Packer 2021 Team Discussion 2.0

[homer]

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.

 

The NFL probably doesn't allow it. Packers have been grandfathered in.

[OldHeidelberg]

Since there is no seating expansion this time I would like to see them do something to improve the game experience for the fans. Maybe new structures on both sides of the stadium with additional restrooms, vendor areas, maybe even an open area with tables. They could have more local restaurants or other food vendors rent the additional spaces to give some more variety, give people more of reason to come in early to stop the gate rush before kickoff. Long lines at bathrooms and for food/beverages happen at most full NFL stadiums I imagine but if you can take the pressure off a little it would make going to the games more enjoyable. Not sure how feasible that would be.

[BillScottCanRake]

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.

 

You mean they could demand the team trade for a friend or else?

[BillScottCanRake]

 

The NFL probably doesn't allow it. Packers have been grandfathered in.

 

Corporate ownership of an NFL team is against the rules. An ownership group must have no more than 32 owners and at least one owner whom owns at least 30% of the team. Among other things, non-corporate ownership means teams don't have to release financial information like the Packers.

 

As Homer mentioned, Green Bay has been grandfathered.

[PeaveyFury]

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.

 

First, you cited a baseball example, and this is the NFL. Do you have knowledge of what the NFL rule is in such a case? As many of the early players were also coaches and owners of the teams, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the NFL actually did operate under different rules.

 

Second, your use of controlling isn't in line with the typical use of 'controlling' in a stock situation, which is why I responded as such. In ANY stock situation, 'controlling' means having enough shares to unilaterally make a decision. Aaron Jones presumably bought one share, which allows for one vote and results in no controlling interest. Jones could have bought every single share made available this week and wouldn't have had a controlling interest.

 

I guess I'm bewildered at the general poo-pooing of this that exists on this at this point, especially on social media. If people aren't interested, why should they care enough to comment on it and crap on others who see some sort of value in it?

[nate82]

 

I guess I'm bewildered at the general poo-pooing of this that exists on this at this point, especially on social media. If people aren't interested, why should they care enough to comment on it and crap on others who see some sort of value in it?

 

[sarcasm]Welcome to the internet is this the first time you have been on the internet?[/sarcasm]

 

Envy and I want to control what everyone does and only what I deem to be right and I am miserable so therefore you must be miserable is a real problem on social media. Facebook and Twitter are the worst at this. Plus misery loves company.

[OldHeidelberg]

I guess I'm bewildered at the general poo-pooing of this that exists on this at this point, especially on social media. If people aren't interested, why should they care enough to comment on it and crap on others who see some sort of value in it?

 

Spend your money on whatever makes you happy, don't worry about what others think. I don't think the packers need the money but if it makes people happy you're right, why should I care? I do hope for extra restrooms though..

[PinaMadness]

Rodgers reaggravated his toe injury during the game as most of you probably already knew. I'm not a doctor, but I'll bet this is an injury that will linger the rest of the season.

[FVBrewerFan]

We bought a share for our adult son, we were talking about Christmas presents last week and he mentioned the stock sale. It is unique, and I have no problem buying this as a gift. (My wife had a bit of a problem waiting 90 minutes to complete the process )

 

Pretty sure my son is well aware owning the stock won't get him a seat in the war room on draft weekend, or sit in the owners suite at the Super Bowl. I still see people wearing "Year X Divisional Champions" gear. I wouldn't spend $5 on that.

[homer]

Jenkins torn ACL. Out for the year obviously.

 

Well, it could have been a fun year had we been able to get healthy.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Jenkins torn ACL. Out for the year obviously.

 

Well, it could have been a fun year had we been able to get healthy.

 

Gonna need Bahktiari playing at 100% before the end of the season. Pretty obvious that he suffered some sort of issue in his rehab over the last week or so.

[FVBrewerFan]

Jenkins torn ACL. Out for the year obviously.

 

Well, it could have been a fun year had we been able to get healthy.

 

Still can be. Tonyan, Mercilus, Jenkins out for the year. But Jones, Bahktiari, Alexander, Gary, possibly Z Smith will all be back. That's a net gain, by a pretty wide margin.

[homer]

The Packers had seven Pro Bowl selections last season: Aaron Rodgers, Aaron Jones, Davante Adams, David Bakhtiari, Elgton Jenkins, Za’Darius Smith and Jaire Alexander. Sunday against the Rams, only two — Rodgers and Adams — will be available.

[sveumrules]

Entering the bye week the Packers have as many wins (9) as the rest of the NFC North combined (MIN 5, CHI 4, DET 0). They are trailing the Lions for the division lead in ties though.

 

Football Outsiders has them with a 31.8% chance at the top seed in the NFC in a pretty evenly matched three horse race with TB (31.2%) and ARI (31.1%).

 

538 sees it a little different with GB (40%) & ARI (39%) a click ahead of TB (17%) for that first round bye. They also have GB as the current SB favorites at 17% with ARI (14%), TB (12%), NE (10%), KC (9%) and BAL/BUF (8%) the other teams currently above 5% odds.

[OldHeidelberg]

Packers swept the NFC west

[PinaMadness]

Ravens game flexed to 3:25 start time.

[CheezWizHed]

The Packers had seven Pro Bowl selections last season: Aaron Rodgers, Aaron Jones, Davante Adams, David Bakhtiari, Elgton Jenkins, Za’Darius Smith and Jaire Alexander. Sunday against the Rams, only two — Rodgers and Adams — will be available.

 

And all of them have missed time this year.

[nodakfan17]

With the Vikings dropping 2 in a row, the Packers can clinch the NFC North with a Vikings’ loss to Pittsburgh on TNF and a win next Sunday.

[PinaMadness]

[brewcrewdue80]

Feeling almost as if, 9 wins clinches a playoff berth in the NFC after today. Meaning Arizona, Tampa and GB clinched today.

[nodakfan17]

There are only 5 teams in the NFC with winning records right now.

[MrTPlush]

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.

 

Because they can sell the jersey for thousands.

[MrTPlush]

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.

 

I mean the teams existence in an area does boost the economy, really not debatable. Now if you want to argue the public funding of most stadiums outweighs that...fair argument.

[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.

 

I mean the teams existence in an area does boost the economy, really not debatable. Now if you want to argue the public funding of most stadiums outweighs that...fair argument.

 

You're right, it's not debatable, because it has been debunked dozens of times. In freak scenarios like Green Bay, yes, but the presence of a sports team doesn't boost the economy. It's disposable income that gets spent somewhere else. The Bucks run last summer helped the immediate area downtown, but it's all money that would have been spent elsewhere. All the claims owners make like job creation and trickle-down spending to other businesses is more or less an outright lie that's been disproven time and time again by a number of scholars.

 

Having some teams and shiny arenas brings people who hang out downtown, but if those things aren't there they spend money a few miles away.

[PeaveyFury]

As it would be curious reading at a minimum, do you have links to some of these 'debunking' stories?