• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


cltbwimob last won the day on December 20 2015

cltbwimob had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

954 Excellent

About cltbwimob

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

11678 profile views
  1. New Hotels in/around Uptown

    Curious to see if the old buildings beside trade Street near the arena will get torn down for this hotel
  2. Charlotte area population statistics

    Wake county will pass Meck either in 2018 or 2019. Charlotte's MSA has numerically outpaced the entire Raleigh-Durham CSA in terms of numerical growth (CLT MSA added over 308K residents since 2010; RDU CSA added 286K+ residents over the same time period). Charlotte will likely be the largest city and have the largest MSA and CSA in the Carolinas well into the future unless there are some major delineation/definitional changes in the future that split the region into smaller CSAs and MSAs MSA pop- 2.525 million CSA pop- 2.684 million
  3. The Red Line was prevented by Norfolk Southern, not CSX.
  4. Possibility of a New Panthers Stadium

    First, my assertion is not that the stadium in Charlotte produces less than the stadium in Phoenix. Such a statement would imply that the total revenue produced by the stadium in Charlotte is greater than the total revenue produced by the stadium in Phoenix which is not my assertion at all. What I did assert is that the Panthers see more revenue as a team even though their home is BofA than the Cardinals see with their home being University of Phoenix Stadium (or whatever the hell it's called right now). There is a subtle but distinct difference between the assertion you've erroneously attributed to me and the assertion that I actually made. Since deliberately mischaracterizing what people say is part and parcel for your set of debate tactics, I will spell out what the difference is so that way there will hopefully be no confusion. The first assertion implies that every cent of revenue produced by BofA is a larger number than every cent of revenue produced by the stadium in Phoenix. The second statement suggests that the revenue that the Panthers receive as a team from all sources of revenue is higher than the Cardinals receive as a team despite the fact that the Panthers play in a more antiquated stadium that is not a dome. It is likely that the stadium in Phoenix produces higher total revenue than the Panthers stadium when all ancillary events besides Cardinals home games are considered, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the team sees all of that revenue. Since nearly 2/3 of the Phoenix stadium was financed by public money, I'll bet some of that additional revenue goes to the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority and the City of Glendale. Additionally the Panthers look to have higher revenues elsewhere in their business such as gate receipts, so it is perfectly logical to suggest that the Panthers have higher team revenues even though they play in BofA when compared to the Arizona Cardinals even though they play in the more state of the art venue. Second, although it is true that the Forbes quoted revenue numbers are net of stadium revenues used for debt payments which is different from total revenue earned by the team, that does not necessarily imply that the Panthers do not rake in more revenue than the Cardinals. Forbes publishes other numbers in their valuations listicle. Lets take a closer look at how the Panthers compare to the Cardinals on a slightly more comprehensive set of metrics: Revenue: Panthers=$385mil, Cardinals=$370mil; EBITDA: Panthers=$102mil; Cardinals=$87mil; Gate Receipts (including club seating): Panthers=$69mil, Cardinals=$59mil. While none of these numbers specifically gives us any idea what the team revenue would be if the revenue numbers were not net of stadium revenues used for debt payments, all of them point in the same direction and suggest the Panthers do make more revenue even though they play in the older stadium. Furthermore, another number that Forbes lists is Debt/Value ratio (including stadium debt). For the Panthers, this number is 3% and for the Cardinals it's 7%. Relatively speaking this is not a huge difference suggesting that even if the revenue numbers were to be recalculated to include stadium revenues used for debt payments, the Panthers would still have more overall revenue. Another, perhaps better, comparison with regard to this metric is the Indianapolis Colts. They showed $360mil in revenue for 2016, a full $25mil less than the Panthers. Once again, that number is net of stadium revenues used for debt payments, but consider that their Debt/Value ratio is identical to the Panthers and their valuation is practically identical to the Panthers meaning that both have approximately the same debt level, and presumably have similar debt service charges. If the numbers Forbes publishes are accurate, and there is no reason to suspect they aren't, then it is almost certain that even if one were to add the stadium revenues used for debt payment back into the $360mil quoted to formulate an estimate of total team revenue, the revenues obtained by the Colts would still be less than revenues obtained by the Panthers even though the Colts play in one of the newest stadiums in the league. Another metric that Forbes publishes which I believe is a telling is the portion of franchise's value attributable to its stadium. The Panthers derive $279mil of their overall value from their stadium, while the Cardinals only derive $210mil from theirs, and the Colts derive $248mil in value from their stadium. Assuming standard corporate valuation principles apply, if these state of the art stadiums produce so much more revenue for their teams than BofA, then they should also generate significantly higher numbers in this category. When taken together, all the above suggests that the Panthers at lowly Bank of America Stadium, as a team, can and do have a better revenue picture than some teams who play in state of the art stadiums. But I assume your irrefutible logic and common sense will have something to say about that, so I am waiting. I also base the research I've done on the topic on the expert testimony of well renowned sports consultants interviewed by local media, including one who helped to bring the Panthers to town and designed the stadium financing plan when BofA was built. So there is that. Assertions as to whether or not everyone gets to use a service provided by the city are irrelevant with respect to this specific conversation. At the end of the day I do not underestimate the number of Charlotte who pay more in taxes than they receive in revenues. Practically all who live in the wedge do, and I am well aware of that fact. That is precisely why groups like the ones around Ballantyne that want to deannex from Charlotte frighten me; I know what will happen to the city budget if they do. That is why I shutter to think what will happen when/if the city chooses to pump several hundred million dollars into a new stadium. And rest assured they are precisely the type of people who demand that money be spent on needs rather than luxuries. If you don't believe me I encourage you to read some stories about the South Mecklenburg Alliance for Responsible Taxpayers, especially some stories from when they were first founded circa 2011. LOL. Do you ever care to back up any of your assertions? Do you care to back up your previous assertion that it does have the financial resources to fund a new stadium? If I remember correctly you did not provide a single shred of evidence to support your claim. What I find interesting about your style of "debate" is that you trot out assertion after assertion and claim after claim with little to no evidence to support said assertions/claims other than a borderline narcissistic appeal to your own sense of what constitutes logic and common sense. Then when someone asserts something contrary to your own assertions, you demand that they back themselves up. That coupled with a steady diet of red herrings, strawmen, diversionary tactics, gross mischaracterizations/overgeneralizations, and veiled ad hominem attacks...debate with you is quite comical. BTW if you want, I can back these assertions up. No. The reason why people in Ballantyne want to break away is because they feel that Charlotte spends too much on luxury items such as stadiums. They have since added to their plank include a host of issues, but the founding of groups such as the SMART was based upon their perception that the city was all too willing to spend money on thing like the arena and the HOF rather than focusing in on their needs in terms of things like infrastructure. There is no indication that they want to break away due to some notion of class war or because of people with mindsets like mine, at least not explicitly. In fact, they, like I, also lament the lack of economic mobility in Charlotte and cite it as one of the reasons they want to break away. Although, to be honest I am not exactly sure how breaking away somehow translates to a better outcome in terms of economic mobility. What they do want to break away from is a city which they perceive to be filled with people whose mindsets are like yours-those who are willing to suggest that sometimes luxuries such as a new publicly funded NFL stadium trump needs such as roads/schools. The efforts to break away in the North is an effort by those who live in the northern towns to break away from Mecklenburg County, not Charlotte. And that effort is premised on the notion that they received a raw deal with respect to the toll lanes on I-77. I am not aware of any effort in Matthews to break away from anything, although I do know that they have at least considered separating themselves from CMS. I am interested to know why you are suggesting that I have a problem with some people. I have no problems with anyone. I am also interested to know why suggesting that a city should fund schools and infrastructure before funding stadiums or recognizing that inequality, segregation, and lack of economic mobility are problems that need to be addressed is somehow tantamount to progressive mumbo jumbo or some notion of engaging in class warfare? I am one of the more conservative members of this forum. Although I tend to lean a bit more democratic at the local and state level, I have not once voted for a democrat in a national election (although I haven't always voted republican either). My other conservative credentials: I believe that unfettered access to abortion on demand is a travesty, I own multiple guns, my first job was a blue-collar construction job, and I have served in the military. So to try to marginalize my opinions on any matter based on some conception that I am just another progressive or that I am somehow of a mindset to engage in class warfare is perhaps the most baseless notion of all your cockamamie notions. However, my general conservatism doesn't preclude from realizing that lack of economic mobility, inequality, and segregation are all bad for society, and if left unaddressed they are precisely the types of things that lead to class warfare. Ergo, my desire to see the scourge of these problems alleviated is not because I am of the such a mindset that I want to engage in class warfare, but rather a desire to see class warfare eliminated and a more prosperous society for all. This suggestion that sometimes legitimate needs such as infrastructure/schools or engaging in efforts to foster greater economic mobility should take a backseat to luxury items such as a new publicly funded football stadium however...that is what fosters class warfare.
  5. Possibility of a New Panthers Stadium

    With respect to the stadium/revenue issues, the revenue estimates Forbes mentions, to my knowledge, include all sources of team revenue whether it be large-scale events or home football games. My point in bringing up places like University of Phoenix stadium is to suggest that even though they host many major events such as CFP games, Superbowls, and Final Fours, the Panthers still have similar or higher revenue numbers despite BofA stadium's inability to host said major events. This directly contradicts Sabates' argument that a new stadium is needed in order to produce the revenues that will justify a purchase of the team. As for your statement about revenues not being generated from video boards and ribbon boards, it is not correct to say they produce no revenue. They cycle advertisements on them and use them to create a more immersive fan experience so as to incentivize fans to come to the stadium rather than staying at home and watching on TV. In that regard, they are directly tied to team revenue. However the Panthers also did a full renovation of the luxury suites and various other things to improve their revenue picture, I just did not mention them explicitly in my list of improvements. Nonetheless, the Panthers have, for all intents and purposes, a modern open air stadium with the exception of the sideline suites and a party deck which I previously mentioned. With regard to the Sabates group being the lead group, I don't know if they are the lead bidders right now, it just seems that way (probably due to the fact that Sabates has been the most vocal). As for the NFL stadium being an unnecessary expenditure, I maintain that it is unecessary to build a new stadium from a revenue standpoint based on current revenue numbers and expert opinion from multiple consultants in the sports world who have been interviewed by local news media. However it may be necessary in the sense that it may be the only thing that keeps the team in Charlotte if an intransigent owner delivers an ultimatum threatening to move the team if the city does not oblige in funding a new stadium. Compared to other obligations the city has, however, I will bet you'd be hard pressed to find many people other than maybe sports ownership groups that would argue that a new football stadium (for a team who already owns a relatively modern stadium outright) trumps those other needs. The $500 million that the public will likely have to pump into a new stadium could be used for schools, public transit, roads etc. Now you are correct in saying that if this were put to referendum, the community may decide that keeping the Panthers is enough of a priority that they are willing to vote in favor of it at a bond referendum, but I have serious doubts as to whether that would pass given the polls that showed a lack of support for public funding in the previous round of improvements (IIRC the against:for ratio was about 2:1). Furthermore, it is by no means certain that the city can muster enough financial resources to both fulfill all the current/future communal needs of the city and fund a new stadium despite the rosy picture of Charlotte's growth trajectory as you suggest. For starters, the hundreds of millions of dollars it will cost to build a new stadium million is not something that the city can just simply pluck from under the couch cushion. $500 million is not an insignificant amount, and the debt service on that amount, assuming the funds would come in the form of bonds, is going to be quite large. Secondly, taking on too much debt can reduce city's bond ratings resulting in higher interest rates and higher debt service costs on all future debt. It is not inconceivable that a bond issuance for say $500 million to fund a new stadium would result in a downgrade of the city's debt by the debt rating agencies, which, in turn, would hurt Charlotte's overall financial health. Compounding the problem is the fact that there is a very vocal group of residents in the area around Ballantyne that want to break away from Charlotte and form a new city precisely because they believe Charlotte is too quick to throw away money on vanity projects like sports stadiums. Their effort already has received at least some vocal support in the NCGA, and funding a new football stadium would send them into overdrive. Since the area around Ballantyne provides much of the city's tax revenue, the city would lose a significant cash stream if they were allowed to break away. This would further reduce Charlotte's ability to fund future needs and would most likely also result in severely damaged credit ratings. My previous post was not meant to suggest that the Panthers or any other business has to run through the gamut of social issues as you stated. The essence of my argument is that the city will, assuming the new owner demands a new stadium, potentially be placed in a tough spot with respect to all of its obligations whether they are financial obligations, obligations to the needs and wants of various constituencies, or the obligation to maintain some semblance of community identity to the extent that the Panthers represent that identity. It is not just a progressive cry against inequality, segregation, or lack of economic mobility... Although if someone is so blind as to suggest that those issues aren't problematic or that they will not result in the decline of a city if left unaddressed, I don't know what to say.
  6. Possibility of a New Panthers Stadium

    This whole saga really sucks. BofA is a perfectly legitimate venue for football that is capable of producing revenue numbers in line with some of the newer domed venues such as the ones in Phoenix, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis according to Forbes estimates of revenue. And it already has many of the same upgrades that new stadiums have such as the mega video boards, ribbon boards, etc. In fact multiple independent experts interviewed by the local media have said that there really is no need for a new stadium because BofA already has so many of these upgrades incorporated. One of them said that the only things really missing are sideline suites and a party deck which could both be easily incorporated into BofA by reconfiguring the lower bowl like Hard Rock Stadium in Miami (not that it really means much, but it's exactly the same message that I have been evangelizing). Sabates' group, who, in my estimation is probably the front runner for purchasing the team is gunning so hard for a new stadium that they have already stated their intention to move the team if the city doesn't pony up based on excerpts from an interview posted in the Observer. So Charlotte which has a stadium that is viable based on expert opinion including talking heads in the sports management world and based on revenue numbers posted in Forbes, yet it faces the possibility of losing the team if it doesn't oblige in spending what is likely to be massive amounts of taxpayer money. And this money would likely have to come in the form of a new bond issuance which would likely require a referendum. According to Ron Kimble, the dedicated revenue source for tourism related projects, the hotel tax, has not generated enough to cover the city's share of a new stadium should the city be asked to cover 1/3 to 1/2 the cost. So Charlotte will very likely face a choice in the coming year-take on massive new debt obligations which may hinder its ability to fund legitimate citywide needs and may have the added consequence of lowering your credit ratings to build an unnecessary stadium, or risk losing one of the most integral parts of your community identity and one of the few rallying points in a community that is otherwise fractured by inequality, segregation, and lack of economic mobility.
  7. Charlotte Off Topic

    I joined about 8.5 years ago. I remember Monsoon, but don't exactly remember the reign of terror everyone is describing. Maybe I just caught the end of his tenure. Would any of those who suffered at the hands of the [purported] UP equivalent of Josef Stalin care to share some stories?
  8. Amazon HQ2

    I've heard a Bezos rumor too (that he wants to buy the Panthers and rename BofA stadium to Amazon stadium), but admittedly it was something like 5th hand info so I don't really believe it. Still it's kind of cool to think about. What if the Panthers pending sale resulted in Bezos purchasing the team and then Amazon HQ2 ended up in Charlotte as well? Charlotte's plight with respect to the Panthers saga would go from potentially $h!++y to glorious.
  9. Surprise!!!! A Levine project that fell off the grid...Who woulda thunk.
  10. Carolina Panthers

    Lol. I'll bet you were adorable as a child. In order to save the thread from the back and forth I asked you to direct message me with any other points you may have, but you could not resist having the last word. Unfortunately your last word was yet another misrepresentation/distortion of my argument. You also have a penchant for ignoring points in my argument that don't fit your own narrative. Perhaps you just misunderstand me and perhaps that's my own fault. Perhaps I am just not as good at conveying my thoughts as I think I am. Or perhaps you do it on purpose...I don't know at this point. If you would like to debate the finer points of corporate law or partnership structures, that is fine, please send me a private message outlining what you have to say. If you want to continue to misrepresent and distort what I have said and build your strawman arguments based on those distortions, that's fine too...just do it via private message. Otherwise, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year. Please disengage in the back and forth in public forum as I am sure pretty much no one else cares what you or I have to say on the topic at this point.
  11. Carolina Panthers

    You are right, you and I do disagree on this point. The difference is that I have read the NFL bylaws governing such agreements and you have not. So to assert that the NFL bylaws allow the NFL to force a minority owner to divest his/her share of the team is fallacious. Could it be written into the partnership agreement at the outset? Perhaps, but that would be a provision in the partnership agreement and would not necessarily be controlled by NFL bylaws. More on this point later... I haven't ignored this. I think what is happening here is that you and I disagree on what the term control means. Jerry Richardson has maintained control over the team from an operational standpoint from day one, including decisions such as who to hire for GM, capital improvements in the stadium, etc. You cannot conflate that to mean that he necessarily exercises some power tantamount to eminent domain over the entire partnership. In other words, just because he controls the team as it were, does not necessarily mean that he has the ability to force a limited partner to sell his or her ownership unless it is expressly written in the governing documents for the partnership itself. My point in saying that I do not believe an investor would invest in something in which they have no control over their own buy/sell decision is based on what I do know about investor psychology and why things such as liquidity premiums, risk premiums, etc exist. I personally do not believe that most investors, especially savvy ones, would agree to invest millions of dollars into something in which, not only do they risk losing it all if the asset flops, but also have a general partner who can at any time decide to terminate the entire arrangement and force everyone to divest their own stakes. Who knows, such a clause may be in the partnership agreement, but I highly doubt it. As to the assertion that the NFL can, as an organization, terminate the partnership and force everyone to sell their stake, that is preposterous. It is not a provision in the NFL bylaws under Sections 3 or 8 which are the two sections that govern divestitures, cancellations, and terminations of ownership of an NFL franchise. You keep bringing up the NFL bylaws, but it is blatantly obvious to me that you have never made an attempt to read them. Once again-please prove me wrong. As for the Observer article, let me ask you this: since we are arguing logical possibilities, is it logically possible that the CO writers wrote that story in such a way that it misconstrued what the other owners meant when they said that Richardson is firmly in charge? The article indicates that the interviews with the other minority partners occurred in the past, and one has to assume based on the wording of the sentence that the CO writers did not actually view the contract outlining the terms of the partnership. Could it be that they took what the owners said out of context? Could it be that the limited partners, when they were interviewed, were referring to the fact that Richardson controls the team in that he determines ultimately who to hire/fire, what capital expenditures to make, and they did not mean such a statement to suggest that he can force them to sell their own equity stake? I find bona fide factual inaccuracies published in local media outlets, including the CO, all the time, why should I expect their stories to capture and convey the exact message and context of all their interviewees all the time? Seems like a perfectly logical possibility that their story, citing previous interviews, in which, someone told them what existed in governing documents (as opposed to actually viewing those document themselves), would not convey the intent of the interviewee correctly. Furthermore, I posted an article yesterday from ESPN which stated that the minority partners are under no obligation to sell their stake. Here is what it said: Q. How does the bidding process work? A. Any person or potential group can submit a bid, negotiate a price and sign a preliminary purchase agreement. Richardson said in 2009 that he owns 48 percent of the team, according to the Charlotte Observer. The other 52 percent is owned by a group of 12 investors, including members of the Belk and Bissell families and Erskine Bowles, a former White House Chief of Staff under president Bill Clinton. No other owners are obligated to sell, but they could negotiate separately with the next owner. Notice how it said no other owners are obligated to sell. Again, in case you missed it, it says no other owners are obligated to sell. So if no other owners are obligated to sell, and the NFL constitution (which you apparently have not read) under Sections 3 and 8 provide no such provision for the NFL to force a member of an ownership group to divest of their equity stake in a franchise (once again provided that they have not engaged in conduct detrimental to the league), I have to ask, on what basis will you continue to assert that you are correct on these points? Like you said, unless you can find and share the governance documents of the don't have anything. You must really like strawmen. I have described no such thing. I never said that the minority owners could prevent the sale of the franchise, but that they do not have to divest their own personal stake in said franchise. Richardson can, based on the best information we have to this point, only sell his portion of the team. Any new owner or ownership group, can purchase Richardson's 48% stake and they can negotiate separately with the other owners to purchase a larger stake. What they cannot do is purchase Richardson's stake and then through the NFL or any other mechanism, try to force out the group that owns the other 52% other than negotiating separately with those owners to purchase their equity in a transaction that is mutually agreed upon by both parties. You keep suggesting that there are mechanisms to force the minority owners out by means other than a mutually agreed upon buyout but have presented no credible evidence that suggests that your claim is correct. The only such provision thhat exists rests on the precondition that they engage in conduct detrimental to the league. Not really sure what Donald Sterling has to do with anything. I presume you are using his example to suggest that owners can be forced to divest of their franchises. If so, its another example of your proclivity to draw comparisons between apples and oranges . He was a different owner in a different league with a different set of bylaws. Oh yeah.. and the conduct he engaged in was detrimental to his league, which is also a provision in the NFL constitution that allows the NFL to force divestiture. But nothing about his situation suggests that the NFL could force an ownership change without the precondition of conduct detrimental to the league. Assuming that the investigation doesn't reveal that the Levines, the Belks, and the rest of the owners were joining Richardson in his extracurricular activities, there is no bylaw that allows them to force those owners to sell their stake. You are right about supply and demand, and the NFL being a hot commodity. These are a few of the minimal number valid points you've made in the past few days on this thread. I am surprised you of all people would take issue with someone pulling from "iamverysmart" since this is the basis of many of the arguments you present in Urban Planet forums. I usually shy away from arguing with you because it has largely proven to be an exercise in futility for those who do. During this entire exchange I have been reminded of the phrase "never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." Shame on me for doing so. If you would like to keep making false assertions then building strawmen and making apples and oranges comparisons to support your opinions then I will gladly entertain them provided they come in the form of a direct message. At this point, I feel as if you and I are talking directly to each other anyways, and no one else on the thread cares. So in the interest of preserving sanity in the coffeehouse, I am officially bowing out. You and I will have to agree to disagree.
  12. Carolina Panthers

    You really must not have read what I wrote. I never once denied the possibility that a new owner may want to purchase the entire team outright. If you don't believe me please go and re-read my posts. What I did say was that if the minority owners do not want to sell their stake they are under no obligation to do so. And the league cannot force them to do so. I dug into the NFL constitution and in every statute that I read regarding termination of ownership in no place did I find a clause or provision that allowed the NFL as an organization to terminate ownership and force divestiture for anyone other than those "implicated and involved" in conduct "detrimental to the league" (I can even tell you which sections of the NFL constitution that govern termination of ownership if you would like). Because the other owners were not implicated in Mr. Richardson's actions nor were they involved Mr. Richardsons actions, they cannot be told by the NFL that they have to give up their ownership. Period, full stop, end of story. The fact that the investigation into Jerry Richardson's actions is immaterial with respect to the other owners' stakes in the team. They own 52 percent of the team. That is their property, and the NFL cannot subject them to a divestiture unless they have done something wrong. That doesn't mean that I am arguing that they have control over day to day operations, it just means that they own 52 percent of the equity in the team. I find it quite comical that you would suggest that the NFL could take it. I don't know about you, but I would never invest my money into an asset where the organization in which I am investing could simply force me to divest of the asset even if I did nothing wrong, especially if I am investing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into said asset. And I seriously suspect that the Levines and the Belks are not going to make such a decision either. While I hate to appeal to authority during an argument, especially my own authority, I will say as someone with an advanced degree in financial economics, that is not smart investing. And I suspect the individuals who invest in NFL teams are much savvier investors than I am. Please do not continue to mischaracterize my position as you have done up to this point. Furthermore, please do not call me delusional or suggest that I am unwilling to accept logical possibilities. Unlike you I actually do research and don't just blindly post assertions. And unlike you I am not so married to my own claims that I am unwilling to admit when I am wrong. So once again please prove me wrong. You have continued to just assert that I am wrong, but you have brought no evidence to suggest that I am other than your own assertions, and that is not how argumentation works. Argumentation only works if you can support your claims with evidence, which you have not done. Making assertion after assertion and then telling me I'm delusional or unwilling to accept logical possibilities is not argumentation. It is completely false and it is borderline ad hominem, both of which indicate that you know to this point your argument has been a losing one. That style of debate is reserved for those who realize that they can't win an argument based on the merits of their position. Again, the challenge still stands-prove me wrong. But to prove me wrong you are going to need evidence, not just speculation and conjecture which is all you've provided to this point. And having had conversations on the topic in Buffalo and in San Diego doesn't count as evidence. I am waiting, and will gladly concede if you do prove me wrong. Over to you...
  13. Charlotte-Douglas Airport (CLT) Expansion

    I misspoke, the Louisville-CLT-Columbia flight is actually an Orlando-CLT-Columbia flight.
  14. Carolina Panthers

    Trust me, I know the Panthers CAN move, and the thought of them doing so scares me a lot. They are my childhood team; I remember watching the announcement that Charlotte had been awarded the franchise, so I would be devastated if they move. However logically, I don't think it makes good business sense to do so given the cities where they might conceivably end up. Comp analysis (to the extent that I can perform such analysis without seeing a full-fledged income statement) suggests that even when mid-market teams get new stadiums, their value and revenue numbers haven't grown that much vis-a-vis the Panthers. The Vikings are a good example. In 2017 they were worth an estimated $2.4B compared to the Panthers at an estimated $2.3B and last season the Vikings had $392M in gross revenues versus the Panthers with revenues of $385M. The question is does it make business sense to pay billions of dollars to purchase a team and then pay another billion or so to relocate a team between relo fees and stadium costs (assuming the new owner pays 1/3-1/2 the cost of construction) only to get a slight bump in revenue and franchise value? The debt service on such a move is likely to far exceed the revenue gains resulting in a reduction in overall profit. I know that Stan Kroenke has been able to extract a huge value increase by moving the Rams to LA, but you can hardly compare the windfall he was able to get from moving to the second largest market in the US to what an owner would experience if they hypothetically moved the Panthers to a near peer like Portland or San Antonio. Other examples like the Colts and the Cardinals are even more instructive. While neither of them play in the newest of new stadiums-University of Phoenix stadium opened in 2006 and Lucas Oil in 2008-both play in facilities that are considered to be more or less top of the line indoor facilities. Both have hosted multiple mega events such as the Final Four, CFP championship, and the Super Bowl. Yet neither the Cardinals nor the Colts have revenue numbers as high as the Panthers, and only the Colts have a team value higher than the Panthers at $2.375B vs $2.3B. The Cardinals are less valuable as an organization than the Panthers. The question is why is that the case if their stadiums have most of the bells and whistles and can host mega events like the Super Bowl, and if supposedly top-notch stadiums command top dollar? Why aren't they leaps and bounds ahead of the Panthers in terms of value and revenue? Of course I will never underestimate the ego of an NFL owner, and their penchant for DM contests. So if it ever came to an instance where Charlotte wasn't bending precisely to the will of the new owner, there is no question in my mind that they would threaten to move the team if for no other reason than to make the point that they have the ultimate bargaining chip...Financial sensibilities be damned. My other point was that the NFL can not force the Panthers group of minority owners to divest their 52% share of the team if those individuals have not participated in criminal, unethical, or any other activity detrimental to the league. Such a provision is not in the NFL constitution-at least not to my knowledge-and I just reviewed the sections of the constitution that pertain to franchise divestitures today to make sure I was correct. CJD5050 seems to believe that the league has the ability to-and probably would-force the Panther's minority partners out of the franchise just because a new prospective "controlling" owner would want them to do so. The point I am making here is that he is incorrect. My challenge to him is to prove me wrong, and show me where in the NFL constitution it is allowable for the league to force minority owners to divest their stake in a team when they have not engaged in activities considered detrimental to the league. So that no one has to muddle through the legalese of the NFL constitution, I have posted the ESPN article below which states that the minority partners are under no obligation to sell their stake in the team. That's not to say that the new owner could not buy out their stake in a separate transaction, but the idea that the NFL can force a wholesale ownership change when none of the other partners have behaved in a manner detrimental to the league like Mr. Richardson has is wholly untrue.
  15. Carolina Panthers

    Great retort...I think you're just upset because you have made assertions that are completely unverifiable and I called you on it. Would you like for me to tell you the sections of the NFL constitution that delineate powers given to the league to terminate ownership of franchises? I can tell you under which sections such powers are delineated (at least two that I know of) but thus far have found nothing in either of those sections that suggests your argument (I.e. that the NFL can force divestiture of ownership groups at will) is valid. Again, the challenge still stands... prove me wrong. I will gladly concede the argument if you can.