Richardson knowingly damaged the 2010 PSL product.

kudos to you for laying out the dumbest analogy ever

[panthers55]

He didn't intentionally make the team bad, he intentionally tried to help this team survive the lockout. Sure it hurt performance last year but with the dead weight gone and a young team we will be better off for years to come.

I have some great land with wonderful water access and varied wildlife you are going to love. No neighbors and your property in all directions. You can be king of all you survey. Sound good????

Yeah, swamp land.

There was no long term lockout to survive and I have already shown people in numerous poststhat most of that dead weight would have been gone after 2010 anyway so it did nothing to prepare us for 2011. The cap would have been the same this year whether we kept the vets or not. That is a fact. All he did was save payroll last year and line his pockets while raising prices. Anyone naive to believe anything needs to call me about the above real estate.

[Panthers_Lover]

PSL owners purchased a seat based on Richardson's commitment.

The yacht seat owner purchased a seat based on the yacht owners commitment.

Richardson removed key components to the team knowing it would affect the teams performance and the PSL seat value.

The yacht owner removed key components to the yacht knowing it would affect the boats performance and the PSL seat value.

PSL owners are required to purchase tickets or they forfeit their PSL, so basically they are stuck buying tickets to an inferior product and have no recourse to resale the tickets, because Richardson tanked the 2010 season. If Richardson knowingly damaged the PSL owner's seat value, then he should be liable. Look if this wasn't the case then Richardson wouldn't have written the letter to the PSL owners in the first place. He didn't have to write it and in hindsight it was a really stupid idea especially if enough PSL owners complain about the fact Richardson knowingly damaged the 2010 PSL product.

OK ... my last (I hope) comment to you. You're full of poo.

[panthers55]

Some people think they are entitled to things and thus do not get the enjoyment from them when they have them. Others realise that you are entitled to nothing in life and therefore enjoy everything they do out of the 'norm'.

It wasn't an investment, you chose to spend the moment that way and you can simply stop spending money that way. In the grand scheme of things, the amount you paid out is not a lot of money. When you are in your retirement or working away as a pensioner, you will look back and realise how insignificant that money was.

Once again are you a PSL owner?? Then you don't have a dime in it and your perspective is worth about the same amount you have invested in it. Worthless. Unless you have money in it you have no understandfing of what I may or may not be feeling.

Ever buy a lemon car?? until you have you can't understand how someone feels who did. and yeah 4 winning seasons in 16 years is lemon type performance.

[Urrymonster]

PSL owners purchased a seat based on Richardson's commitment.

The yacht seat owner purchased a seat based on the yacht owners commitment.

Richardson removed key components to the team knowing it would affect the teams performance and the PSL seat value.

The yacht owner removed key components to the yacht knowing it would affect the boats performance and the PSL seat value.

PSL owners are required to purchase tickets or they forfeit their PSL, so basically they are stuck buying tickets to an inferior product and have no recourse to resale the tickets, because Richardson tanked the 2010 season. If Richardson knowingly damaged the PSL owner's seat value, then he should be liable. Look if this wasn't the case then Richardson wouldn't have written the letter to the PSL owners in the first place. He didn't have to write it and in hindsight it was a really stupid idea especially if enough PSL owners complain about the fact Richardson knowingly damaged the 2010 PSL product.

This is the problem. There is no such thing as a '2010 PSL product'. It's a licence allowing you right of first refusal on seats each and every year. As it isn't a yearly product (that's the tickets), viewing it as a one off year is impossible.

If you think he broke the agreement, then you have every right to not renew.

You could actually argue that he protected the value of the PSL by ensuring the franchises longevity through a lockout. Meaning that each person who signed the agreement, would have a seat to return to.

[bleys]

I have some great land with wonderful water access and varied wildlife you are going to love. No neighbors and your property in all directions. You can be king of all you survey. Sound good????

Yeah, swamp land.

There was no long term lockout to survive and I have already shown people in numerous poststhat most of that dead weight would have been gone after 2010 anyway so it did nothing to prepare us for 2011. The cap would have been the same this year whether we kept the vets or not. That is a fact. All he did was save payroll last year and line his pockets while raising prices. Anyone naive to believe anything needs to call me about the above real estate.

of course he did.. any businessman would do the same.. Fox decided to stay. our younger players got experience. Matt Moore gave us reason enough to believe he could handle QB.

I would have made this decision 11 out of 10 times given the young players who had shown potential and realizing a lockout was on the horizon..

[riddel]

Contrary to what Riddell keeps saying, the contract between the organization and the individual states expressly that you should not consider your initial PSL payment as an investment. That's pretty damn legal, if you ask me.

Contrary to what Panthers_Lover keeps saying, the contract between the organization and the individual states that you should not consider your initial PSL payment as an investment, is freakin irrelevant. Whether the Panthers believe it to be an investment or not is irrelevant.

I can call a cat a dog over and over in a contract with you, but that doesn't mean it's a dog. If accountants show the PSL as an appreciable asset and indeed an investment, then that's exactly what it is. You can quote the contract over and over to me, but the fact is PSLs are appreciable assets, which are considered investments.

Richardson obviously views them as such or he wouldn't be writing letters to the appreciable asset owners, furthermore he wouldn't make a commitment to them if they didn't have a stake in the teams well being.

[bleys]

Contrary to what Panthers_Lover keeps saying, the contract between the organization and the individual states that you should not consider your initial PSL payment as an investment, is freakin irrelevant. Whether the Panthers believe it to be an investment or not is irrelevant.

:lol:

if this is fact. and you believe so strongly. why the f**k are you still on this forum telling us about it? there are a shitload of PSL owners you should be calling...

oh, I see..

[Urrymonster]

Once again are you a PSL owner?? Then you don't have a dime in it and your perspective is worth about the same amount you have invested in it. Worthless. Unless you have money in it you have no understandfing of what I may or may not be feeling.

Ever buy a lemon car?? until you have you can't understand how someone feels who did. and yeah 4 winning seasons in 16 years is lemon type performance.

And you are so wrapped up in your own personal feelings and emotions that you aren't looking at it objectively. Have I had PSLs? No, but that is irrelevant in looking at the facts. As you are so painstakingly trying to do, there are other ways of getting your fingers burnt through finances. The issue with this, is that you are looking at your PSL as a yearly commitment, when in fact you made the commitment at the beginning and now all you are doing is the same as any other season ticket holder.