Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 12:39:56 GMT -5
Green Bay has little town hall meetings a couple of times a year for shareholders, but the team president makes the big decisions that involves the actual team.
Shareholders basically discuss and that's about it. A couple of years ago, the team expanded their stadium capacity and they sold stock to raise money, $250/share. It actually has no real value and you can't sell it. It's just a certificate you can frame.
(I did research and decided $250 for a piece of fancy paper wasn't worth it.)
|
|
Doctor Of Style
King Koopa
Well, first they love me, and then they don't. Sometimes they do it, and sometimes they won't.
Posts: 12,104
|
Post by Doctor Of Style on Oct 18, 2015 13:46:02 GMT -5
If the city is trying to seize your team under eminent domain like Baltimore attempted to do, you bet your ass I'd have the Mayflower trucks at the ready. I don't blame Irsay for that at all.
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Oct 18, 2015 15:08:20 GMT -5
This is it for me. To look at two examples: Oakland Raiders: They have the fan support no doubt but the city seems to have no problems with them playing in a literal shithole. They have no support from the city (not that I am saying the city should pay 100% or even close to it) in getting a building that doesn't flood when someone flushes. St. Louis Rams: There is no reason for them to be leaving or threatening to. They have amazing fan support and a building that, while not top of the line, is a great one. This is an example of greedy ownership seeing dollar signs in LA and being dicks. I agree about the Rams. Now I know a bunch of original LA fans will argue it and fine. The fact is St. Louis doesn't deserve the treatment they have gotten. The fact Silent Stan gives no shit about the team being here is wrong. Attendance dropped this year because St. Louis fans don't want to put Money is Stan's pockets. Why should we when he doesn't even speak to local media and never has. At less with the Cardinals and the Blues we know who the owner is and they are not afraid to be in the local public. I do think it is wrong for any team and the NFL is the worst with doing this. Making the City spend Millions on a stadium and not put any money in it. Is showing loyalty to the City who for years spend tons of money to buy a ticket to watch that team play and you think they want to repay a little because it not like most NFL owners couldn't afford it. The fact Stan himself wants to build a stadium on his own in another City and just blows off St. Louis who clearly wants the team to stay and even as a design for it and a name for it. Yet nope nothing from him and a response. Honestly the NFL as a league needs to do something about the fact at St. Louis is getting crapped on. Even if there are 12 worst markets who do have a NFL team. Oh yeah, because we have such amazing fan support averaging 55k if not less per game.... Oh and that amazing fan support sure helped when the Broncos, Packers, Cowboys, Chiefs, Bears, and Steelers take over our stadium. I remnember the 30,000 in the stands 2 years ago....
|
|
|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Oct 18, 2015 16:33:52 GMT -5
I agree about the Rams. Now I know a bunch of original LA fans will argue it and fine. The fact is St. Louis doesn't deserve the treatment they have gotten. The fact Silent Stan gives no shit about the team being here is wrong. Attendance dropped this year because St. Louis fans don't want to put Money is Stan's pockets. Why should we when he doesn't even speak to local media and never has. At less with the Cardinals and the Blues we know who the owner is and they are not afraid to be in the local public. I do think it is wrong for any team and the NFL is the worst with doing this. Making the City spend Millions on a stadium and not put any money in it. Is showing loyalty to the City who for years spend tons of money to buy a ticket to watch that team play and you think they want to repay a little because it not like most NFL owners couldn't afford it. The fact Stan himself wants to build a stadium on his own in another City and just blows off St. Louis who clearly wants the team to stay and even as a design for it and a name for it. Yet nope nothing from him and a response. Honestly the NFL as a league needs to do something about the fact at St. Louis is getting crapped on. Even if there are 12 worst markets who do have a NFL team. Oh yeah, because we have such amazing fan support averaging 55k if not less per game.... Oh and that amazing fan support sure helped when the Broncos, Packers, Cowboys, Chiefs, Bears, and Steelers take over our stadium. I remnember the 30,000 in the stands 2 years ago.... Which is still good when you dealing with a 10 years of below .500 team that given next to none of a reason to think they would be better from year to year. Once Bradford came in that season gain the team a reason for fans to think different. Two years ago was about the time news was breaking the team was possible to leave and the less ended on the dome to allow that option and the land in LA was also brought. So again it became fans not wanting to give Stan money for doing such low blow moves. Fans are loyal if the team itself shows love in return for being loyal. The Rams cancelled the fanfest they did before each season. What message does that say to the City? No a good one. That saying the organization doesn't care so why should the fans care? The Rams are like the movie Major League in the theory of the owner without a team that goes on to make the playoffs but an owner making to clearly wants to movie the team to "Some place warm". Team has talent but it's like they are prepared to move and be great else where.
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Oct 18, 2015 22:25:24 GMT -5
Oh yeah, because we have such amazing fan support averaging 55k if not less per game.... Oh and that amazing fan support sure helped when the Broncos, Packers, Cowboys, Chiefs, Bears, and Steelers take over our stadium. I remnember the 30,000 in the stands 2 years ago.... Which is still good when you dealing with a 10 years of below .500 team that given next to none of a reason to think they would be better from year to year. Once Bradford came in that season gain the team a reason for fans to think different. Two years ago was about the time news was breaking the team was possible to leave and the less ended on the dome to allow that option and the land in LA was also brought. So again it became fans not wanting to give Stan money for doing such low blow moves. Fans are loyal if the team itself shows love in return for being loyal. The Rams cancelled the fanfest they did before each season. What message does that say to the City? No a good one. That saying the organization doesn't care so why should the fans care? The Rams are like the movie Major League in the theory of the owner without a team that goes on to make the playoffs but an owner making to clearly wants to movie the team to "Some place warm". Team has talent but it's like they are prepared to move and be great else where. So the Rams backing the Cardinals and Blues in the playoffs isn't showing support? That isn't good fan support, thats not loyalty at all. Our stadium shouldn't be taken over by other franchises, thats garbage. The Rams may have cancelled fanfest for this year, yet still held their open scrimmage for fans to come and see and get autographs. We haven't shut out St. Louis contrary to what St. Louis fans say.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 18, 2015 22:54:44 GMT -5
The US is a different beast than Europe simply due to size and history. US sports are used to having teams move around, fold, etc, because size and population centers change. We have a lot more space in the US and relatively few pro sports teams in a given league, so relocation is an ever-present possibility simply due to differences in population centers due to economics and other reasons. If you abide by the "teams should never move" mantra, then the majority of the country, including a lot of population dense areas, would likely never have a pro sports team withing a realistic viewing distance while cities like Hartford and Syracuse would all have pro sports teams despite the fact that none of them even crack the top 100 largest cities in the US. It's simply a matter of practicality in the US, as sports leagues want to be able to draw audiences from as many markets as possible, not just the northeast.
If anything, I'd rather pro teams be reated more like businesses, including eliminating most of the public subsidies to pay for everything.
|
|
|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Oct 19, 2015 3:35:10 GMT -5
Which is still good when you dealing with a 10 years of below .500 team that given next to none of a reason to think they would be better from year to year. Once Bradford came in that season gain the team a reason for fans to think different. Two years ago was about the time news was breaking the team was possible to leave and the less ended on the dome to allow that option and the land in LA was also brought. So again it became fans not wanting to give Stan money for doing such low blow moves. Fans are loyal if the team itself shows love in return for being loyal. The Rams cancelled the fanfest they did before each season. What message does that say to the City? No a good one. That saying the organization doesn't care so why should the fans care? The Rams are like the movie Major League in the theory of the owner without a team that goes on to make the playoffs but an owner making to clearly wants to movie the team to "Some place warm". Team has talent but it's like they are prepared to move and be great else where. So the Rams backing the Cardinals and Blues in the playoffs isn't showing support? That isn't good fan support, thats not loyalty at all. Our stadium shouldn't be taken over by other franchises, thats garbage. The Rams may have cancelled fanfest for this year, yet still held their open scrimmage for fans to come and see and get autographs. We haven't shut out St. Louis contrary to what St. Louis fans say. The issue is more with Stan then anything else. Stan has not once spoke or said anything to the city or the fans in it. That what bothered most of the fans. I give you the team supporting the other two in the playoffs. All St. Louis teams should and do that for each other or any city for that matter. The fanfest deal draw a lot of heat from fans to the team even if they did some what made up for it.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Oct 19, 2015 7:42:41 GMT -5
The US is a different beast than Europe simply due to size and history. US sports are used to having teams move around, fold, etc, because size and population centers change. We have a lot more space in the US and relatively few pro sports teams in a given league, so relocation is an ever-present possibility simply due to differences in population centers due to economics and other reasons. If you abide by the "teams should never move" mantra, then the majority of the country, including a lot of population dense areas, would likely never have a pro sports team withing a realistic viewing distance while cities like Hartford and Syracuse would all have pro sports teams despite the fact that none of them even crack the top 100 largest cities in the US. It's simply a matter of practicality in the US, as sports leagues want to be able to draw audiences from as many markets as possible, not just the northeast. If anything, I'd rather pro teams be treated more like businesses, including eliminating most of the public subsidies to pay for everything. Even just past practicality- there's also the difference where in the US, teams move- but by contrast, teams don't go bankrupt or fold, etc. as much as European teams will. European teams never move, but a failing soccer team is more likely to just disband or go bellyup- where by comparison, the big four American sports haven't had a team cease operations since 1978 with the NHL's Cleveland Barons/Minnesota North Stars merger. As far as the public subsidy thing- that's unfortunately a problem- especially since relocation will inevitably put two big cities against one another for the rights to have a pro sports team. (Personally, my viewpoint for adding publicly-funded stadiums would be- If a sports team takes public money to build a stadium, they are required to give every man, woman, and child in the media market one free four-pack of tickets a season until the public funds are repaid- the least that can be done to try and stimulate the economy near the stadium as they keep arguing.)
|
|
ibdude
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,706
|
Post by ibdude on Oct 19, 2015 9:45:30 GMT -5
I agree about the Rams. Now I know a bunch of original LA fans will argue it and fine. The fact is St. Louis doesn't deserve the treatment they have gotten. The fact Silent Stan gives no shit about the team being here is wrong. Attendance dropped this year because St. Louis fans don't want to put Money is Stan's pockets. Why should we when he doesn't even speak to local media and never has. At less with the Cardinals and the Blues we know who the owner is and they are not afraid to be in the local public. I do think it is wrong for any team and the NFL is the worst with doing this. Making the City spend Millions on a stadium and not put any money in it. Is showing loyalty to the City who for years spend tons of money to buy a ticket to watch that team play and you think they want to repay a little because it not like most NFL owners couldn't afford it. The fact Stan himself wants to build a stadium on his own in another City and just blows off St. Louis who clearly wants the team to stay and even as a design for it and a name for it. Yet nope nothing from him and a response. Honestly the NFL as a league needs to do something about the fact at St. Louis is getting crapped on. Even if there are 12 worst markets who do have a NFL team. Oh yeah, because we have such amazing fan support averaging 55k if not less per game.... Oh and that amazing fan support sure helped when the Broncos, Packers, Cowboys, Chiefs, Bears, and Steelers take over our stadium. I remnember the 30,000 in the stands 2 years ago.... You put a shitty product in the field for 10 years, nobody's gonna justify spending their hard earned money on that.
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Oct 19, 2015 13:16:16 GMT -5
Oh yeah, because we have such amazing fan support averaging 55k if not less per game.... Oh and that amazing fan support sure helped when the Broncos, Packers, Cowboys, Chiefs, Bears, and Steelers take over our stadium. I remnember the 30,000 in the stands 2 years ago.... You put a shitty product in the field for 10 years, nobody's gonna justify spending their hard earned money on that. Part of being a fan is being there for the good and the bad. If they don't like it that some years didn't work out, tough shit. Its not like we deliberate suck. I've sat through Maryland Terrapins football, Baltimore Orioles baseball and this, I never gave up and still blew money on them. Its called, "being a fan".
|
|
|
Post by tigermaskxxxvii on Oct 19, 2015 18:44:22 GMT -5
If a team moves to L.A., I wonder if team owners will feel a void without the L.A. option to threaten their home city with. I mean sure, they can threaten to move their team to whatever city lost their NFL team to L.A., but it just won't feel the same! The Green Bay Packers are a very unique case that will likely never be replicated again in major professional sports. In that the team is actually publicly owned by the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin and every citizen of the city is considered a shareholder. The team won't ever move unless it's sold to a private owner. And with how much Green Bay loves its Packers, the only way that happens is if the city collapses into a bloody orgy of anarchy. Next time WWE has a rich heel character, they should get some cheap heat by telling a crowd in Green Bay that they're gonna buy a privatize the Packers with his vast wealth and move the team to L.A.!
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 20, 2015 0:56:07 GMT -5
The US is a different beast than Europe simply due to size and history. US sports are used to having teams move around, fold, etc, because size and population centers change. We have a lot more space in the US and relatively few pro sports teams in a given league, so relocation is an ever-present possibility simply due to differences in population centers due to economics and other reasons. If you abide by the "teams should never move" mantra, then the majority of the country, including a lot of population dense areas, would likely never have a pro sports team withing a realistic viewing distance while cities like Hartford and Syracuse would all have pro sports teams despite the fact that none of them even crack the top 100 largest cities in the US. It's simply a matter of practicality in the US, as sports leagues want to be able to draw audiences from as many markets as possible, not just the northeast. If anything, I'd rather pro teams be treated more like businesses, including eliminating most of the public subsidies to pay for everything. Even just past practicality- there's also the difference where in the US, teams move- but by contrast, teams don't go bankrupt or fold, etc. as much as European teams will. European teams never move, but a failing soccer team is more likely to just disband or go bellyup- where by comparison, the big four American sports haven't had a team cease operations since 1978 with the NHL's Cleveland Barons/Minnesota North Stars merger. As far as the public subsidy thing- that's unfortunately a problem- especially since relocation will inevitably put two big cities against one another for the rights to have a pro sports team. (Personally, my viewpoint for adding publicly-funded stadiums would be- If a sports team takes public money to build a stadium, they are required to give every man, woman, and child in the media market one free four-pack of tickets a season until the public funds are repaid- the least that can be done to try and stimulate the economy near the stadium as they keep arguing.) This is true. IN the modern era, it's unheard of for a team to fold, apart from minor league teams. The closest we got to a major league franchise really contracting was in 2001, and baseball hasn't been back that route again.
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Oct 22, 2015 6:55:09 GMT -5
the NHL and whoever going out of their way to keep the Coyotes in Arizona has to be some kind of cosmic prank.
|
|