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!

     

Hornets won't happen


Zod

Recommended Posts

Had the chance to chat with a front office guy for the Bobcats. He says all their research shows that getting the hornets name back won't be a profitable long term move.

He says once fans understand that its just the name they get back, not the history, they lose some interest. No Mugsy, Grandmama, Alonzo highlights. No team records. All that stays in Nola. It is still the Bobcats with a new name and a losing record.

Anyways, just a heads up, don't expect the name change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's bullsh*t. Not your story Zod, but their excuse... Cheap asses. We don't need the history of the old Hornets per se, it was about bringing back the name and being a new Hornets franchise. And whether they want to acknowledge the history or not "officially" it doesn't matter, because the fans would do it for them.

Has New Orleans ever honored Muggsy, Zo, or LJ? Not that I know of, because it wasn't relevant to them in New Orleans.

Explain to me why Muggsy is still associated with CHARLOTTE and not New Orleans. Why is Dell one of play-by-play guys?

That excuse is BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's bullsh*t. Not your story Zod, but their excuse... Cheap asses. We don't need the history of the old Hornets per se, it was about bringing back the name and being a new Hornets franchise. And whether they want to acknowledge the history or not "officially" it doesn't matter, because the fans would do it for them.

Has New Orleans ever honored Muggsy, Zo, or LJ? Not that I know of, because it wasn't relevant to them in New Orleans.

Explain to me why Muggsy is still associated with CHARLOTTE and not New Orleans. Why is Dell one of play-by-play guys?

That excuse is BS.

All very good points.. New Orleans doesn't care about the history..

The history didn't travel with the team name..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually agree that a name change wont make a difference in long term interest and ticket sales. But it would be a huge boost for merchandise sales and exposure around town. I still think that a well timed name change (after the team turns the corner and starts winning games) would work beautifully, so they may just wait a couple years to make the change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't surprise me and I'm fine with it.

A bunch of the research was gathered from current season ticket holders, not fringe fans that would only start going regularly once the team changed names. Really, what did any one expect? They asked current die hard Bobcat fans about the name change, not the group of people that want it to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is 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...