Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Rumor: (Confirmed) Carolina Panthers to charge admission to Fan Fest in 2017


Datawire

Recommended Posts

If it is for charity then that is a great idea.  A lot of buzz around the team, and the money goes to a good cause.  Only problem I see is that fans of lower class households may not have enough money to attend something that was free to the fans in the past.  It gave those fans an opportunity to get to know their local team.  At the end of the day it is what it is though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2017 at 7:27 PM, cookinbrak said:

Anything else on this? Maybe Ticketmaster waived the charges? Otherwise they'll go from having too many people to having none.

I've never seen them do that. Probably what will happen is people will buy up the Panthers. Com ones and that's it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, stbugs said:

I'm not sure where the talk about Ticketmaster buying up half the tickets and buying some on Panthers.com. Here's the blurb from Panthers.com:

Seems like Panthers.com is just linking to Ticketmaster, which is the same as last year. Panthers.com isn't setup to sell game tickets, that's why they use Ticketmaster.

Got ya I thought they were selling some from there web portal. Well that sucks all around because no way to avoid the 20 bucks or more fee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, stbugs said:

Yep, last year was nice with 0 fees at all. I'll be interested to see what fees they charge. I wonder if Ticketmaster will be nice since this is a charity event. I don't think of them as nice for fees and such, but I don't think there were any fees on last year's free tickets.

Ticketmaster added $6.50 in fees, plus tax, to the Packer's $10 charity ticket this year. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...