Carolina Panthers

[SouthEndCLT811]

12 hours ago, KJHburg said:

From the Business Journals subscriber only article 

My input:  However one analyst thinks the team could move if approved by owners to where he does not say to where.  I think the viability of 2 teams in the LA market is very much yet to be determined.  That analyst would be Marc Ganis 

Is Ganis reputable at all?  Not knowing much but he's the schmuck that actually said this in a quote to the CO:

“Are we going to now start prosecuting men ... who were brought up in a different era who by all other accounts are incredibly respectful of and appreciative of their staff but handle personal interaction in the way it was handled in the 1950s-1960s? Are we going to expect everyone to live by standard of 2017? That’s a Pandora’s box,” Ganis said."

[KJHburg]

^^^ I  never heard of him but he was cited as a major NFL analyst with insider knowledge LOL 

[cjd5050]

18 hours ago, cltbwimob said:

1. Jerry can only sell Jerry's stake of the team.  When you own 48% of the equity in a team, you cannot put the entire team up for sale.  In order for a new owner to purchase the whole team he would also have to buy out the other 13 owners all of whom are Carolinians and who I doubt will be willing to sell their stake if there is a threat of moving.  Even if they were, you can't assume that they will sell their stake at fair market value but would demand a premium.  As such the purchase price for the team would probably be ~$3 billion.  Very few people can singlehandedly make a $3 billion purchase.  As a result any prospective owner would most likely have to assemble a partnership.  But then the question becomes why not just purchase the minority stake that's already available on the market  and become part of the ownership structure that already exists rather than trying to assemble a partnership to purchase every other owner's stake and still, in the end, be a minority owner (unless you just don't like any of the current owners)?

3

Jerry has an agreement with the partners that gives him full control of the team.  This has been mentioned many times in public.  

As for not being able to put the entire team up for sale that really depends on what else exists in the partnership agreement.   While I see your logic I don't agree with it.  I think it's too simple and there is no way this is a simple transaction IMHO.  Here is another logical take:

If Jerry only owns 48% of the team and is unable to force a sale then his stake, the largest stake is reduced in value to potential buyers.   Consider some guy worth $4 billion who wants to purchase the team.  It's very doubtful they would want to purchase a less than majority stake in the team with a group of investors that have been together for 20 years and one that he is not a member of.   I could easily see a partnership agreement stipulating that the group of 14 have X number of days to make a fair market offer for his entire stake in the team.  They could bring in one or multiple investors for this.  It would also need to be contingent upon the NFL signing off.    If the partnership group is unable or unwilling to purchase his share, Jerry can force the sale of the entire franchise and cash everyone out.  

 

[Commoner]

I haven't read it, but in an "institutional" deal as I would imagine this partnership agreement to represent, there is a slate of standard market "minority protections" including but not limited to tag along rights (i.e., you own 10% but the plurality owner is selling, and you want to sell down pro rata with the majority/plurality), drag along rights (i.e., a group of 50% plus of the aggregate ownership wants to sell; the 10% owner can't hold the 50% plus hostage, who want to sell, so the minority gets "dragged" along) and others that don't really apply here ... well, maybe the ROFO and ROFR, i.e., if a member wants to sell, then other members get the right to buy at the price the seller received in his or her offer from the third party (if Jerry gets an offer for $10 for 48%, Hugh has the right to buy the 48% for $10).  

While nobody does know (and unless someone steps in it and violates a core confidentiality provision of the partnership agreement, we won't know), these are the presumptions that people can/should make, if they're just speculating (as we are).  

[deleted]

3 hours ago, SouthEndCLT811 said:

“Are we going to now start prosecuting men ... who were brought up in a different era who by all other accounts are incredibly respectful of and appreciative of their staff but handle personal interaction in the way it was handled in the 1950s-1960s? Are we going to expect everyone to live by standard of 2017? That’s a Pandora’s box,” Ganis said."

Yeah, that is a horrible perspective.   I think people would be satisfied if he lived by the standard of 1985.  During my working life, it's never been okay to do what he did and say what he said.  Assuming the allegations are true, he deserves to lose the team.

My biggest annoyance since this broke are the many articles and comments from people who should know better regarding the possibility that the team will move.  There is zero chance that will happen.  The team has had TWO non-sellouts in franchise history.  Out of 32 teams, they are consistently top 10 in attendance (top 8 this year).  The franchise has been increasingly successful on the field and is located in a region that is growing faster than virtually any other in the country.  In the US, the primary competitors for NFL franchises are markets that recently lost teams and with no ability to build stadiums (they aren't moving to London either).  The team owns the stadium.  I don't doubt that the next owner will ask for a new stadium within 10 years of purchase but there is simply no way that an owner or the league would leave this market for anywhere else in the next 15 years.  Oh, and Ron Rivera, I like you as a coach but you're just being irresponsibly silly to even suggest that is possible.

[Merthecat]

Thomas Davis wins suspension appeal

Two-game suspension cut back to one game.  He will now be eligible to return 26 Dec., for the final game of the season against Atlanta. 

[cjd5050]

On 12/19/2017 at 11:23 AM, JBS said:

Yeah, that is a horrible perspective.   I think people would be satisfied if he lived by the standard of 1985.  During my working life, it's never been okay to do what he did and say what he said.  Assuming the allegations are true, he deserves to lose the team.

My biggest annoyance since this broke are the many articles and comments from people who should know better regarding the possibility that the team will move.  There is zero chance that will happen.  The team has had TWO non-sellouts in franchise history.  Out of 32 teams, they are consistently top 10 in attendance (top 8 this year).  The franchise has been increasingly successful on the field and is located in a region that is growing faster than virtually any other in the country.  In the US, the primary competitors for NFL franchises are markets that recently lost teams and with no ability to build stadiums (they aren't moving to London either).  The team owns the stadium.  I don't doubt that the next owner will ask for a new stadium within 10 years of purchase but there is simply no way that an owner or the league would leave this market for anywhere else in the next 15 years.  Oh, and Ron Rivera, I like you as a coach but you're just being irresponsibly silly to even suggest that is possible.

 

Never say never...

On NPR this morning they had some NFL financial reporters on that said the stadium was the most important item to the owners.  It's where they separate themselves in terms of profit.   Success or lack of it and attendance don't mean much to the bottom line.  They all share in the TV money regardless of record.  Where they make their money is on sponsorships, suites/club seating and other revenue producing events at the stadium.  

They said Jerry Jones makes about $300 million alone on the stadium/sponsorship.  That's after his cut of the TV deal.   As RDF pointed out in another thread, there are a very limited number of events at BofA.   There is no chance of a Final Four for example.  A new owner could ask for a dome stadium to have some of these events....

Think about this curveball.  What if James Goodnight buys the team?  Sure he is a North Carolina guy but he is a Raleigh guy.  Say he purchases the team and signs a 10 year deal with Charlotte to stay at BofA.  Well by 2029 BofA is going to be 33 years old.  Ancient by stadium standards.  Raleigh already went after a MLS team and it's obvious their regional leadership wants to compete with Charlotte.   What if they make a sweet offer to Goodnight to relocate the team to Raleigh and to a brand new downtown dome?  

If the State participated in funding they might be indifferent as to which city it went to and only focus on keeping the team in NC.  The ACC would love it and it would be a lock for things like the Final Four.  For the NFL, nothing would really change.  They are the Carolina Panthers after all.  No need to deal with the messy realignment of divisions or conferences.   Then comes the fans.   Would it be really that hard of a PR job to sell many of the Charlotte fans or the regional fans on cheering for the same team based out of Raleigh?  They would still get to see them on TV and the train that brings fans from Raleigh can just as easily ship them there.  I could actually see fans being in favor of this as they still have the regional team but don't have to put up the hundreds of millions of local dollars to keep them in Charlotte.  

Never say never....

Edited December 20, 2017 by cjd5050

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

Never say never...

On NPR this morning they had some NFL financial reporters on that said the stadium was the most important item to the owners.  It's where they separate themselves in terms of profit.   Success or lack of it and attendance don't mean much to the bottom line.  They all share in the TV money regardless of record.  Where they make their money is on sponsorships, suites/club seating and other revenue producing events at the stadium.  

They said Jerry Jones makes about $300 million alone on the stadium/sponsorship.  That's after his cut of the TV deal.   As RDF pointed out in another thread, there are a very limited number of events at BofA.   There is no chance of a Final Four for example.  A new owner could ask for a dome stadium to have some of these events....

Think about this curveball.  What if James Goodnight buys the team?  Sure he is a North Carolina guy but he is a Raleigh guy.  Say he purchases the team and signs a 10 year deal with Charlotte to stay at BofA.  Well by 2029 BofA is going to be 33 years old.  Ancient by stadium standards.  Raleigh already went after a MLS team and it's obvious their regional leadership wants to compete with Charlotte.   What if they make a sweet offer to Goodnight to relocate the team to Raleigh and to a brand new downtown dome?  

If the State participated in funding they might be indifferent as to which city it went to and only focus on keeping the team in NC.  The ACC would love it and it would be a lock for things like the Final Four.  For the NFL, nothing would really change.  They are the Carolina Panthers after all.  No need to deal with the messy realignment of divisions or conferences.   Then comes the fans.   Would it be really that hard of a PR job to sell many of the Charlotte fans or the regional fans on cheering for the same team based out of Raleigh?  They would still get to see them on TV and the train that brings fans from Raleigh can just as easily ship them there.  I could actually see fans being in favor of this as they still have the regional team but don't have to put up the hundreds of millions of local dollars to keep them in Charlotte.  

Never say never....

well you just scared the poop outta me

[UPNoDa]

^never happen. Too many peeps in Raleigh are still Redskins fans.

[HopHead]

34 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

Never say never...

On NPR this morning they had some NFL financial reporters on that said the stadium was the most important item to the owners.  It's where they separate themselves in terms of profit.   Success or lack of it and attendance don't mean much to the bottom line.  They all share in the TV money regardless of record.  Where they make their money is on sponsorships, suites/club seating and other revenue producing events at the stadium.  

They said Jerry Jones makes about $300 million alone on the stadium/sponsorship.  That's after his cut of the TV deal.   As RDF pointed out in another thread, there are a very limited number of events at BofA.   There is no chance of a Final Four for example.  A new owner could ask for a dome stadium to have some of these events....

Think about this curveball.  What if James Goodnight buys the team?  Sure he is a North Carolina guy but he is a Raleigh guy.  Say he purchases the team and signs a 10 year deal with Charlotte to stay at BofA.  Well by 2029 BofA is going to be 33 years old.  Ancient by stadium standards.  Raleigh already went after a MLS team and it's obvious their regional leadership wants to compete with Charlotte.   What if they make a sweet offer to Goodnight to relocate the team to Raleigh and to a brand new downtown dome?  

If the State participated in funding they might be indifferent as to which city it went to and only focus on keeping the team in NC.  The ACC would love it and it would be a lock for things like the Final Four.  For the NFL, nothing would really change.  They are the Carolina Panthers after all.  No need to deal with the messy realignment of divisions or conferences.   Then comes the fans.   Would it be really that hard of a PR job to sell many of the Charlotte fans or the regional fans on cheering for the same team based out of Raleigh?  They would still get to see them on TV and the train that brings fans from Raleigh can just as easily ship them there.  I could actually see fans being in favor of this as they still have the regional team but don't have to put up the hundreds of millions of local dollars to keep them in Charlotte.  

Never say never....

Three reasons the Triangle will never have an NFL team for the same reason it won't have an NBA team: UNC, NC State and Duke. It's one of many reasons why the Panthers work so well in Charlotte. It's a pro town first. I get never say never, but I'd call this highly unlikely to happen.

Edited December 20, 2017 by HopHead

[deleted]

Well written scenario but it's NOT going to happen.  Has Goodnight ever expressed any interest in owning a professional franchise?  If he did buy the team, he wouldn't move the franchise (why would he for 10 home games a year?).  NC would definitely not help Raleigh steal the team at Charlotte's expense with state money, even though some there hate Charlotte.  You also make it more difficult for SC fans to get to games and that is a big part of Panther's support.  I think a new stadium is coming in 15-20 years regardless but I stand by my comments...it simply will not happen.  BTW, Richardson owns less than 50% of the team.  Most of the rest of the owners live in Charlotte.  I don't know how this will impact the sale and he definitely owns the largest percentage but there are other owners who will have a say.  

[cjd5050]

1 minute ago, JBS said:

Well written scenario but it's NOT going to happen.  Has Goodnight ever expressed any interest in owning a professional franchise?  If he did buy the team, he wouldn't move the franchise (why would he for 10 home games a year?).  NC would definitely not help Raleigh steal the team at Charlotte's expense with state money, even though some there hate Charlotte.  You also make it more difficult for SC fans to get to games and that is a big part of Panther's support.  I think a new stadium is coming in 15-20 years regardless but I stand by my comments...it simply will not happen.  BTW, Richardson owns less than 50% of the team.  Most of the rest of the owners live in Charlotte.  I don't know how this will impact the sale and he definitely owns the largest percentage but there are other owners who will have a say.  

Again, it all comes down to the stadium.  BofA or open air stadiums are just that...10 games a year.  A dome opens the door for multiple events.   Jerry Jones makes a massive amount of money on his stadium from events that have nothing to do with the NFL.   As for Raleigh, I am basing that opinion off what happened in Buffalo.  The Bills are actually the only team in New York in terms of paying payroll taxes.  That's a lot of scratch.  If there was an owner who wanted Raleigh I could see a very compelling argument from the state in saying that what's most important is keeping the team in NC.  I agree on SC fans but any loss there would be picked up elsewhere I assume.  

Richardson owning less than 50% and the power of the group of 14 has already been discussed.  Outside of hopeful fans I have not heard any reporter or 'insider' suggest the 14 would be a part of the new ownership, let alone, have a majority say.   The NFL can force Richardson to sell and the NFL can force the group of 14 to sell...if they want.  All the NFL owners want is the highest price for the team because that makes them all money.  It's not unreasonable or even unrealistic to think that the highest offer from a deeply vetted owner is going to be what happens.  If that owner wants 100% or wants to do 51% with their own 'group of 14' that's exactly what will happen.  

Honestly, I think the Panthers are going to stay.  It's just really slow at work and I like taking the other sides of topics for fun.  

[southslider]

The Browns/Ravens and Rams/Chargers/Raiders moves have been such messes for the NFL. Given that history, I strongly doubt the NFL would support the Panthers leaving. And the last team publicly sold was the Bills, who continue to play in a relatively weak market. The stronger-market Panthers should sell for much more and stay in a proven market, where the return on investment remains more certain. 

[cltbwimob]

1 hour ago, cjd5050 said:

Never say never...

On NPR this morning they had some NFL financial reporters on that said the stadium was the most important item to the owners.  It's where they separate themselves in terms of profit.   Success or lack of it and attendance don't mean much to the bottom line.  They all share in the TV money regardless of record.  Where they make their money is on sponsorships, suites/club seating and other revenue producing events at the stadium.  

They said Jerry Jones makes about $300 million alone on the stadium/sponsorship.  That's after his cut of the TV deal.   As RDF pointed out in another thread, there are a very limited number of events at BofA.   There is no chance of a Final Four for example.  A new owner could ask for a dome stadium to have some of these events....

Think about this curveball.  What if James Goodnight buys the team?  Sure he is a North Carolina guy but he is a Raleigh guy.  Say he purchases the team and signs a 10 year deal with Charlotte to stay at BofA.  Well by 2029 BofA is going to be 33 years old.  Ancient by stadium standards.  Raleigh already went after a MLS team and it's obvious their regional leadership wants to compete with Charlotte.   What if they make a sweet offer to Goodnight to relocate the team to Raleigh and to a brand new downtown dome?  

If the State participated in funding they might be indifferent as to which city it went to and only focus on keeping the team in NC.  The ACC would love it and it would be a lock for things like the Final Four.  For the NFL, nothing would really change.  They are the Carolina Panthers after all.  No need to deal with the messy realignment of divisions or conferences.   Then comes the fans.   Would it be really that hard of a PR job to sell many of the Charlotte fans or the regional fans on cheering for the same team based out of Raleigh?  They would still get to see them on TV and the train that brings fans from Raleigh can just as easily ship them there.  I could actually see fans being in favor of this as they still have the regional team but don't have to put up the hundreds of millions of local dollars to keep them in Charlotte.  

Never say never....

Another apples to oranges comparison. First it was the Rams moving to LA and how Kroenke benefitted from a move to the 2nd largest market in the US, and now the comparison du jour is Jerry Jones and the Dallas Cowboys, by far and the most valuable NFL team in existence, and how much he gets from being the man in charge at the NFL version of Mecca.  Here's the thing...LA and America's team are not apt comparisons to Charlotte and the Panthers. The more proper parallel in my opinion is the Minnesota Vikings.  They are much more like the Carolina Panthers in terms of revenue, value, following, market size, etc.  The Vikings have a new stadium with all the bells and whistles and made a whopping $7 million  more than the Panthers last year. When considering the fact that both team's revenues are nearly $400 million, $7 million is a rounding error.  By your logic because they have the much newer stadium they should be making much more than the Panthers because they have the suites, the indoor facility, etc, yet they make only slightly more in terms of gross revenue.  And if we were able to look at an actual income statement, I'll bet you would find that Minnesota is actually less profitable.  I can't imagine, assuming all else is equal, that the extra $7 million per year even remotely covers the additional debt service the team took on to fund their portion of stadium construction vis-a-vis  the Panthers current debt service costs.

As for James Goodnight, I will never say never, because I am worried the team will move somewhere even though I don't believe there is much of a business case to be made.  (That's just a personal fear that, while I am experiencing it, I do not believe is rooted in logic, but rather the sheer devastation I would feel if I lost my childhood team).   However I don't think there is much chance James Goodnight is much into vanity projects like professional sports.  Raleigh just recently went through a similar crisis with the  sale of the  Carolina Hurricanes.  If Jim Goodnight was wanting to do a solid for Raleigh he could have jumped in and purchased the Canes easily.  However, as far as I know he wasn't even much a part of the conversation. The same with the MLS-he could have probably made Raleigh's MLS bid a reality had he been heavily involved, but once again he wasn't even much a part of the conversation as far as I know.  My perception based on what little I know of him is that he is more like Bill Gates than Jerry Jones in that he is more likely to spend his fortunes on philanthropic pursuits than building a shrine to himself.

I don't think that the state is too interested in the idea of heavily subsidizing an NFL stadium period. Remember the state shot down  the initial proposal for a much larger set of renovations by refusing to spend state money on the stadium and disallowing  Charlotte to raise the hotel tax as well.  The power structure that exists within Wake County seems to be more conservative than Charmeck as well, so I imagine they wouldn't exactly be beating down the door to cough up public money to move the team to Raleigh-at least that's my perception.  And as others have mentioned Raleigh is already near the border of Redskins country.  I highly doubt they would be the regional draw there that they are in Charlotte which sits near the geographic center of the Carolinas.  I mean, they tried to use the same tactic as the Panthers in naming the NHL team the Carolina Hurricanes, but how many people do you know who consider the Hurricanes to be the Carolina's team.  I'm fairly certain that almost no one in South Carolina considers the Hurricanes a team representative of South Carolina.  The Panthers are a team for both Carolinas, but the Hurricanes are more or less Raleigh's franchise.

 

P.S.  I read multiple articles yesterday suggesting that a new ownership group would likely only purchase Jerry Richardson's 48% stake. And even though Jerry Richardson controls the team as it were, that does not necessarily mean he controls whether  or not the minority partners sell their stake . As such, a new owner will only get the lions share of ownership if the other partners on their own volition elect to sell their stake in the team.   Contrary to your assertions, Richardson likely has little control over what the other partners do with their own share of ownership.

Edited December 20, 2017 by cltbwimob

[cjd5050]

6 minutes ago, cltbwimob said:

P.S.  I read multiple articles yesterday suggesting that a new ownership group would likely only purchase Jerry Richardson's 48% stake. And even though Jerry Richardson controls the team as it were, that does not necessarily mean he controls whether  or not the minority partners sell their stake . As such, a new owner will only get the lions share of ownership if the other partners on their own volition elect to sell their stake in the team.   Contrary to your assertions Richardson likely has little control over what the other partners do with their own share of ownership.

 

The NFL has final say.  The league can force the sale of the team and all the NFL cares about is making the most money possible.  Full stop.  

You're giving way too much credit and assigning too much power to the group of 14.  If a new owner wants to join the group, that's fine.  But if the new owner wants them out...they are gone.  Sorry.

[cltbwimob]

57 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

The NFL has final say.  The league can force the sale of the team and all the NFL cares about is making the most money possible.  Full stop.  

You're giving way too much credit and assigning too much power to the group of 14.  If a new owner wants to join the group, that's fine.  But if the new owner wants them out...they are gone.  Sorry.

Not really. Yes the NFL can force an owner to give up their stake of a team based on engagement in criminal activity or other improprieties contrary to the values of the league.  But when, in the history of the NFL has a minority owner been forced to sell his or her share of a team due to the improprieties of another owner?   Show me in NFL statutes where the NFL can force a minority owner to sell their stake in a team even if they have never participated in any illegal, unethical, or any other act that would be considered an impropriety.  Show me where, in the NFL bylaws, the league is allowed to force ownership changes based on nothing more than a simple whim.  Would you ever invest tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into an organization, in which, the organization you were investing in could just force you to sell your stake in said organization based only on their own notions and nothing more? I suspect you would not ever touch such an investment, and I am pretty sure the Belks and the Levines would not either.   Something tells me they are much more savvy money managers than you or me.

Yes, a new ownership group  can attempt to purchase a minority owner's stake, but if and only if that owner agrees to sell  will it happen.  The NFL does not exercise eminent domain over its ownership groups, and can only force such changes if there is a legitimate reason to do so such as criminal activity.  I challenge you to show me how I am wrong about that.  Give me chapter, line, and verse from the rule book that allows the league to terminate ownership and force an owner, minority or majority, to sell their stake in a team for no reason other than the desire for fresh blood.

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by cltbwimob

[cltbwimob]

FWIW, Cam Newton said today in his presser that he has been hearing the team is not moving from Charlotte no matter what happens.  I know that hearsay is worth little, but given the potential identity crisis that the city of Charlotte and its residents would go through should such a move occur, Cam's words are fairly comforting.

[cjd5050]

4 hours ago, cltbwimob said:

Not really. Yes the NFL can force an owner to give up their stake of a team based on engagement in criminal activity or other improprieties contrary to the values of the league.  But when, in the history of the NFL has a minority owner been forced to sell his or her share of a team due to the improprieties of another owner?   Show me in NFL statutes where the NFL can force a minority owner to sell their stake in a team even if they have never participated in any illegal, unethical, or any other act that would be considered an impropriety.  Show me where, in the NFL bylaws, the league is allowed to force ownership changes based on nothing more than a simple whim.  Would you ever invest tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into an organization, in which, the organization you were investing in could just force you to sell your stake in said organization based only on their own notions and nothing more? I suspect you would not ever touch such an investment, and I am pretty sure the Belks and the Levines would not either.   Something tells me they are much more savvy money managers than you or me.

Yes, a new ownership group  can attempt to purchase a minority owner's stake, but if and only if that owner agrees to sell  will it happen.  The NFL does not exercise eminent domain over its ownership groups, and can only force such changes if there is a legitimate reason to do so such as criminal activity.  I challenge you to show me how I am wrong about that.  Give me chapter, line, and verse from the rule book that allows the league to terminate ownership and force an owner, minority or majority, to sell their stake in a team for no reason other than the desire for fresh blood.

 

Ok buddy.  Keep the dream.  

[cltbwimob]

19 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

Ok buddy.  Keep the dream.  

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.

Edited December 21, 2017 by cltbwimob

[ah59396]

I don’t think the Panthers will move anywhere, but it is absolutely a possibility and you’re foolish to think otherwise.

I think a local name like Belk or Levine is more likely than anything, but I’ll crap my pants if some rich Saudi or someone like Carlos Slim comes out of the woodwork.

[KJHburg]

A local group committed to Charlotte is working on the Panthers purchase or at least the Richardson's half.  http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article190898494.html

[cltbwimob]

3 hours ago, ah59396 said:

I don’t think the Panthers will move anywhere, but it is absolutely a possibility and you’re foolish to think otherwise.

I think a local name like Belk or Levine is more likely than anything, but I’ll crap my pants if some rich Saudi or someone like Carlos Slim comes out of the woodwork.

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.

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/262610/what-you-need-to-know-about-potential-carolina-panthers-sale

Edited December 21, 2017 by cltbwimob

[deleted]

3 hours ago, ah59396 said:

I don’t think the Panthers will move anywhere, but it is absolutely a possibility and you’re foolish to think otherwise.

I think a local name like Belk or Levine is more likely than anything, but I’ll crap my pants if some rich Saudi or someone like Carlos Slim comes out of the woodwork.

Donald Trump is President, anything is possible. 

Technically, it's possible the Cowboys will leave Dallas for Des Moines.  It isn't happening.  I lived in San Diego and knew it was possible the Chargers could move.  Totally different situation.  With no new stadium in 20 years they could possibly leave.  It's foolish to think that a new owner will buy them to move them.  I literally can't believe this is a thing...

[cjd5050]

11 hours ago, cltbwimob said:

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.

The NFL owners, if they forced the minority group to sell, would not be doing it at will.  They would be doing it with cause under the terms that outline how owners behave.  Richardson put the owners, team, and fans in a very bad position by his actions.  Just why do you think the NFL is keeping the investigation open?  Do you think the masters of PR said 'hey, it would be a really good idea after the year we're having and, with all of the racial tensions, to keep open an investigation of an owner who used racial slurs"?   Even after the owner agreed to sell the team less than 24 hrs after the story broke?  That's just silly.  The reason the NFL is keeping the investigation open is to use the investigation as leverage to control the sale of the team.  Why?  Because having that card to play allows them to have control over the sale to an ownership group that brings in the most money.  

I think it's delusional to ignore the possibility that a new owner would want to purchase the team outright.  I think it's comical to think that if the said new owner, wanted to overpay by a few hundred million,  the other NFL owners would leave that money on the table and accept a possible lower valuation for the team by way of a sale to a minority owner.   I think it's silly fandom to elevate this group of 14 to some level of power and control that they have never had in any day of the Panthers existence because that now means they can call the shots with the te

I don't really care to argue an endless list of what ifs with someone refuses to accept logical possibilities.  I have had this conversation in Buffalo and San Diego for years.   I will leave you with the fact that I am headed to LA in a couple of weeks for work.  I may check out the LA Chargers team store or give some money to Steve Balmer and his LA Clippers....

[Crown]

I'd be down for a "local" pool of investors including any of the following:  Rick Elias, Smith Sons, Closes  

Edited December 21, 2017 by Crown