Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

JuggernautJ wrote:I think the vast majority of us would agree with the above sentiments.

I had a friend who rooted for the Packers not for any reasons of locality or team affiliation but simply because they're the only team owned by the community in which they play. I have to say, as I grow older, that thought has more and more appeal to me.

I know it's often said that they're community owned, but that's not quite accurate. Green Bay Packers Inc. is a publicly owned, non-profit corporation but its shareholders don't necessarily belong to the local community. In fact, in the team's recent stock sale, only 17% of the buyers live in Wisconsin.

BD Sullivan wrote:Maybe all is forgiven with Bon Jovi. After all, the Pegulas presented themselves as upstanding people who bought the Bills and Sabres to keep them in Buffalo. Below is an excerpt from an article about the 2014 sale of the Bills:

"But the Pegulas said they are committed to keeping the team in Buffalo.

"'It is gratifying to reassure these great fans that two franchises so important to our region are both here to stay,' they said in a statement."

Fast forward to last August:

https://www.kxan.com/sports/nfl-in-aust ... ral-texas/

Yeah, pretty much what I figured. That's what all (disgruntled) owners do: threaten to leave if they don't get what they want. I really like the: "You should be grateful to us 'cause you could've lost your team a long time ago if we hadn't stepped in" angle.

rhickok1109 wrote:

JuggernautJ wrote:I think the vast majority of us would agree with the above sentiments.

I had a friend who rooted for the Packers not for any reasons of locality or team affiliation but simply because they're the only team owned by the community in which they play. I have to say, as I grow older, that thought has more and more appeal to me.

I know it's often said that they're community owned, but that's not quite accurate. Green Bay Packers Inc. is a publicly owned, non-profit corporation but its shareholders don't necessarily belong to the local community. In fact, in the team's recent stock sale, only 17% of the buyers live in Wisconsin.

Okay but still. . .there's no single person who can threaten to move the team if (s)he becomes unhappy with the situation in Green Bay, right?

racepug wrote:

rhickok1109 wrote:

JuggernautJ wrote:I think the vast majority of us would agree with the above sentiments.

I had a friend who rooted for the Packers not for any reasons of locality or team affiliation but simply because they're the only team owned by the community in which they play. I have to say, as I grow older, that thought has more and more appeal to me.

I know it's often said that they're community owned, but that's not quite accurate. Green Bay Packers Inc. is a publicly owned, non-profit corporation but its shareholders don't necessarily belong to the local community. In fact, in the team's recent stock sale, only 17% of the buyers live in Wisconsin.

Okay but still. . .there's no single person who can threaten to move the team if (s)he becomes unhappy with the situation in Green Bay, right?

Yes, that's true and, as a Packer fan for more than 70 years, I'm very happy about that.

I should add, though, that the Packers would probably have moved to Milwaukee if the City of Green Bay hadn't agreed to pay half the construction costs for City Stadium II (now Lambeau Field).

Brian wolf wrote:At least the Bills need a stadium. Here in Nashville, the Titans are demanding a new stadium because they dont want to renovate a stadium thats only 24 years old ... Sheesh

That's pretty much the same age that the Kingdome was when it was imploded! And the stadium in Atlanta wasn't all that old when they decided to get rid of it, was it? But I get what you're saying - why some places can "get by" with old stadiums and other places "need" a new one every couple of decades is beyond me. {Personally, I think it's a way for owners to try to "keep up with the Joneses." The part that sucks is they always want somebody else to pay for their "shiny new toy."}

More on the Bill's latest stadium deal: https://www.yahoo.com/news/ive-studied- ... 46769.html

rhickok1109 wrote:I should add, though, that the Packers would probably have moved to Milwaukee if the City of Green Bay hadn't agreed to pay half the construction costs for City Stadium II (now Lambeau Field).

Half the construction costs, huh? Sounds like the sort of thing that owners could offer if they were decent people.

racepug wrote:

rhickok1109 wrote:I should add, though, that the Packers would probably have moved to Milwaukee if the City of Green Bay hadn't agreed to pay half the construction costs for City Stadium II (now Lambeau Field).

Half the construction costs, huh? Sounds like the sort of thing that owners could offer if they were decent people.

You have to understand that they're barely getting by--said no one ever:

https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/st ... 963471002/

Last line of the article ... "Packers stock does not pay dividends".