Packers get their clunker out of the way in December

[jsglow]

Played terrible football today.  Now let's focus on what's really important.  Three tough playoff games away from another chanpionship.  As coach says . . . "Gotta clean things up."

[4everwarriors]

Played like they had full pants.

[MUMac]

I never like seeing the Packers lose, but if they were to lay an egg, this is one that won't hurt them.  What bothered me about the play, and there can be a great deal to choose from, were the drops.  Especially Finley.  Time for Finley to shut up and play.

If we chose a STOG for this one, it just might be Masthay. 

[shiloh26]

Sort of reminds me of the loss to the absolutely terrible Colts team late in the '97 season.  And we ran to the Superbowl that year. 

That said, they looked really bad.  It worries me that this is what happens with a turnover based defense when it doesn't create the turnovers.  They stay on the field longer, less good field position for the offense... this is certainly not a bulletproof team. 

[MerrittsMustache]

Sort of reminds me of the loss to the absolutely terrible Colts team late in the '97 season.  And we ran to the Superbowl that year. 

That said, they looked really bad.  It worries me that this is what happens with a turnover based defense when it doesn't create the turnovers.  They stay on the field longer, less good field position for the offense... this is certainly not a bulletproof team. 

Not to single you our shiloh but this is a perfect example of fan psychology..."WE" went to the Super Bowl in '97, but "THEY" looked bad today.

[shiloh26]

Not to single you our shiloh but this is a perfect example of fan psychology..."WE" went to the Super Bowl in '97, but "THEY" looked bad today.

I thought I wrote a great post.  Surely, he didn't intentionally do that. 

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Not to single you our shiloh but this is a perfect example of fan psychology..."WE" went to the Super Bowl in '97, but "THEY" looked bad today.

Exactly. Hilarious.

Hey, was anyone on these boards stupid enough to waste $250 on a donation to the Packers for a worthless piece of paper? Just curious.

[MUMac]

Exactly. Hilarious.

Hey, was anyone on these boards stupid enough to waste $250 on a donation to the Packers for a worthless piece of paper? Just curious.

Nope.  I bought them the last time.  I say "them", as I bought them for myself, my wife and our children.  Stupid?  No, not at all.  But, if you allow me to riffle through all of your things, I am guessing I can come up with well in excess of $250 worth of stupid purchases.   

[jmayer1]

Exactly. Hilarious.

Hey, was anyone on these boards stupid enough to waste $250 on a donation to the Packers for a worthless piece of paper? Just curious.

What's the difference between that and a donation to the MU basketball program? Both help the program (or the athletic department as a whole in MU's case) survive and prosper.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

What's the difference between that and a donation to the MU basketball program? Both help the program (or the athletic department as a whole in MU's case) survive and prosper.

Good question. The MU basketball program is a non-profit that exists based on the donations of its benefactors. The Green Bay Packers program is a business. It makes about as much sense as Coca-Cola printing out fake stock for $$ and me buying it because I like Coca-Cola.

Also, I don't think that anyone who donates to Marquette is under the illusion that they somehow have a role in managing the team. (Okay, with the exception of what's his name.)

[GGGG]

Exactly. Hilarious.

Hey, was anyone on these boards stupid enough to waste $250 on a donation to the Packers for a worthless piece of paper? Just curious.

I did last time around.  I view it as the equivalent of memorabilia - like an autographed jersey.

[Benny B]

Good question. The MU basketball program is a non-profit that exists based on the donations of its benefactors. The Green Bay Packers program is a business. It makes about as much sense as Coca-Cola printing out fake stock for $$ and me buying it because I like Coca-Cola.

Also, I don't think that anyone who donates to Marquette is under the illusion that they somehow have a role in managing the team. (Okay, with the exception of what's his name.)

Are you saying the Marquette Basketball isn't a business?  Because the millions of dollars in revenue and expenses would say otherwise.

And your Coca Cola comparison isn't valid.  If KO didn't distribute dividends to any shareholders, then you might have a valid point.  But the GBP organization is completely not-for-profit, i.e. nobody receives any profits.  Structurally, MU basketball and the Green Bay Packers operate the same business model... they just compensate their talent differently.

[jmayer1]

Good question. The MU basketball program is a non-profit that exists based on the donations of its benefactors. The Green Bay Packers program is a business. It makes about as much sense as Coca-Cola printing out fake stock for $$ and me buying it because I like Coca-Cola.

Also, I don't think that anyone who donates to Marquette is under the illusion that they somehow have a role in managing the team. (Okay, with the exception of what's his name.)

Your analogy makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How many people have a vested interest in how Coca-Cola does, other than those with a financial stake in the corporation?

One of the ways MU's basketball program survives and thrives is through donations--although the basketball program is self-sustaining and it's really the other athletic programs that the donations help support.

One of the ways the Packers survive and thrive is through donations--although the Packers are self-sustaining and it's really only special projects that the donations help support.

Right from their website: Green Bay Packers, Inc., has been a publicly owned, nonprofit corporation since Aug. 18, 1923, when original articles of incorporation were filed with Wisconsin's secretary of state.

http://www.packers.com/community/shareholders.html

Why does it matter if some morons think they should have a say in what happens with the Packers? I'm sure there are just as many morons that think they should have a say in what happens with the MU basketball because they donate (but only a select few do).

The Packers stock drive is pretty simple: people are ponying up $250 to help ensure the Packers remain viable and for a nice little piece of memorabilia to stick on the wall. I, for one, haven't bought one, but I'm not going to chastise others that do the same when I have MU banners, flags from golf tournaments, and other autographed items in my house (of course I would chastise those that somehow think they have an "ownership" in the Packers).

[MUBurrow]

I'm a big fan of the stock sale - received one as a gift the first time around.

Of all the ways that corporate governance and the myths of the corporate form fu*k me every day, there's something nice about the Packers explicitly telling me they're only doing it to the tune of $250.

[Dish]

I said this previously, but I have to give a lot of kudos to the Packers stock sale. The Packers are "publicly" owned. From a business perspective, what better time to have a stock sale, it's brilliant. Outside of Ottawa, Green Bay is the smallest city in professional sports. I realize it's the NFL, and revenues are at an all time high, but the Packers are doing what they need to do economically speaking. They'll never have the corporate dollar revenue of the Bears, Cowboys, Redskins, etc.

From a fan standpoint, if there's any fandom that should be "publicly" owned, it's the Packers. Yes I'm a Bears fan, but I'm an NFL and football fan, and there's no team and community more intertwined than Green Bay and the Packers. It might just be a piece of paper, and the "ownership" that comes with it means next to nothing, but it's tougher to get a cooler piece of fandom than that stock certificate.

I have nothing but respect for the Packers front office, they do an outstanding job on and off the field.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

My mistake on whether the Packers were for-profit versus non-profit. But I still wonder where exactly the profit goes from the team. Surely, the management receives substantial bonuses for positive performance, yes? Also, the SEC does manage the sale of the fake stock, quite similar to regular businesses.

I think you guys underestimate the extent to which the Packer fan base out-state thinks that that sheet of paper means anything more than memorabilia. I meet/know a lot of people who believe that they seriously control part of the team via the stock. These are the same people that did not graduate from college but somehow associate themselves with UW-Madison.

[LON]

My mistake on whether the Packers were for-profit versus non-profit. But I still wonder where exactly the profit goes from the team. Surely, the management receives substantial bonuses for positive performance, yes? Also, the SEC does manage the sale of the fake stock, quite similar to regular businesses.

I think you guys underestimate the extent to which the Packer fan base out-state thinks that that sheet of paper means anything more than memorabilia. I meet/know a lot of people who believe that they seriously control part of the team via the stock. These are the same people that did not graduate from college but somehow associate themselves with UW-Madison.

Busting out one very broad brush, probably best to sit the rest of this one out.

[Spotcheck Billy]

My mistake on whether the Packers were for-profit versus non-profit. But I still wonder where exactly the profit goes from the team. Surely, the management receives substantial bonuses for positive performance, yes? Also, the SEC does manage the sale of the fake stock, quite similar to regular businesses.

I think you guys underestimate the extent to which the Packer fan base out-state thinks that that sheet of paper means anything more than memorabilia. I meet/know a lot of people who believe that they seriously control part of the team via the stock. These are the same people that did not graduate from college but somehow associate themselves with UW-Madison.

that's just silly....I know of no one that thinks about calling TT up to sign free agents because they have stock in the Pack

[GGGG]

My mistake on whether the Packers were for-profit versus non-profit. But I still wonder where exactly the profit goes from the team. Surely, the management receives substantial bonuses for positive performance, yes? Also, the SEC does manage the sale of the fake stock, quite similar to regular businesses.

It is "not-for-profit."  Which means all operating profit goes back into the team, and doesn't enrich an owner.  For instance, Robert Kraft (and others) likely get some sort of dividend based on their ownership every year, or at least increased market value of their shares, as well as a salary for running the team.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Busting out one very broad brush, probably best to sit the rest of this one out.

So you bought a lot, huh?

[shiloh26]

My mistake on whether the Packers were for-profit versus non-profit. But I still wonder where exactly the profit goes from the team. Surely, the management receives substantial bonuses for positive performance, yes? Also, the SEC does manage the sale of the fake stock, quite similar to regular businesses.

I think you guys underestimate the extent to which the Packer fan base out-state thinks that that sheet of paper means anything more than memorabilia. I meet/know a lot of people who believe that they seriously control part of the team via the stock. These are the same people that did not graduate from college but somehow associate themselves with UW-Madison.

Very doubtful that the SEC would regulate this, at least not to the extent they regulate real publicly traded stock.  Before its regulated it has to be a security, and while regular stock is a security, this stuff is not.  Its called a "stock", but as has been pointed out all over this thread, it has none of the characteristics of a normal stock: no dividends, can't freely transfer it, it won't appreciate or depreciate, its redemption value is close to 0.  For all intents and purposes, it is not a stock, even though they call it a stock.  

People don't buy it as an investment, no matter how thick some people on this thread seem to think Packers fans are, and so it makes sense that the SEC wouldn't regulate it.  

[MerrittsMustache]

that's just silly....I know of no one that thinks about calling TT up to sign free agents because they have stock in the Pack

As a Bears fan, I'd happily fork over $250 to have TT's ear on all Packer personnel decisions. I actually think that Jerry Angelo has been getting his scouting info directly from Packers fans for years.

[jmayer1]

My mistake on whether the Packers were for-profit versus non-profit. But I still wonder where exactly the profit goes from the team. Surely, the management receives substantial bonuses for positive performance, yes? Also, the SEC does manage the sale of the fake stock, quite similar to regular businesses.

I think you guys underestimate the extent to which the Packer fan base out-state thinks that that sheet of paper means anything more than memorabilia. I meet/know a lot of people who believe that they seriously control part of the team via the stock. These are the same people that did not graduate from college but somehow associate themselves with UW-Madison.

Perhaps you should do a little research on these items.

As Sultan said, no owners of the Packers make profit from the team. If the team were ever dissolved or sold, all profits go to charity (the Green Bay Packers Foundation).

http://packersowner.com/history

Also, the Packer "Stock" is not regulated by the SEC or any other securities organization as stated in the "prospectus":

THE COMMON STOCK HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED OR RECOMMENDED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION OR ANY STATE OR INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY NOR HAS THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ANY STATE OR INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY APPROVED THIS
OFFERING OR THE TERMS OF THIS OFFERING. FURTHERMORE, THESE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT CONFIRMED
THE ACCURACY OR DETERMINED THE ADEQUACY OF THIS DOCUMENT. ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE
CONTRARY IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
THE COMMON STOCK OFFERED HEREBY HAS NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF
1933, AS AMENDED, OR THE SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY STATE OR INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION.
THE CORPORATION BELIEVES OFFEREES AND PURCHASERS OF COMMON STOCK WILL NOT RECEIVE THE
PROTECTION OF FEDERAL, STATE OR INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES LAWS WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFERING
OF COMMON STOCK. THE COMMON STOCK IS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFERABILITY AND
RESALE AND MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED OR RESOLD EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. THIS OFFERING
DOCUMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFER TO SELL OR A SOLICITATION OF AN OFFER TO BUY NOR
SHALL THERE BE ANY SALE OF COMMON STOCK OFFERED HEREBY IN ANY JURISDICTION IN WHICH IT IS
UNLAWFUL TO MAKE SUCH OFFER, SOLICITATION OR SALE.

http://packersowner.com/uploads/Prospectus_Final_LoRes_11_21.pdf

[LON]

So you bought a lot, huh?

Why waste my time trying to change a mind already thoroughly entrenched in wrong ideas/thoughts/biases on an internet message board?

So no, I brought nothing, to go along with what you brought.

EDIT:  I thought you wrote "brought" and not bought.  Also, I did not buy any, nor would I.  I also am not going to make fun of anyone that has nor would I be upset if someone gave it to me as a present, as I'm sure many fans will get it on Christmas this year.

[Benny B]

My mistake on whether the Packers were for-profit versus non-profit. But I still wonder where exactly the profit goes from the team. Surely, the management receives substantial bonuses for positive performance, yes? Also, the SEC does manage the sale of the fake stock, quite similar to regular businesses.

I think you guys underestimate the extent to which the Packer fan base out-state thinks that that sheet of paper means anything more than memorabilia. I meet/know a lot of people who believe that they seriously control part of the team via the stock. These are the same people that did not graduate from college but somehow associate themselves with UW-Madison.

SEC doesn't "manage" the sale of the stock, nor do they regulate.  But they do play an "observer" role, if you will, in the sale.

Substantial bonuses have no bearing on whether a business is classified as not-for-profit.  Buzz Williams got a substantial bonus (pay increase, adjustment, whatever you call it) last year, but MUBB is still not-for-profit.  I personally know plenty of people in the not-for-profit world that make in excess of six-figure salaries, and certainly there are some that clear seven-figures as well.