Packer 2021 Team Discussion 2.0

[jerichoholicninja]

Let's say the Brewers want to raise a bunch of money in a similar yet "legal" fashion. Couldn't they create an "Owner's Club" and sell pieces of paper that say owner on them for $300. Give the "owners" a bunch of benefits like a big party at the stadium every year where they can pretend to vote on things and maybe even a hat that says owner.

 

I'm not ripping the Packers for doing this I just don't know why other teams haven't tried something similar.

 

I mean you can buy a single season seat for 20 games and get a load of perks and be a 'season seat holder'.

 

Season seat holder doesn't have the same cache as pretend part owner though.

[PeaveyFury]

I am surprised teams haven't done the crowdfunding stuff yet. Fun fact the Statue of Liberty base was crowd funded by Joseph Pulitzer, well not all of the money for it. The total amount raised was something like ~$100k by ~160k people.

 

Teams could get real creative with this especially for things like stadium improvements. Give $100 and get your name engraved in a plaque in the new section. Give $50 and have your name appear on the jumbotron or whatever at the game of your choosing.

 

Lots of creative ways to raise money through crowdfunding that could actually replace some of the extra taxes or increased taxes. If the Packers did a crowdfunding today they could probably raise somewhere between $10-50m easily.

 

I think teams have already done stuff like this historically. There are pavilions around UW's stadium, if I recall correctly, that are built with donor-sponsored bricks, etc.

[PeaveyFury]

 

Season seat holder doesn't have the same cache as pretend part owner though.

 

Seems like a much better use of funds even if you only consider it memorabilia than dropping $300-400 bucks on an authentic jersey, as many fans willingly do. At least with the stock certificate it'll hang on your wall forever, rather than hanging at the back of your closet after the player leaves the team in 4 years....

[nodakfan17]

This article pokes fun at all the crap teams sell in their pro shops for >$300. A certificate entitling the holder to elect the team’s BOD is hardly the worst thing being pedaled:

 

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2021/11/16/22786120/packer-stock-is-not-a-scam-murphy-lafleur-florio-rovell-goodness-gracious

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The stock sale doesn't even scratch the surface of "rackets." If we want to talk about "suckers," we can start with regular Joes who believe new stadiums will "boost the economy" and do billionaires' arguing for them on social media.

 

At least the sale of stock is voluntary. Can't believe how much negative press this is getting but then again people just love whining about everything. Save it for the next billionaire who's able to tax a fast food cashier with no interest in sports to fund his new toy.

[PeaveyFury]

This article pokes fun at all the crap teams sell in their pro shops for >$300. A certificate entitling the holder to elect the team’s BOD is hardly the worst thing being pedaled:

 

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2021/11/16/22786120/packer-stock-is-not-a-scam-murphy-lafleur-florio-rovell-goodness-gracious

 

Wow, those are pretty bad.

 

Though, our fan base doesn't even need to look too hard to find a gigantic waste of $300+ dollars:

 

https://www.mlbshop.com/milwaukee-brewers/mens-milwaukee-brewers-christian-yelich-nike-cream-home-authentic-player-jersey/t-36999850+p-9229706659219+z-9-63092926?_ref=p-DLP:m-GRID:i-r0c1:po-1

[homer]

It's like donating money to Univ of Wisconsin football.

[GAME05]

Wait what's so bad about that jersey? I think it looks pretty good.

[PeaveyFury]

Wait what's so bad about that jersey? I think it looks pretty good.

 

ATM, the player who is on it.

[CheezWizHed]

Peavy didn't even list the most expensive one: https://www.mlbshop.com/milwaukee-brewers/mens-milwaukee-brewers-christian-yelich-nike-navy-alternate-authentic-player-jersey/t-14223283+p-0396697748879+z-9-1525670561?_ref=p-PDP:m-YMAL:pi-PDP_RECOMMENDATIONS_2:i-r0c3:po-3

 

It's almost gone, thus scarcity drives up the price ($80 more).

 

Game05 the jersey is nice, the price...not so much.

[nodakfan17]

Peavy didn't even list the most expensive one: https://www.mlbshop.com/milwaukee-brewers/mens-milwaukee-brewers-christian-yelich-nike-navy-alternate-authentic-player-jersey/t-14223283+p-0396697748879+z-9-1525670561?_ref=p-PDP:m-YMAL:pi-PDP_RECOMMENDATIONS_2:i-r0c3:po-3

 

It's almost gone, thus scarcity drives up the price ($80 more).

 

Game05 the jersey is nice, the price...not so much.

That’s bananas. For $455, Christian Yelich better deliver it.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The authentic jerseys are actually pretty expensive to produce. Lots of intricate stitching and what not, and there is obviously only one manufacturer so that will always drive the cost up. But there is a reason pro sports teams are not too keen on players tossing jerseys into the stands and stuff, have been to known to have really strict equipment managers, and charge players that lose them.

[nodakfan17]

I can see where it would be expensive to customize jerseys on team premises for use in games, but for mass produced authentic jerseys made overseas? I’m not so sure.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

You're not buying the jersey from a manufacturer though, you're buying it from a retailer. There is a limited supply on them based on the fact that only one company is allowed to produce them and the most commonly sold jersey is the replica, not the authentic. Is there a huge mark-up on a $455 jersey, yes, obviously. But it's not like a t-shirt that costs the retailer $1.75 to bring to market.

[Joseph Zarr]

AJ Dillon received the ‘Key to Door County’ for being one of the peninsula’s biggest fans:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/packers-running-back-aj-dillon-175701260.html

 

 

THIS is awesome. He is a huge fan of Door County. What a great move by a the new Boss. Love it.

[jerichoholicninja]

Looks like several Packer players are buying shares.

 

 

So if these are legitimate owner shares aren't the players going to have to sell them if they play for a different team?

[GAME05]

The authentic jerseys are actually pretty expensive to produce. Lots of intricate stitching and what not, and there is obviously only one manufacturer so that will always drive the cost up. But there is a reason pro sports teams are not too keen on players tossing jerseys into the stands and stuff, have been to known to have really strict equipment managers, and charge players that lose them.

 

A former boss bought a lot of sports memorabilia. The teams and players themselves don't own the jerseys. The memorabilia contract is bid out for crazy money. Then there's a guy, likely with great connections, whose job it is to be in the locker room and collect the jerseys, and then they're each given usually holographic authentication. Should a player toss out their jersey, they have to pay for it since it would be lost revenue for the memorabilia company. Nothing gets washed, either. Dirty uniforms are more valuable.

 

He also owns some baseball card photo negatives, which were pretty neat.

 

I've been told the police officer whose job it is to stand around in the bullpen also has great connections.

[GreatNWwi]

 

I've been told the police officer whose job it is to stand around in the bullpen also has great connections.

 

Come on!!! It is the Arm Barn for cryin' out loud.

[BillScottCanRake]

Looks like several Packer players are buying shares.

 

 

So if these are legitimate owner shares aren't the players going to have to sell them if they play for a different team?

 

They are "legitimate shares" but they come with limited power, especially in the numbers a single person can own. Power-limited doesn't make them illegitimate, it just makes them limited.

 

Anyway, as has been said a number of times, shareholder privileges are limited to voting rights, an invitation to the corporation's annual meeting, and shareholder-only merchandise. So while shareholders vote to determine who sits on the board of directors, the individuals with power are those who have been nominated and elected. My single share of stock limits my ability to influence how the organization is run to voting for folks whom will wield real power. As such, I suspect any active player who were elected to the board of directors would likely have to resign from the board if they moved to another team, but I doubt they'd have to give up their shares.

 

Also remember when the 1997 sale took place the original shareholders stock split spilt 1000-1, meaning the original shareholders hold more interest in the team than anyone who bought stock in 1997, 2011 or this year. Player who own stock hold considerably more sway as player than they ever will as shareholders.

[jerichoholicninja]

Looks like several Packer players are buying shares.

 

 

So if these are legitimate owner shares aren't the players going to have to sell them if they play for a different team?

 

They are "legitimate shares" but they come with limited power, especially in the numbers a single person can own. Power-limited doesn't make them illegitimate, it just makes them limited.

 

Anyway, as has been said a number of times, shareholder privileges are limited to voting rights, an invitation to the corporation's annual meeting, and shareholder-only merchandise. So while shareholders vote to determine who sits on the board of directors, the individuals with power are those who have been nominated and elected. My single share of stock limits my ability to influence how the organization is run to voting for folks whom will wield real power. As such, I suspect any active player who were elected to the board of directors would likely have to resign from the board if they moved to another team, but I doubt they'd have to give up their shares.

 

Also remember when the 1997 sale took place the original shareholders stock split spilt 1000-1, meaning the original shareholders hold more interest in the team than anyone who bought stock in 1997, 2011 or this year. Player who own stock hold considerably more sway as player than they ever will as shareholders.

 

Ok. But I still don't see how current players could or should be allowed to own these shares. It seems like a conflict of interest. Players could vote for people who would act solely for the benefit of the player and not the organization. With all the rules the NFL comes up with I can't believe they would allow anything that could even give the impression that players might somehow have a controlling interest in a team while they are an active player.

[nodakfan17]

Also remember when the 1997 sale took place the original shareholders stock split spilt 1000-1, meaning the original shareholders hold more interest in the team than anyone who bought stock in 1997, 2011 or this year. Player who own stock hold considerably more sway as player than they ever will as shareholders.

This gets swept under the rug in all of the press releases.

 

There are a few Green Bay families who control Board seats and have no interest in relinquishing that influence. Hence, the 1000:1 split before the the 1997 stock sale. They also put caps on how many shares a new shareholder can purchase (currently 200 across the 1997, 2011, and 2021 stock sales). Someone would have to spend $60,000 ($300 x 200) to have 1/5 of the influence as someone who bought one $5 share in 1950.

 

That’s not a typo. The old class of shares from 1923, 1935, and 1950 were sold for $5 (or about $75 in today’s dollars). Some families effectively bought 1,000 shares for $75 total while a single share today costs $300.

 

I would love to see an investigative piece on who actually controls the Packers’ Board.

[PeaveyFury]

that players might somehow have a controlling interest in a team while they are an active player.

 

But as BSCR noted, there is literally no way they CAN have a controlling interest.

[Fear The Chorizo]

that players might somehow have a controlling interest in a team while they are an active player.

 

But as BSCR noted, there is literally no way they CAN have a controlling interest.

 

They could marry a shareholder of the early era stock sales

[GAME05]

that players might somehow have a controlling interest in a team while they are an active player.

 

But as BSCR noted, there is literally no way they CAN have a controlling interest.

 

They could marry a shareholder of the early era stock sales

 

I like it. Consolidate power through arranged marriages. One day they'll rule the kingdom!

[jerichoholicninja]

that players might somehow have a controlling interest in a team while they are an active player.

 

But as BSCR noted, there is literally no way they CAN have a controlling interest.

 

I explained right before your selected quote what I meant by controlling. If these are actual, legitimate, real shares of ownership then active players that bought them when they played with the Packers would have to sell them if they play for another team. Billy Beane was going to be forced to sell his minority ownership of the A's if he went to work for a non-baseball company that was part of a group the also owned the Red Sox. Everyone wants to play both sides with these shares by saying they're real because you can vote for the Board of Directors but also they're not real because obviously it's just for fun but it can't be both. I would assume all this all has been cleared by and follows SEC rules and regulations otherwise I don't see how it's not fraud.

 

But my point way back at the beginning is why don't other teams do this? It seems like an incredibly easy way to raise money.