Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8

    allow more publicly owned teams

    Currently the Green Bay Packers are the only publicly owned team. The league's dirty little secret is they're the only one allowed to be that way. The Packers were set up as a publicly owned team before the league passed a rule against doing that and they were therefore grandfathered in.

    I visited Minnesota for the first time last month and talked with some Vikings fans. Before that, I hadn't realized there was danger of the Vikings moving away. While I rarely root for the Vikings, I recognize that it would be bad for the NFL if the Vikings moved out of Minnesota. The thought of something ridiculous like the Los Angeles Vikings makes me gag.

    To me it seems like a great solution would be for the league to lift the ban on more publicly owned teams and then for the Vikings to become publicly owned. It would give fans a greater say in how the team is run and it would make it so there would be almost zero chance for the team to move away. If they announced the selling of Minnesota Vikings stock, would you, as fans, buy it?

    And, btw, how do I create a signature on this board?

  2. #2
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,777
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: allow more publicly owned teams

    Couple questions for you.


    How do you convince the Wilfs to give up the VIkings?

    Plus there's alot more to that than just "making it public"

  3. #3
    BadlandsVikings's Avatar
    BadlandsVikings is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    26,570

    Re: allow more publicly owned teams

    It is cheaper to have an owner or a board of directors?

  4. #4
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    Re: allow more publicly owned teams

    Ha.

    An opportunity to refute the concept that the Packtard fans are holding a "worthless piece of paper" because it cannot be sold, pays no dividends, etc.


    First, to the rule itself. It has been coined the "Green Bay" rule. It is within what is called the NFL "constitution". It does not specifically exempt the Packers by name, but that was the obvious result, as the ownership structure pre-dates the rule, hence the effective "exemption".

    No team may be corporately owned, and must be either wholly owned, either by a single owner or a small group of owners, and further requires that at least one owner own 1/3 a stake in the team.

    Now, to Green Bay and our "worthless stock certificates". In addition to attending the shareholders meeting and recieving financial data from the team, not only do shareholders have an ability to vote, they can wind up helping to RUN THE TEAM, in the REAL SENSE of the word.

    I'm going to give an example for you to see-

    Let's assume that Pack93z and I are shareholders and that we own 1 share of that "worthless" stock each.

    The Pack has a 45 member board of directors, and 15 directors are elected annually for a three year period by the shareholders.

    Pack93z and I.

    Now, that's wonderful and all, but I said a shareholder CAN RUN THIS TEAM.

    Here's how.

    "A shareholder that is in compliance with our by-laws may present up to 3 nominees for consideration at the annual meeting. No other nominees will be considered. A shareholder must give written notice not more than 180 days nor less than 120 prior to the 1st anniversaryof the annual meeting of the shareholders in the immediately preceding year. The notice must contain information about the proposed nominee and the shareholder making the nomination."

    So, Pack93z nominates dfosterf, tells the (executive committee- 7 member, I'll get to that) what a great guy Foster is, they write up the little paragraph explaining who the hell Foster is, and my name is on the ballot for the shareholders to vote on.

    ...In the meantime, 'ol Foster is a reasonably well-known character in the Packer cyber-space community and starts POLITICKIN' FOR THE JOB :P

    So the (drunken) shareholders vote, and now I'm on the 45 member board of directors. UNPAID.

    But here's the thing. The 7 member executive committee is the RECOGNIZED "owner" of the Green Bay Packers by the NFL, and they make all of the major decisions. Mark Murphy is the Chief executive of that executive committee, and the one that you recognize.

    The "thing" is that the 45 member committee votes for the 7 member executive committee, and 6 of the 7 come from the 45...and let's say Foster gets his fellow 45 to vote him onto the executive committee...

    THAT MEANS FOSTER IS NOW IN CHARGE, lol (drunk with power at the thought of it)

    (Don't freak out Shawn, for illustration purposes only, plus I promise to keep your GD linebackers in the pipeline, lol)

    I could help fire Murphy, as an example. I could vote against the CBA, for another, or empower Murphy to vote on my behalf. I could tell Murphy to get rid of, or not get rid of, say, Brett Favre, or leave it in his hands to decide...

    Only Mark Murphy is paid. Everyone else works for free.

    Dfosterf. 1 share of GBP stock to a "recognized owner" of a National Football League Franchise.

    Worthless piece of paper? It's VOTING stock, boys and girls...

    Child, please. :P

    So if the Vikes were allowed this kind of structure, Marr and Caine could help run the show in Minnesota...

    Maybe that's your answer as to why they no longer allow it...

    j/k :P

  5. #5
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: allow more publicly owned teams

    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1089780
    Ha.

    An opportunity to refute the concept that the Packtard fans are holding a "worthless piece of paper" because it cannot be sold, pays no dividends, etc.


    First, to the rule itself. It has been coined the "Green Bay" rule. It is within what is called the NFL "constitution". It does not specifically exempt the Packers by name, but that was the obvious result, as the ownership structure pre-dates the rule, hence the effective "exemption".

    No team may be corporately owned, and must be either wholly owned, either by a single owner or a small group of owners, and further requires that at least one owner own 1/3 a stake in the team.

    Now, to Green Bay and our "worthless stock certificates". In addition to attending the shareholders meeting and recieving financial data from the team, not only do shareholders have an ability to vote, they can wind up helping to RUN THE TEAM, in the REAL SENSE of the word.

    I'm going to give an example for you to see-

    Let's assume that Pack93z and I are shareholders and that we own 1 share of that "worthless" stock each.

    The Pack has a 45 member board of directors, and 15 directors are elected annually for a three year period by the shareholders.

    Pack93z and I.

    Now, that's wonderful and all, but I said a shareholder CAN RUN THIS TEAM.

    Here's how.

    "A shareholder that is in compliance with our by-laws may present up to 3 nominees for consideration at the annual meeting. No other nominees will be considered. A shareholder must give written notice not more than 180 days nor less than 120 prior to the 1st anniversaryof the annual meeting of the shareholders in the immediately preceding year. The notice must contain information about the proposed nominee and the shareholder making the nomination."

    So, Pack93z nominates dfosterf, tells the (executive committee- 7 member, I'll get to that) what a great guy Foster is, they write up the little paragraph explaining who the hell Foster is, and my name is on the ballot for the shareholders to vote on.

    ...In the meantime, 'ol Foster is a reasonably well-known character in the Packer cyber-space community and starts POLITICKIN' FOR THE JOB :P

    So the (drunken) shareholders vote, and now I'm on the 45 member board of directors. UNPAID.

    But here's the thing. The 7 member executive committee is the RECOGNIZED "owner" of the Green Bay Packers by the NFL, and they make all of the major decisions. Mark Murphy is the Chief executive of that executive committee, and the one that you recognize.

    The "thing" is that the 45 member committee votes for the 7 member executive committee, and 6 of the 7 come from the 45...and let's say Foster gets his fellow 45 to vote him onto the executive committee...

    THAT MEANS FOSTER IS NOW IN CHARGE, lol (drunk with power at the thought of it)

    (Don't freak out Shawn, for illustration purposes only, plus I promise to keep your GD linebackers in the pipeline, lol)

    I could help fire Murphy, as an example. I could vote against the CBA, for another, or empower Murphy to vote on my behalf. I could tell Murphy to get rid of, or not get rid of, say, Brett Favre, or leave it in his hands to decide...

    Only Mark Murphy is paid. Everyone else works for free.

    Dfosterf. 1 share of GBP stock to a "recognized owner" of a National Football League Franchise.

    Worthless piece of paper? It's VOTING stock, boys and girls...

    Child, please. :P

    So if the Vikes were allowed this kind of structure, Marr and Caine could help run the show in Minnesota...

    Maybe that's your answer as to why they no longer allow it...

    j/k :P
    Can the packers fans use that stock as collateral at the bank when they need to put a new redwood deck on their trailer house?

  6. #6
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    Re: allow more publicly owned teams

    I guess not, but they could use it to help Zygi vote the Vikes to LA. :P

    ...for example. (3/4 owners approval needed)

    EXCUSE ME! PT SYP!, we got class, "redwood" - pul-eeze, that would be tacky and totally mess with our manufactured housing ambiance, how so very "Minnesota" of you ! lol

    (pressure treated, southern yellow pine)

    The good thing about your new stadium proposal is that you don't have to bulldoze those existing homes, you can move them...oh ya, I noticed, oh, snap, lol - don't blame Foster, blame Purple Uffda, he started it. :woohoo:

  7. #7
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: allow more publicly owned teams

    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1089793
    I guess not, but they could use it to help Zygi vote the Vikes to LA. :P

    ...for example. (3/4 owners approval needed)

    EXCUSE ME! PT SYP!, we got class, "redwood" - pul-eeze, that would be tacky and totally mess with our manufactured housing ambiance, how so very "Minnesota" of you ! lol

    (pressure treated, southern yellow pine)

    The good thing about your new stadium proposal is that you don't have to bulldoze those existing homes, you can move them...oh ya, I noticed, oh, snap, lol - don't blame Foster, blame Purple Uffda, he started it. :woohoo:
    You are quite the comedian as of late. You sort of remind me of Bob Hope's Brother- No Hope......

  8. #8
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    Re: allow more publicly owned teams

    Well, I went into this past off-season with what I thought were 12 World Championships, believed (foolishly?) I'd won another, and yet Caine has whittled me down to me two, and you guys one.

    This kind of (apparently) inescapable logic will make a fella like me resort to shooting for the humor angle here at PPO, as I got nothin' for the other...except a hell of a lot of grudging admiration for some seriously dynamic interpretation of events and reality on his part.

    ...And you can't blame me when you go all "packer fan - trailer deck " on my ass when your team can't even find a couple of acres in your state to redo a metrodump without running into a huge trailer park adjacent to some other joint that seems to have as it's claim to fame massive toxic waste which may only be eliminated by possibly detonating the unexploded ordnance contained within in order to vaporize the whole damn mess so that the trailer park neighbors can smoke the resultant deadly cloud along with their meth while guzzling their PBR's.

    Forgive me if I haven't quite warmed (on paper) to the obviously bucolic nature of the place.


    (now, c'mon, that's a little funny, isn't it? )

    :P

  9. #9
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: allow more publicly owned teams

    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1089798
    Well, I went into this past off-season with what I thought were 12 World Championships, believed (foolishly?) I'd won another, and yet Caine has whittled me down to me two, and you guys one.
    I think that is either classified as fuzzy math or home field advantage depending on how you look at things.

    This kind of (apparently) inescapable logic will make a fella like me resort to shooting for the humor angle here at PPO, as I got nothin' for the other...except a hell of a lot of grudging admiration for some seriously dynamic interpretation of events and reality on his part.
    Yeah well when you only have a little to cling on I guess a little cling on isn't such a bad thing after all. But I digress....


    ...And you can't blame me when you go all "packer fan - trailer deck " on my ass when your team can't even find a couple of acres in your state to redo a metrodump
    They can find the site. They just don't have the cash to build it and haven't found the right words to ask for it yet. Give them time, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.




    without running into a huge trailer park adjacent to some other joint that seems to have as it's claim to fame massive toxic waste which may only be eliminated by possibly detonating the unexploded ordnance contained within in order to vaporize the whole damn mess so that the trailer park neighbors can smoke the resultant deadly cloud along with their meth while guzzling their PBR's.
    But then where will all of those 'Sconnie packtards live when those trailers are removed? Will we need to send them back to Western Wisconsin where there are no good paying jobs? I am not sure all of those trailer houses will make the trek over the Stillwater bridge. Maybe Sioux Falls wants them.
    Forgive me if I haven't quite warmed (on paper) to the obviously bucolic nature of the place.


    (now, c'mon, that's a little funny, isn't it? )
    :P

    You mean to Wisconsin?

  10. #10
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    Re: allow more publicly owned teams

    In the article I read about the prospective site they interviewed one of the residents of the mobile home park.

    He expressed concern that if he were forced to move he'd have to go back home...

    To Wisconsin.

    It was purely an oversight on my part to have not mentioned that small detail previously, I assure you. :P

    Now YOU have to explain to ME where your "mascot" - or whatever the hell you call him- is from...I'm pretty sure it isn't some place like Harlem, at least in the rhythm department...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTff_bzpDv4

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Vikings working on plan for publicly owned stadium
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-22-2010, 10:16 AM
  2. Anybody who ever owned a N64, rejoice
    By i_bleed_purple in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-20-2010, 11:07 PM
  3. Who wants to buy a pre-owned Carr?
    By cajunvike in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 03-24-2007, 08:36 AM
  4. The First Stadium To Be Publicly-Financed?
    By Benet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-23-2006, 09:56 PM
  5. Owned
    By Del Rio in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 12-25-2005, 02:59 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •