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!

     

Recommended Posts

Giving us our Name back will affect the connection that the fans feel with this team, It would restore the atmosphere at the arena (SHOULD STILL BE THE HIVE). This historical team name bleeds the determination and free will that Charlotte area locals have, as well as pays tribute to those that helped make this Country free. At this point the NAME WILL BE AVAILABLE according to multiple sources since NEW ORLEANS doesn't want that name since it doesn't connect with their community.

IT will affect play at home games when you have win ravenous fans completely pumped like we used to be, and even before we were winning we were crazy in love with our Hornets. The costs would be surpassed in the first year with ticket, merchandise, as well as the publicity that the nostalgia affect would have. Just the initial burst of sales would surpass the costs and make the team a profit. It pumps up the the players since they will notice the fans energy and that in itself would be worth a few wins itself. It would turn into one of the toughest arenas to play in and it would truly be the HIVE again. Also there are two hornets nests on the Charlotte city emblem.

I was following the other threads were some arguing was going on but in light of New Orleans announcing a rebrand is a must, and the strong showing the we BEElievers showed on Friday night, Is anyone else pumped as much as I am about buying 2013 Charlotte Hornets Tickets!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to comment on the thread about this, but it was locked in addition here is a few links to update this topic

http://www.wbtv.com/story/17299318/fans-push-to-bring-hornets-name-back-to-charlotte#.T3cl7cdNDQU.facebook

http://www.nola.com/hornets/index.ssf/2012/03/league_reportedly_considering.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am completely happy with whatever name the team is..but if jordan is bleeding money like he says he is..a rebrand might be in his best interest financially. The cost to switch will be made back quickly.

If the team was renamed the Hornets, attendance would double and the city would go bonkers for the franchise. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the team was renamed the Hornets, attendance would double and the city would go bonkers for the franchise. Period.

Yeah I agree...all the marketing and promotional potential would be insane. Merch sales would sky rocket..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly The merch sales would sky rocket, and the atmosphere would electric. It actually may serve as the best money spent for the franchise considering 10 mill isn't as much as a max contract for likes of the nba's elite. I am personally excited about it and if I don't get season tickets I know I will buy atleast a dozen pairs or so a season, and I live in Mooresville....One of those commuters :) Mr. TD I agree with everything you have stated in this thread as well as the one that was locked. Bring back the Buzz!!! Mullens is a great prospect and one of the core pieces that should be worked with because at worst he would still be in a great 8 man rotation. And he would look good next to Anthony Davis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly The merch sales would sky rocket, and the atmosphere would electric. It actually may serve as the best money spent for the franchise considering 10 mill isn't as much as a max contract for likes of the nba's elite. I am personally excited about it and if I don't get season tickets I know I will buy atleast a dozen pairs or so a season, and I live in Mooresville....One of those commuters :) Mr. TD I agree with everything you have stated in this thread as well as the one that was locked. Bring back the Buzz!!! Mullens is a great prospect and one of the core pieces that should be worked with because at worst he would still be in a great 8 man rotation. And he would look good next to Anthony Davis.

Mullens is a good prospect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't going to happen. Atleast anytime soon. Rebranding would cost hundreds of millions that the Bobcats do not have. We will be stuck with the crappy Bobcats for a long time. But all that matters to me is the product that is on the court. If we have a good team I wouldnt care if we were called the penis'

I want us to be a better team as well, I just prefer the name that we originally had. Again, it would be weird to see the Baltimore Browns vs. the Cleveland Rockers(or whatever name they found).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • 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.
    • 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...