Newton told: No tats or piercings

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by aman49:
I know many lawyers with tattoos. I am one of them. It's 2011. 1/3 of people have tattoos now. It's not a big deal.

That's true and there are more coming. I'm in law school and there are plenty of guys and women with tats. No one thinks twice about it. As I've stated, I don't understand getting tats, but if that's what others wanna do, more power to them.

This is true but no attorney's are going to be in the public and scrutinized by the masses. Newton is the face of the franchise and a popular icon,

football. he plays football.

i don't care one way or the other, but I think its funny the lengths people have to go to in order to make this sound reasonable. The arguments in favor of forcing your QB to look all clean-cut and All-American gee-willickers-good-golly-gum-drop wholesome elevate football into a much more important element of society than it deserves. Foolish.

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by WillistheWall:
his team his rules. If a team wanted to they could dress me up as a clown and hire me to plaay qb if theyre going to pay me 20 million dollars.

But those aren't team rules...see



Those aren't stickers on his biceps.

he can make the rules for whichever players he wants bro.

Originally posted by WillistheWall:
he can make the rules for whichever players he wants bro.

he certainly can, but if I'm a Panthers fan, hoping that the team can rebuild from the worst in the league into something decent, this kind of news doesn't make me hopeful. This kind of stuff, coupled with the reputation he got during the lockout, is not going to attract quality free agents, or encourage players to re-sign with the team rather than test the market--and any that do come, or stay, or not going to do so cheaply. Rebuilding a terrible team is bad enough without the players thinking that the owner is a condescending a*****e on top of being incompetent.

just my .02.

Misinterpret much. Sounds to me like the Owner expressed his preference to his Franchise player, whom has the individual liberty to ignore it or embrace it. This is being blown way out of proportion. The more you invest in a guy, the more latitude you have in expressing your preference

Originally posted by WillistheWall:
he can make the rules for whichever players he wants bro.

No he can't. If it's not in the contract, he can't do anything about Cam getting a tattoo other than get mad. He still has to pay him. He can trade him, but we all know he's not gonna do that over a tattoo. If he does that it'll be because he realized Cam isn't gonna be a franchise qb, but that's another subject.

And again, I don't think Richardson is telling Cam he's forbidden from getting a tattoo. I think his comment was more of a plea to not get tatted up like everyone else. More like "good, you don't have any, lets keep it that way." In a way you would tell your 22 year old son. Not, "I'll rescind your contract."

That's it now I hope Cam gets a Mike Tyson type of tattoo just so it causes drama. Lol

Originally posted by susweel:
That's it now I hope Cam gets a Mike Tyson type of tattoo just so it causes drama. Lol

yes I hope he gets the carolina panthers "panther" on his face, on teh side tyson style.

Just scare away talent that has tattoos

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by WillistheWall:
he can make the rules for whichever players he wants bro.

he certainly can, but if I'm a Panthers fan, hoping that the team can rebuild from the worst in the league into something decent, this kind of news doesn't make me hopeful. This kind of stuff, coupled with the reputation he got during the lockout, is not going to attract quality free agents, or encourage players to re-sign with the team rather than test the market--and any that do come, or stay, or not going to do so cheaply. Rebuilding a terrible team is bad enough without the players thinking that the owner is a condescending a*****e on top of being incompetent.

just my .02.

so him wanting the face of his franchise to uphold the "clean cut and classy" image makes him an a*****e??? I know as someone who may or may not have tats and is fairly liberal it makes you feel like he's a judgemental person and probably offends you that he'd think that way, but isnt that a bit judgemental yourself?

Originally posted by aman49:
I know many lawyers with tattoos. I am one of them. It's 2011. 1/3 of people have tattoos now. It's not a big deal.

1/3 of people? I find that hard to believe, maybe 1/3 of people 18-25, but not the whole USA population.

Owner just stating that he'd prefer Newton didn't get tattoos. I doubt there would be any repercussions if he did get any tattoos

Originally posted by aman49:
I know many lawyers with tattoos. I am one of them. It's 2011. 1/3 of people have tattoos now. It's not a big deal.

Lawyers do not display their tattoos in public in connection with their job.

If 1/3 of people now have tattoos (I don't accept that number. I don't think it is even half that.), it means that 2/3 DON'T have tats and many of them look at people with tattoos in a negative light. And, and, many of those people are the ones who are putting corporate dollars on the line for season tickets and luxury boxes. Jerry Richardson is one of those who doesn't like tattoos and feels it is in the best interest of his company/franchise, that he prefers players that do not have tats. Why is that wrong?

I respectfully submit you are living in a liberal world that is very different from the majority of America.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by aman49:
I know many lawyers with tattoos. I am one of them. It's 2011. 1/3 of people have tattoos now. It's not a big deal.

Lawyers do not display their tattoos in public in connection with their job.

If 1/3 of people now have tattoos (I don't accept that number. I don't think it is even half that.), it means that 2/3 DON'T have tats and many of them look at people with tattoos in a negative light. And, and, many of those people are the ones who are putting corporate dollars on the line for season tickets and luxury boxes. Jerry Richardson is one of those who doesn't like tattoos and feels it is in the best interest of his company/franchise, that he prefers players that do not have tats. Why is that wrong?

I respectfully submit you are living in a liberal world that is very different from the majority of America.

So now anybody who has any liberal beliefs is a fan of tats and is very different from the majority of America? Jeez there are a lot of stereotypes in this topic

His owner is telling him the right thing.

more importantly, will jed let andrew luck wear his scruffy beard next year?