If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Green Bay Packers announce record profits; say next year could be even better if they can increase printing of shares of Packers "stock"   (espn.go.com) divider line 153
    More: Obvious, Green Bay, Lambeau Field, NFC North  
•       •       •

776 clicks; posted to Sports » on 17 Jul 2013 at 9:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



153 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-17 09:12:15 AM
Green Packers? Is that Humboldt University?
 
2013-07-17 09:13:08 AM
Oh dear, Subby...
 
2013-07-17 09:18:36 AM
Green Packers, we are THERRRRREEE...

www.maggiore.net
 
2013-07-17 09:22:22 AM
In before a Packer fan educates us on how jealous everyone else is that they don't have the luxury of being able to pay $250 for a stock certificate they can't sell, doesn't change in value and gives no ownership rights to its owner other than being able to claim "ownership" of an NFL franchise.
 
2013-07-17 09:22:57 AM
Eco-friendly gays?
 
2013-07-17 09:23:59 AM
Looks like at least 2 people need some more coffee this morning.
 
2013-07-17 09:40:26 AM
Fat.
 
2013-07-17 09:42:44 AM

balki1867: In before a Packer fan educates us on how jealous everyone else is that they don't have the luxury of being able to pay $250 for a stock certificate they can't sell, doesn't change in value and gives no ownership rights to its owner other than being able to claim "ownership" of an NFL franchise.


It's like buying a 'Property of XYZ' T-shirt that you can't actually wear. And falls apart if it gets wet.
 
2013-07-17 09:42:49 AM

balki1867: In before a Packer fan educates us on how jealous everyone else is that they don't have the luxury of being able to pay $250 for a stock certificate they can't sell, doesn't change in value and gives no ownership rights to its owner other than being able to claim "ownership" of an NFL franchise.


What they should do is remind us that this "ownership" means that their team will never have:

Jerry Jones
Al Davis
Dan Snyder
Georgia Frontiere
Bud Adams
Tom Benson
Malcom Glazer
Art Modell
Ralph Wilson

Need I continue?
 
2013-07-17 09:49:31 AM

Gonz: balki1867: In before a Packer fan educates us on how jealous everyone else is that they don't have the luxury of being able to pay $250 for a stock certificate they can't sell, doesn't change in value and gives no ownership rights to its owner other than being able to claim "ownership" of an NFL franchise.

What they should do is remind us that this "ownership" means that their team will never have:

Jerry Jones
Al Davis
Dan Snyder
Georgia Frontiere
Bud Adams
Tom Benson
Malcom Glazer
Art Modell
Ralph Wilson

Need I continue?


Does it though? The board could just as easily appoint an idiot to equal any of those. Early success (which most of those listed had) cements their status and gives them pull to put cronies and friends on the board.

'Public' ownership certainly hasn't hurt non-NFL companies from appointing self-interested, inflated-ego, meddling nincompoops to CEO and/or board chairmen.

Besides, aren't those non-voting stock? They have no power over ownership.
 
2013-07-17 09:49:57 AM

balki1867: In before a Packer fan educates us on how jealous everyone else is that they don't have the luxury of being able to pay $250 for a stock certificate they can't sell, doesn't change in value and gives no ownership rights to its owner other than being able to claim "ownership" of an NFL franchise.


Or be jealous that rather than have a billionaire owner demand money from the public coffers or the team will find some other city to extort, the team sold a unique piece of memorabilia that will allow them to complete stadium improvements.
 
2013-07-17 09:56:17 AM

balki1867: In before a Packer fan educates us on how jealous everyone else is that they don't have the luxury of being able to pay $250 for a stock certificate they can't sell, doesn't change in value and gives no ownership rights to its owner other than being able to claim "ownership" of an NFL franchise.


I'm surprised the Steelers haven't done something similar. Their fans rank pretty high in pointless fandom.
 
2013-07-17 10:00:45 AM

WTF Indeed: balki1867: In before a Packer fan educates us on how jealous everyone else is that they don't have the luxury of being able to pay $250 for a stock certificate they can't sell, doesn't change in value and gives no ownership rights to its owner other than being able to claim "ownership" of an NFL franchise.

I'm surprised the Steelers haven't done something similar. Their fans rank pretty high in pointless fandom.


As opposed to that meaningful fandom of other teams.
 
2013-07-17 10:03:17 AM

roc6783: balki1867: In before a Packer fan educates us on how jealous everyone else is that they don't have the luxury of being able to pay $250 for a stock certificate they can't sell, doesn't change in value and gives no ownership rights to its owner other than being able to claim "ownership" of an NFL franchise.

Or be jealous that rather than have a billionaire owner demand money from the public coffers or the team will find some other city to extort, the team sold a unique piece of memorabilia that will allow them to complete stadium improvements.


Just wait until the first $150 "Buy-a-Brick" sale starts from some enterprising team. It's about the same level of 'memorabilia', and confers about the same level of ownership over the team/stadium.

I'm not knocking it as 'memorabilia'. But pretending it has anything to do with anything the team decides to do is stupid. The 'not leaving' thing is in the charter and has nothing to do with the stock sale.

/why hasn't the brick thing been done already?
 
2013-07-17 10:04:12 AM
Wow, it's a good thing they sold that stock or they would have lost like 9 million.
 
2013-07-17 10:09:38 AM

Deneb81: Besides, aren't those non-voting stock? They have no power over ownership.


Nope, it's voting stock, per TFA and the email I get every year
 
2013-07-17 10:13:28 AM
Just a point of clarification here.  While the stock they sell today is indeed "memorabilia", the original stock does confer voting rights.  There is a stockholder meeting every year where idiot farmers from Oconto and Peshtigo get to vote on the activities of a multi-million dollar sports franchise.
 
2013-07-17 10:14:14 AM

balki1867: In before a Packer fan educates us on how jealous everyone else is that they don't have the luxury of being able to pay $250 for a stock certificate they can't sell, doesn't change in value and gives no ownership rights to its owner other than being able to claim "ownership" of an NFL franchise.


It gives one very, very important right: it ensures that the Packers will never, ever leave Green Bay. We don't have to concern ourselves with offers from Los Angeles one damn bit and never will have to.
 
2013-07-17 10:14:56 AM

Deneb81: Gonz: balki1867: *snip*

Does it though? The board could just as easily appoint an idiot to equal any of those. Early success (which most of those listed had) cements their status and gives them pull to put cronies and friends on the board.

'Public' ownership certainly hasn't hurt non-NFL companies from appointing self-interested, inflated-ego, meddling nincompoops to CEO and/or board chairmen.

Besides, aren't those non-voting stock? They have no power over ownership.


While I do not disagree with your point, the board has 43 current members, from which the executive committee of 7 is chosen, and the president is the only one who is paid.  Most corporate boards have cronies on them because they get a nice chunk of money for showing up to a few meetings a year, but everyone on this board, besides the president, is there voluntarily.  Also, they still have the ability to remove the president, which no other team does or will ever have.
 
2013-07-17 10:15:46 AM

Tsrwedge: Deneb81: Besides, aren't those non-voting stock? They have no power over ownership.

Nope, it's voting stock, per TFA and the email I get every year


I did a little research after stating that. It looks like there's a little over 300k 'stock' certificates. But owners of the original certificates (years ago) got a huge (1000-1 I think) split. So two undisclosed people own a combined 200k shares.
So the 'common stock' being sold now is by design not a meaningful voting bloc. And it's non-transferability ensures it can't be amassed to become one.
 
2013-07-17 10:16:08 AM

John Nash: There is a stockholder meeting every year where idiot farmers from Oconto and Peshtigo get to vote on the activities of a multi-million dollar sports franchise.


And those farmers do a better job of running a football team than Mike Brown has ever done.
 
2013-07-17 10:17:56 AM

Gosling: balki1867: In before a Packer fan educates us on how jealous everyone else is that they don't have the luxury of being able to pay $250 for a stock certificate they can't sell, doesn't change in value and gives no ownership rights to its owner other than being able to claim "ownership" of an NFL franchise.

It gives one very, very important right: it ensures that the Packers will never, ever leave Green Bay. We don't have to concern ourselves with offers from Los Angeles one damn bit and never will have to.


No, it doesn't. The original charter of the team as a non-profit does that. The stock has no bearing whatsoever on that. Every owner could vote for a move and it still would do nothing but force a dissolution of the team with a sale of all assets. That's also in the charter.
 
2013-07-17 10:18:22 AM
It's funny cause the "stock holders" actually think they have some say in what the team does.

/you don't
//get over it
 
2013-07-17 10:20:31 AM

Deneb81: roc6783: balki1867: ***snip***

Just wait until the first $150 "Buy-a-Brick" sale starts from some enterprising team. It's about the same level of 'memorabilia', and confers about the same level of ownership over the team/stadium.

I'm not knocking it as 'memorabilia'. But pretending it has anything to do with anything the team decides to do is stupid. The 'not leaving' thing is in the charter and has nothing to do with the stock sale.

/why hasn't the brick thing been done already?


Agreed, unless you are using it to mock the Vikings and their recent stadium antics, then it's hilarious.

The Packers sold pieces of the field once that I know about.

Tsrwedge: Deneb81: Besides, aren't those non-voting stock? They have no power over ownership.

Nope, it's voting stock, per TFA and the email I get every year


It's a non-binding vote, so it matters as much as your Presidential vote.
 
2013-07-17 10:23:26 AM

EyeballKid: John Nash: There is a stockholder meeting every year where idiot farmers from Oconto and Peshtigo get to vote on the activities of a multi-million dollar sports franchise.

And those farmers do a better job of running a football team than Mike Brown has ever done.


Well duh. They care about winning, and don't see salaries as money out of their pocket. That's miles ahead of Brown.
 
2013-07-17 10:29:12 AM

Deneb81: No, it doesn't. The original charter of the team as a non-profit does that. The stock has no bearing whatsoever on that. Every owner could vote for a move and it still would do nothing but force a dissolution of the team with a sale of all assets. That's also in the charter.


Well, okay, yeah.

One other nice thing about the whole setup, though: the Packers have to throw open the books and show people where the money is and where it goes in a way no other team in the NFL has to do. Which gives the media a nice little something to latch onto when the owners are collectively crying poverty: someone can go over the Packers' financials and get at least some idea of just how full of crap they are.
 
2013-07-17 10:32:37 AM
Which is stupider, buying non-binding stock in your favorite team to hang on the wall, or buying jerseys of players for your team who will likely then be traded to other teams and/or commit heinous crimes making you unable to wear the jersey ever again?
 
2013-07-17 10:32:57 AM

abhorrent1: It's funny cause the "stock holders" actually think they have some say in what the team does.

/you don't
//get over it


Its funny because packer fans are the most loyal in all of professional sports. Also, many many championships and legendary players back up our collective confidence. The stock is basically a piece of memorabilia that helps the team raise funds. The funniest thing is that other teams would never be able to do this because they have fair weather fans and shiatty owners.

/GB FTW
 
2013-07-17 10:33:12 AM

Gosling: Deneb81: No, it doesn't. The original charter of the team as a non-profit does that. The stock has no bearing whatsoever on that. Every owner could vote for a move and it still would do nothing but force a dissolution of the team with a sale of all assets. That's also in the charter.

Well, okay, yeah.

One other nice thing about the whole setup, though: the Packers have to throw open the books and show people where the money is and where it goes in a way no other team in the NFL has to do. Which gives the media a nice little something to latch onto when the owners are collectively crying poverty: someone can go over the Packers' financials and get at least some idea of just how full of crap they are.


Yes, and it's a look into profit sharing for the whole NFL as well. Which is interesting by itself.

Though again, that's a result of the non-profit charter and the original stock sales decades ago, not this new/latest round of stock sales.
 
2013-07-17 10:35:48 AM
Live in or travel to Green Bay?  No thank you.

/maybe the Dells.
 
2013-07-17 10:36:47 AM
A couple of follow-ups:

1) The Packers went to the playoffs twice between Super 2 in 1967 and 1993.  Their stockholders are fully capable of hiring terrible management.
2) The stock issuance only paid for part of the most recent renovations.  A 0.5% county sales tax (that passed 53%-47%) paid for the rest, so they are fully capable of extorting local government.
3) That's a legit point about the 'buy-a-brick' programs.  The Chicago Cubs have already done that.
4) The NFL (and most leagues) actually forbid such ownership agreements with the Packers being grandfathered in.  Ray Kroc (the McDonalds guy) tried to leave the San Diego Padres to every resident of San Diego when he passed away and the MLB rejected it.  Ultimately, the leagues want people owning teams -- people who will look out for the long term welfare of the league.  The Packers ownership, by definition, can't look out for much more than the Green Bay Packers.  The NFL wouldn't be what it is today if the entire league was such arrangements.
5) The Redskins, Patriots, Cowboys, Giants, Lions, Eagles, and Jets all had LA as an option when they built their most recent stadiums.  Instead they paid out their own money to stay in town.  They're not leaving.
 
2013-07-17 10:37:31 AM

Lost Thought 00: Which is stupider, buying non-binding stock in your favorite team to hang on the wall, or buying jerseys of players for your team who will likely then be traded to other teams and/or commit heinous crimes making you unable to wear the jersey ever again?


My solution to that is to invest in the jersey of a retired player who you know for a fact isn't going to devalue the thing later on. I happen to have two such jerseys, of Rod Carew (Twins) and Jackie Robinson (Dodgers).
 
2013-07-17 10:37:58 AM
Haters gonna hate.  Go Pack Go!
 
2013-07-17 10:39:09 AM
I like that whenever I finally do go there I get a free tour. Lot of people care what I do with $200 I guess.
 
2013-07-17 10:41:29 AM

deanis: abhorrent1: It's funny cause the "stock holders" actually think they have some say in what the team does.

/you don't
//get over it

Its funny because packer fans are the most loyal in all of professional sports. Also, many many championships and legendary players back up our collective confidence. The stock is basically a piece of memorabilia that helps the team raise funds. The funniest thing is that other teams would never be able to do this because they have fair weather fans and shiatty owners.

/GB FTW


I hate to burst your bubble - It's not a reflection of ownership quality or fan quality.

It's a reflection of the fact that the Packers have a TYPE of ownership that is banned by the NFL, who grandfathered the Packers in decades ago.

It's a historical accident, not a bellwether for fandom.

And for the record I think it's unfortunate that the NFL doesn't allow more region-locked non-profits. They don't even allow ownership groups that don't have a majority shareholder.

I really like the Packer model but its straight up inaccurate to say this memorabilia has ANYTHING to do with fan or ownership quality.
 
2013-07-17 10:43:36 AM

deanis: The funniest thing is that other teams would never be able to do this because they have fair weather fans and shiatty owners.


Being a Chicago Bears fan, I disagree with this.

/Same ownership but since Mike got fired by his Mom it's gotten a lot better.
 
2013-07-17 10:44:11 AM

WTF Indeed: balki1867: In before a Packer fan educates us on how jealous everyone else is that they don't have the luxury of being able to pay $250 for a stock certificate they can't sell, doesn't change in value and gives no ownership rights to its owner other than being able to claim "ownership" of an NFL franchise.

I'm surprised the Steelers haven't done something similar. Their fans rank pretty high in pointless fandom.


Don't be jealous.

6.
 
2013-07-17 10:48:30 AM

RumsfeldsReplacement: Don't be jealous.

6.


You only count the ones after they it officially became the "Super Bowl" in 66' right? Cause that's convenient for you.
 
2013-07-17 10:49:32 AM
RumsfeldsReplacement:

Don't be jealous.

6.
13

FTFY ;)
 
2013-07-17 10:51:27 AM

abhorrent1: RumsfeldsReplacement: Don't be jealous.

6.

You only count the ones after they it officially became the "Super Bowl" in 66' right? Cause that's convenient for you.


Dammit forgot this..

Packers - 13
Bears - 9
Giants - 8
Browns - 8
Stillers - 6

Even the Browns have more than the steelers.

/cry more
 
2013-07-17 10:51:30 AM

Lost Thought 00: Which is stupider, buying non-binding stock in your favorite team to hang on the wall, or buying jerseys of players for your team who will likely then be traded to other teams and/or commit heinous crimes making you unable to wear the jersey ever again?


thumbs2.ebaystatic.com

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-17 10:51:44 AM

abhorrent1: deanis: The funniest thing is that other teams would never be able to do this because they have fair weather fans and shiatty owners.

Being a Chicago Bears fan, I disagree with this.

/Same ownership but since Mike got fired by his Mom it's gotten a lot better.


He's a Pack fan that seems to know ZERO about the team's history. Or what the stock actually entails.

Like I said, I wish the NFL allowed some alternate ownership types like the Packers. But that's nothing to do with quality or the fans at all.
 
2013-07-17 10:55:48 AM

EyeballKid: John Nash: There is a stockholder meeting every year where idiot farmers from Oconto and Peshtigo get to vote on the activities of a multi-million dollar sports franchise.

And those farmers do a better job of running a football team than Mike Brown has ever done.


I hovered my cursor over the "Funny" button, but after further consideration I moved it an inch and chose "Smart".
 
2013-07-17 10:56:24 AM

Deneb81: abhorrent1: deanis: The funniest thing is that other teams would never be able to do this because they have fair weather fans and shiatty owners.

Being a Chicago Bears fan, I disagree with this.

/Same ownership but since Mike got fired by his Mom it's gotten a lot better.

He's a Pack fan that seems to know ZERO about the team's history. Or what the stock actually entails.

Like I said, I wish the NFL allowed some alternate ownership types like the Packers. But that's nothing to do with quality or the fans at all.


Packer fans buy the "stock" which raises money for the organization. I'm saying that other teams have shiatty fans who wouldn't fork over their own money to actually improve the team/stadium, whatever. So, yes the "stock" sales have everything to do with the fans.
 
2013-07-17 10:59:25 AM

Deneb81: abhorrent1: deanis: The funniest thing is that other teams would never be able to do this because they have fair weather fans and shiatty owners.

Being a Chicago Bears fan, I disagree with this.

/Same ownership but since Mike got fired by his Mom it's gotten a lot better.

He's a Pack fan that seems to know ZERO about the team's history. Or what the stock actually entails.

Like I said, I wish the NFL allowed some alternate ownership types like the Packers. But that's nothing to do with quality or the fans at all.


So is the Executive Committee voted on by the share holders? I know it would probably never happen but If they decided to sell the team, would the "share holders" get to vote on it?
 
2013-07-17 11:00:50 AM

WTF Indeed: balki1867: In before a Packer fan educates us on how jealous everyone else is that they don't have the luxury of being able to pay $250 for a stock certificate they can't sell, doesn't change in value and gives no ownership rights to its owner other than being able to claim "ownership" of an NFL franchise.

I'm surprised the Steelers haven't done something similar. Their fans rank pretty high in pointless fandom.


The Rooneys are just fine with being worshipped while shaking the city upside down by the ankles
 
2013-07-17 11:01:00 AM

deanis: .
Packer fans buy the "stock" which raises money for the organization. I'm saying that other teams have shiatty fans who wouldn't fork over their own money to actually improve the team/stadium, whatever. So, yes the "stock" sales have everything to do with the fans.


But if the fans loved them so much the Packers wouldn't even need to issue stock and they'd pay for all that stuff out of their operational income -- just like the Redskins, Cowboys, Giants, Eagles, etc.
 
2013-07-17 11:01:14 AM

deanis: abhorrent1: It's funny cause the "stock holders" actually think they have some say in what the team does.

/you don't
//get over it

Its funny because packer fans are the most loyal in all of professional sports. Also, many many championships and legendary players back up our collective confidence. The stock is basically a piece of memorabilia that helps the team raise funds. The funniest thing is that other teams would never be able to do this because they have fair weather fans and shiatty owners.

/GB FTW


Carl Gerbschmidt, is that you?

/obscure?
//jealous Vikings fan
 
2013-07-17 11:01:46 AM

Infobahn: Live in or travel to Green Bay?  No thank you.

/maybe the Dells.


As somone who grew up just north of there, no. No you don't.

/Unless you're looking for white trash, sexual predators or meth.
 
2013-07-17 11:03:42 AM

RumsfeldsReplacement: Don't be jealous.

6.


And all it took to get those last two were an entire community turning a blind eye to the rape of young women.
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report