Jump to content

Carolina Panthers

HopHead

By HopHead
in Charlotte Coffee House

 Share

Recommended Posts

cltbwimob Burg

cltbwimob

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

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....

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...

Edited by cltbwimob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ah59396
ah59396

This Cam commentary is absolutely ridiculous. This is his reality: Ted Ginn Jr Philly Brown Devin Funchess Bersin Jerricho Cotchery   this is the worst receiving corps in the league.  By a large margi

ah59396
ah59396

Someone needs to steer this thread back in the right direction...   UNSOLICITED PREDICTIONS: 1.  PANTHERS WIN LAST 2 GAMES, FINISHING WITH A 12-4 RECORD AND WIN NFC SOUTH TITLE 2. 

QCxpat
QCxpat

Panthers v. Buccaneers Final Score:  37 / 26.  Carolina forces 7 turnovers to win in London                   https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/panthers-vs-buccaneers-score-carolina-win

Posted Images

cjd5050 Hamlet

cjd5050

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, cltbwimob said:

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.   

 

This is where you and I disagree.  It's reasonable to assume that both Richardson and the NFL can force these owners to sell under various methods.  Both from partnership agreements and NFL bylaws.  

54 minutes ago, cltbwimob said:

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 52 percent of the equity in the team.  

 

The investigation is still ongoing.  We have no idea as to what involvement the others owners had in this.  To suggest at this point in time were not involved is pointless.  So, no.  There is also this bit from the CO:

Q. Would all owners sell their stake, even minority owners? Or just Richardson?

A. Neither the team nor the minority owners are providing details on their plan, but in a letter posted Sunday, Richardson said the team would be put up for sale at the end of the season and that it was “time to turn the franchise over to new ownership.”

Richardson said in 2009 he and his family owned 48 percent of the team, with the other 52 percent being owned by a group of about a dozen minority partners. Minority owners, however, in the past have told the Observer that Richardson is firmly in charge based on team governance documents.

You continue to ignore these governance documents that have been repeatedly mentioned.  You also don't seem to understand that things like buy/sell agreements in partnerships can in fact force owners to sell under outlined terms and regardless of what % they own.  These governance documents were in place when the team was purchased and approved by the NFL.  What you are hopefully describing, a situation where the group of 14 could harm the sale of the franchise by holding up a sale, is exactly the type of situation that lawyers would have accounted for.   Unless you can find and share the governance documents of the Panthers...you don't have anything.  

1 hour ago, cltbwimob said:

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.

2

Donald Sterling says hello!  What you're financial economics degree does not seem to allow you to account for is that the Carolina Panthers are not a typical partnership.  They are a licensed franchise and such needed approval by the league in order to get the team.   I am sure you also learned about supply and demand and thus know that NFL franchises are a very limited and desirable commodity.  In a seller's market, which the NFL is, the sellers get to set the terms and at times that leads to unfavorable terms or terms someone might not enter into in a typical situation.  

But you're right in one thing, the owners of NFL teams are much savvier than you or I.  Which is exactly why they would not allow for is an ownership situation where you would have what you so hopefully describe.  What you seem to be pulling from is the combination of /r/iamverysmart and #keeppounding and describing an easily preventable chaos and something that could be the difference in billions in total team valuations for the same savvy NFL owners.  

1 hour ago, cltbwimob said:

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...

1

We're not in a court here guy and everything is anecdotal because the information to actually lay out possible options moving forward are not something someone can find in a google search.  Time will tell...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cltbwimob Burg

cltbwimob

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

This is where you and I disagree.  It's reasonable to assume that both Richardson and the NFL can force these owners to sell under various methods.  Both from partnership agreements and NFL bylaws. 

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...

 

14 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

There is also this bit from the CO:

Q. Would all owners sell their stake, even minority owners? Or just Richardson?

A. Neither the team nor the minority owners are providing details on their plan, but in a letter posted Sunday, Richardson said the team would be put up for sale at the end of the season and that it was “time to turn the franchise over to new ownership.”

Richardson said in 2009 he and his family owned 48 percent of the team, with the other 52 percent being owned by a group of about a dozen minority partners. Minority owners, however, in the past have told the Observer that Richardson is firmly in charge based on team governance documents.

You continue to ignore these governance documents that have been repeatedly mentioned.  You also don't seem to understand that things like buy/sell agreements in partnerships can in fact force owners to sell under outlined terms and regardless of what % they own.  These governance documents were in place when the team was purchased and approved by the NFL.  What you are hopefully describing, a situation where the group of 14 could harm the sale of the franchise by holding up a sale, is exactly the type of situation that lawyers would have accounted for.   Unless you can find and share the governance documents of the Panthers...you don't have anything. 

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.

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

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 Panthers...you don't have anything.

 

14 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

What you are hopefully describing, a situation where the group of 14 could harm the sale of the franchise by holding up a sale.

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.

 

14 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

Donald Sterling says hello!  What you're financial economics degree does not seem to allow you to account for is that the Carolina Panthers are not a typical partnership.  They are a licensed franchise and such needed approval by the league in order to get the team.   I am sure you also learned about supply and demand and thus know that NFL franchises are a very limited and desirable commodity.  In a seller's market, which the NFL is, the sellers get to set the terms and at times that leads to unfavorable terms or terms someone might not enter into in a typical situation.

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.

 

14 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

But you're right in one thing, the owners of NFL teams are much savvier than you or I.  Which is exactly why they would not allow for is an ownership situation where you would have what you so hopefully describe.  What you seem to be pulling from is the combination of /r/iamverysmart and #keeppounding and describing an easily preventable chaos and something that could be the difference in billions in total team valuations for the same savvy NFL owners.  

We're not in a court here guy and everything is anecdotal because the information to actually lay out possible options moving forward are not something someone can find in a google search.  Time will tell...

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.

Edited by cltbwimob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cjd5050 Hamlet

cjd5050

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, cltbwimob said:

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.

You and I will have to agree to disagree.

 

The thing about private partnerships is that there are no rules as to how the partners define it.  While Richardson does hold a minority stake in the team, he also holds the largest state by a large margin.  He is also the keyman in the partnership.  Without him there would not have been a team awarded to the group.   Buy/Sell agreements are made for exactly this reason.   If you go back and read a previous post of mine, you will see that I mentioned the buy/sell most likely included the first right of refusal to the other owners that would be subject to the approval of the league.  If they refused to buy out Richardson at market value or the NFL would not be able to approve the new ownership structure, it would be completely unreasonable Richardson and the NFL did not demand a liquidation option.   

Corporate law, partnership law and, franchise law all would take precedent over investor theory and emotions.  

You appear to be focused on the psychology of the smaller owners and do not want to consider the largest owner and/or the franchise grantor in this exercise.  Both of which would use logic and caution rather than psychology / emotion to structure their investment.   Again, in private partnerships and corporations, the structure can be anything you want.  The NFL did not have to grant the franchise to Richardson.  They could have demanded an exit option that would protect the value of the league or demanded that Richardson find a way to enter with 51%.  All likely possibilities when you look at the entire board in play and throw textbooks out the window. 

Yes, there is going to be a massive cost for each of the partners to divest their share in the team if that happens.  But they are also. even after these costs, going to see a huge return on their investment.  A return that is about as safe and forecastable as any return on almost any investment in history.  If you have a degree in this and your educated opinion would be to tell an investor today that entering into such a partnership would be a bad idea...well I just don't know how to respond to that nicely.  

Yes, you and I will have to disagree.  But this has been fun regardless.  Thanks for the back and forth.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cjd5050 Hamlet

cjd5050

Posted
Posted
On 12/21/2017 at 8:13 AM, cjd5050 said:

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. 

 

And the other shoe drops.  

An NFL official says the league had no knowledge of the reported financial agreements the Panthers made with four former employees to settle claims of sexual harassment and, in one instance, a racial slur, by team owner Jerry Richardson.  “I don’t believe the league was (aware),” Lockhart said Thursday. “But certainly that is an area that the investigation will look into.”  The Panthers’ failure to report the settlements could be a violation of the league’s personal conduct policy, which requires teams and players to let the league know of any matters that potentially fall under the policy.

Unless Richardson was able to have these settlements reached and funded without even consulting or making his 'majority partners' aware of the situation, this could be enough for the NFL to paint the entire ownership group as in violation of the league's personal conduct policy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cltbwimob Burg

cltbwimob

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

The thing about private partnerships is that there are no rules as to how the partners define it.  While Richardson does hold a minority stake in the team, he also holds the largest state by a large margin.  He is also the keyman in the partnership.  Without him there would not have been a team awarded to the group.   Buy/Sell agreements are made for exactly this reason.   If you go back and read a previous post of mine, you will see that I mentioned the buy/sell most likely included the first right of refusal to the other owners that would be subject to the approval of the league.  If they refused to buy out Richardson at market value or the NFL would not be able to approve the new ownership structure, it would be completely unreasonable Richardson and the NFL did not demand a liquidation option.   

Corporate law, partnership law and, franchise law all would take precedent over investor theory and emotions.  

You appear to be focused on the psychology of the smaller owners and do not want to consider the largest owner and/or the franchise grantor in this exercise.  Both of which would use logic and caution rather than psychology / emotion to structure their investment.   Again, in private partnerships and corporations, the structure can be anything you want.  The NFL did not have to grant the franchise to Richardson.  They could have demanded an exit option that would protect the value of the league or demanded that Richardson find a way to enter with 51%.  All likely possibilities when you look at the entire board in play and throw textbooks out the window. 

Yes, there is going to be a massive cost for each of the partners to divest their share in the team if that happens.  But they are also. even after these costs, going to see a huge return on their investment.  A return that is about as safe and forecastable as any return on almost any investment in history.  If you have a degree in this and your educated opinion would be to tell an investor today that entering into such a partnership would be a bad idea...well I just don't know how to respond to that nicely.  

Yes, you and I will have to disagree.  But this has been fun regardless.  Thanks for the back and forth.  

 

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.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
ah59396 Town

ah59396

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Someone needs to steer this thread back in the right direction...

 

UNSOLICITED PREDICTIONS:

1.  PANTHERS WIN LAST 2 GAMES, FINISHING WITH A 12-4 RECORD AND WIN NFC SOUTH TITLE

2.  PANTHERS HOST DETROIT IN THE WILD CARD AND CRUSH THEM 

3.  PANTHERS GO TO PHILLY IN DIVISIONAL ROUND, WE RECORD 12 SACKS AND BANISH NICK FOLES TO THE SHADOWLAND

4.  NFC TITLE GAME IN CAROLINA AFTER NEW ORLEANS UPSETS MINNESOTA, 3RD TIME'S A CHARM, WE CRUSH THE SAINTS

5.  SUPERBOWL AGAINST THE PATRIOTS.  WHAT BEGINS MUST END.  2003 REVENGE.  CAM NEWTON VS. TOM BRADY.  "LOOK AT ME..I AM THE CAPTAIN NOW"  PANTHERS CRUSH THE PATRIOTS, THOMAS DAVIS RETIRES, CAM NEWTON IS SUPERBOWL MVP.

6.  ELON MUSK BUYS THE PANTHERS

7.  PANTHERS ARE THE FIRST TEAM TO PLAY ON MARS - CHAMPIONS OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM

 

63f871098ad5a681b297197798f7946a.jpg

 

  • Like 6
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CLTProductions City

CLTProductions

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Dale said:

Shameful performance. 

Shameful.

Agreed, they didn't even bother to show up. This goes back to what I have been saying for years: Ron is not that good of a coach. He doesn't prep his team properly (the games like yesterday), he doesn't keep the hammer down (constant blown 4th qtr leads), etc...good luck to them against NO (again)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cjd5050 Hamlet

cjd5050

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, KJHburg said:

WCNC is reporting according to 3 sources in the know (their words) that Brian France owner of NASCAR is interested in leading a group to buy the team.  He has the money and has plenty of rich friends. 

Does he even have enough money?  

"The NFL has altered its ownership rules in recent years, but a single incoming owner must still control at least 30% of the equity of the team to satisfy league rules and debt limits are capped at $250 million.

If the Panthers go for $2.4 billion France would need to come up with $500 million cash.   Some sites saying that he is worth up to $1 billion but how much of that is liquid?  How much of that value is related to the new TV deals that have yet to be paid out?   It took 6 months for the Bills to be sold.  Even if France could sell of his stake or part of his stake in NASCAR, could that be done in such a short period of time?

When Buffalo was for sale there are multiple groups interested in the team.  Everyone from Jon Bon Jovi and Donald Trump said they were very interested and had a group of rich friends ready to go.  Then Terry Pegula sold all of his oil fields and found himself with a liquid worth of $4 billion IIRC.  He then threw down a whopper of a bid at $1.4 Billion which was about $400 million more than what other groups were projected.   People thought he was crazy on that number but others have speculated that his bid was crafted around the 30% rule.  Essentially he looked at who the competition was in the blind bid and wrote a check for what was not possible by the other lead owners who were going to bid.  

I think it's very possible someone with FU liquid money puts in a bid and puts in somewhere close to $2.7 or $2.8.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deleted Burg

deleted

Posted
Posted
On 1/1/2018 at 11:18 AM, Jayvee said:

Agreed, they didn't even bother to show up. This goes back to what I have been saying for years: Ron is not that good of a coach. He doesn't prep his team properly (the games like yesterday), he doesn't keep the hammer down (constant blown 4th qtr leads), etc...good luck to them against NO (again)

Playoffs in 4 out of 5 years.  He's not Belichick but he's a top 15 NFL coach.  Additionally, he seems like an above average person.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KJHburg Ecumenopolis

KJHburg

Posted
Posted

Charlotte Business Journal is reporting local investors do have a group that has the means to buy the Panthers

""Felix Sabates said Thursday that a local group formed to bid for the Carolina Panthers already has enough investors to pursue the NFL franchise, but would be willing to take on more. And he questioned whether estimates of the team’s value are accurate while vowing to avoid a bidding war.""

Subscriber article 

https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2018/01/04/local-panthers-investors-have-all-we-need-to-buy.html?ana=e_du_prem&s=article_du&ed=2018-01-04&u=oAaDx%2B74FoP4qOJ%2By4AU6dhJPpc&t=1515097576&j=79446901

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.