PDA

View Full Version : The not-for-profit Green Bay Packers


Chris
01-25-2011, 03:08 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2011/01/those-non-profit-packers.html

In a season where N.F.L. owners have steadily threatened to lock out the players next year unless they secure more profits in the next collective bargaining agreement, it’s poetic justice to see the Green Bay Packers, the team without an owner, make the Super Bowl. Actually, it’s not quite accurate to say the Packers are without an owner. They have a hundred and twelve thousand of them. The Packers are owned by the fans, making them the only publicly owned, not-for-profit, major professional team in the United States. The Pack have been a fan-owned operation since the primitive pro football days of the nineteen-twenties, when N.F.L. teams could be won in card games and no one foresaw the awesome power this sport would hold over both the American imagination and the American wallet.

In 1923, the Packers were just another hardscrabble team on the brink of bankruptcy. Rather than fold they decided to sell shares to the community, with fans each throwing down a couple of dollars to keep the team afloat. That humble frozen seed has since blossomed into a situation wherein more than a hundred thousand stockholders own more than four million shares of a perennial playoff contender. Those holding Packers stock are limited to no more than two hundred thousand shares, keeping any individual from gaining control over the club. Shareholders receive no dividend check and no free tickets to Lambeau Field. They don’t even get a foam cheesehead. All they get is a piece of paper that says they are part-owners of the Green Bay Packers. They don’t even get a green and gold frame for display purposes.

The shareholders elect a board of directors and a seven-member executive committee to stand in at N.F.L. owners meetings. But football decisions are made by General Manager Ted Thompson, perhaps the luckiest and happiest G.M. in sports. This structure allows Thompson to execute decisions, even unpopular ones, without an impatient, jittery billionaire breathing down his neck. Since his hire in January 2005, Thompson has made his share of controversial moves. But unlike his G.M. brethren around the league, who carry little or no job security, Thompson has been given the space to see his moves succeed or fail on their own accord. It was Thompson who decided to jettison legendary quarterback Brett Favre in 2008 for the unproven but younger and considerably lower maintenance Aaron Rodgers. Today, Favre is officially (we hope) retired and Rodgers stands at the pinnacle of his sport.

The Packers’ unique setup has created a relationship between team and community unlike any in the N.F.L. Wisconsin fans get to enjoy the team with the confidence that their owner won’t threaten to move to Los Angeles unless the team gets a new mega-dome. Volunteers work concessions, with sixty per cent of the proceeds going to local charities. Even the beer is cheaper than at a typical N.F.L. stadium. Not only has home field been sold out for two decades, but during snowstorms, the team routinely puts out calls for volunteers to help shovel and is never disappointed by the response. It doesn’t matter how beloved the Cowboys are in Dallas; if Jerry Jones ever put out a call for free labor, he’d be laughed out of town.

Here are the Packers: financially solvent, competitive, and deeply connected to the hundred thousand person city of Green Bay. It’s a beautiful story but it’s one that the N.F.L. and Commissioner Roger Goodell take great pains both to hide and make sure no other locality replicates. It’s actually written in the N.F.L. bylaws that no team can be a non-profit, community owned entity. The late N.F.L. commissioner Pete Rozelle had it written into the league’s constitution in 1960. Article V, Section 4—otherwise known as the Green Bay Rule—states that “charitable organizations and/or corporations not organized for profit and not now a member of the league may not hold membership in the National Football League.”

I talked with Rick Chernick, a member of the Packers board of directors, about whether other communities should challenge the N.F.L. constitution and be like Green Bay. Chernick expressed doubt, saying: I’m just not sure in today’s day and age a team could follow the Packer way. The cost of ownership is a ton today, thus being almost an impossible task without deep pockets. Green Bay is truly a special, special situation.

Chernick makes a valid point. But there is a strong counterargument as well. It may be exorbitantly expensive to run a team, but people don’t buy N.F.L. teams as a civic service. Being an N.F.L. owner is like having a license to print money. Television contracts alone run in the billions, with the 2006-2011 contracts valued at approximately $3 billion annually, $800 million more than the previous contracts. In addition, N.F.L. teams have received $6 billion in public funds to build the current crop of stadiums. In other words, the public is already shouldering a great deal of the cost and debt for N.F.L. franchises. But these public dollars, through some sort of magic alchemy, morph into private profits that often flow away from the communities that ponied up the dough. In the United States, we socialize the debt of sports and privatize the profits. Green Bay stands as a living, breathing, and, for the owners, frightening example, that pro sports can aid our cities in tough economic times, not drain them of scarce public resources.

Fans in San Diego and Minnesota, in particular, where local N.F.L. owners are threatening to uproot the home teams and move them to Los Angeles, might look toward Green Bay and wonder whether they could do a better job than the men in the owner’s box. And if N.F.L. owners go ahead and lock the players out next season, more than a few long suffering fans might look at their long suffering franchises and ask, “Maybe we don’t need owners at all.” It has worked in Green Bay—all the way to the Super Bowl.

Rohirrim
01-25-2011, 04:17 PM
God cursed socialists.

That One Guy
01-25-2011, 04:31 PM
I didn't know it was illegal now.

I really thought this is exactly what that new football league needed to do if they wanted to compete with the NFL. They could even make it for profitable shares and it would take off in popularity. I really think they could compete with the NFL (at least in fan support) if they made it so you could truly be vested in your team's success or failure.

Tombstone RJ
01-25-2011, 04:31 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2011/01/those-non-profit-packers.html

In a season where N.F.L. owners have steadily threatened to lock out the players next year unless they secure more profits in the next collective bargaining agreement, it’s poetic justice to see the Green Bay Packers, the team without an owner, make the Super Bowl. Actually, it’s not quite accurate to say the Packers are without an owner. They have a hundred and twelve thousand of them. The Packers are owned by the fans, making them the only publicly owned, not-for-profit, major professional team in the United States. The Pack have been a fan-owned operation since the primitive pro football days of the nineteen-twenties, when N.F.L. teams could be won in card games and no one foresaw the awesome power this sport would hold over both the American imagination and the American wallet.

In 1923, the Packers were just another hardscrabble team on the brink of bankruptcy. Rather than fold they decided to sell shares to the community, with fans each throwing down a couple of dollars to keep the team afloat. That humble frozen seed has since blossomed into a situation wherein more than a hundred thousand stockholders own more than four million shares of a perennial playoff contender. Those holding Packers stock are limited to no more than two hundred thousand shares, keeping any individual from gaining control over the club. Shareholders receive no dividend check and no free tickets to Lambeau Field. They don’t even get a foam cheesehead. All they get is a piece of paper that says they are part-owners of the Green Bay Packers. They don’t even get a green and gold frame for display purposes.

The shareholders elect a board of directors and a seven-member executive committee to stand in at N.F.L. owners meetings. But football decisions are made by General Manager Ted Thompson, perhaps the luckiest and happiest G.M. in sports. This structure allows Thompson to execute decisions, even unpopular ones, without an impatient, jittery billionaire breathing down his neck. Since his hire in January 2005, Thompson has made his share of controversial moves. But unlike his G.M. brethren around the league, who carry little or no job security, Thompson has been given the space to see his moves succeed or fail on their own accord. It was Thompson who decided to jettison legendary quarterback Brett Favre in 2008 for the unproven but younger and considerably lower maintenance Aaron Rodgers. Today, Favre is officially (we hope) retired and Rodgers stands at the pinnacle of his sport.

The Packers’ unique setup has created a relationship between team and community unlike any in the N.F.L. Wisconsin fans get to enjoy the team with the confidence that their owner won’t threaten to move to Los Angeles unless the team gets a new mega-dome. Volunteers work concessions, with sixty per cent of the proceeds going to local charities. Even the beer is cheaper than at a typical N.F.L. stadium. Not only has home field been sold out for two decades, but during snowstorms, the team routinely puts out calls for volunteers to help shovel and is never disappointed by the response. It doesn’t matter how beloved the Cowboys are in Dallas; if Jerry Jones ever put out a call for free labor, he’d be laughed out of town.

Here are the Packers: financially solvent, competitive, and deeply connected to the hundred thousand person city of Green Bay. It’s a beautiful story but it’s one that the N.F.L. and Commissioner Roger Goodell take great pains both to hide and make sure no other locality replicates. It’s actually written in the N.F.L. bylaws that no team can be a non-profit, community owned entity. The late N.F.L. commissioner Pete Rozelle had it written into the league’s constitution in 1960. Article V, Section 4—otherwise known as the Green Bay Rule—states that “charitable organizations and/or corporations not organized for profit and not now a member of the league may not hold membership in the National Football League.”

I talked with Rick Chernick, a member of the Packers board of directors, about whether other communities should challenge the N.F.L. constitution and be like Green Bay. Chernick expressed doubt, saying: I’m just not sure in today’s day and age a team could follow the Packer way. The cost of ownership is a ton today, thus being almost an impossible task without deep pockets. Green Bay is truly a special, special situation.

Chernick makes a valid point. But there is a strong counterargument as well. It may be exorbitantly expensive to run a team, but people don’t buy N.F.L. teams as a civic service. Being an N.F.L. owner is like having a license to print money. Television contracts alone run in the billions, with the 2006-2011 contracts valued at approximately $3 billion annually, $800 million more than the previous contracts. In addition, N.F.L. teams have received $6 billion in public funds to build the current crop of stadiums. In other words, the public is already shouldering a great deal of the cost and debt for N.F.L. franchises. But these public dollars, through some sort of magic alchemy, morph into private profits that often flow away from the communities that ponied up the dough. In the United States, we socialize the debt of sports and privatize the profits. Green Bay stands as a living, breathing, and, for the owners, frightening example, that pro sports can aid our cities in tough economic times, not drain them of scarce public resources.

Fans in San Diego and Minnesota, in particular, where local N.F.L. owners are threatening to uproot the home teams and move them to Los Angeles, might look toward Green Bay and wonder whether they could do a better job than the men in the owner’s box. And if N.F.L. owners go ahead and lock the players out next season, more than a few long suffering fans might look at their long suffering franchises and ask, “Maybe we don’t need owners at all.” It has worked in Green Bay—all the way to the Super Bowl.

All the small market teams should have the option to sell shares of the team to the community. Buffalo is a great example of a team that should be sold to the people of Buffalo.

I dunno why the owners are so opposed to this idea. Hell, all the teams share in the profits, what does it matter if a single person (or a few people) own the team or a community of people own the team? You can always generate more capital by selling more shares.

That One Guy
01-25-2011, 04:33 PM
All the small market teams should have the option to sell shares of the team to the community. Buffalo is a great example of a team that should be sold to the people of Buffalo.

I dunno why the owners are so opposed to this idea. Hell, all the teams share in the profits, what does it matter if a single person (or a few people) own the team or a community of people own the team? You can always generate more capital by selling more shares.

Probably because it'd be harder for some owners to make profit if some went non-profit. The owners would be held to a higher standard if it were common that NFL teams were a community entity. As is, they only want you to look at it that way when you're buying souvenirs or season tickets and trying to out-fan each other. Otherwise, they want to dangle it over your head that it's the owner's team and if you don't support it enough...

Bronco Boy
01-25-2011, 04:34 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2011/01/those-non-profit-packers.html

Fans in San Diego and Minnesota, in particular, where local N.F.L. owners are threatening to uproot the home teams and move them to Los Angeles, might look toward Green Bay and wonder whether they could do a better job than the men in the owner’s box. And if N.F.L. owners go ahead and lock the players out next season, more than a few long suffering fans might look at their long suffering franchises and ask, “Maybe we don’t need owners at all.” It has worked in Green Bay—all the way to the Super Bowl.

This paragraph makes no sense. What exactly are the fans supposed to do?

That One Guy
01-25-2011, 04:35 PM
This paragraph makes no sense. What exactly are the fans supposed to do?

It's the owners that need those mega stadiums to make the big bucks. It's the lack of a mega stadium that is causing them to want to move.

Jay3
01-25-2011, 04:38 PM
This paragraph makes no sense. What exactly are the fans supposed to do?

For one thing, teams threaten to move if the local government doesn't pay to build them a lavish stadium. (Which is baloney -- I think the revenues should pay for the stadium). And politicians don't want to be the ones who "lose" the hometown team on their watch.

The one advantage the Packers have is that their sucky stadium has to suffice, the team can't threaten to move.

(And the stadium has a lot of character, and much to love, but there are millions to be made in club seats, box seats, restaurants, etc., but the old stadiums like Lambeau don't have what they need).

El Minion
01-25-2011, 04:39 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2011/01/those-non-profit-packers.html



Chernick makes a valid point. But there is a strong counterargument as well. It may be exorbitantly expensive to run a team, but people don’t buy N.F.L. teams as a civic service. Being an N.F.L. owner is like having a license to print money. Television contracts alone run in the billions, with the 2006-2011 contracts valued at approximately $3 billion annually, $800 million more than the previous contracts. In addition, N.F.L. teams have received $6 billion in public funds to build the current crop of stadiums. In other words, the public is already shouldering a great deal of the cost and debt for N.F.L. franchises. But these public dollars, through some sort of magic alchemy, morph into private profits that often flow away from the communities that ponied up the dough. In the United States, we socialize the debt of sports and privatize the profits. Green Bay stands as a living, breathing, and, for the owners, frightening example, that pro sports can aid our cities in tough economic times, not drain them of scarce public resources.



Thank you LA for not subsidizing stadiums for billionaires.

That One Guy
01-25-2011, 04:42 PM
Thank you LA for not subsidizing stadiums for billionaires.

I know I read that they were making major concessions on laws and regulations, are they not doing any money concessions?

Tombstone RJ
01-25-2011, 04:47 PM
This paragraph makes no sense. What exactly are the fans supposed to do?

they can't do anything accept cowtow to the owners.

Bronco Boy
01-25-2011, 04:47 PM
For one thing, teams threaten to move if the local government doesn't pay to build them a lavish stadium. (Which is baloney -- I think the revenues should pay for the stadium). And politicians don't want to be the ones who "lose" the hometown team on their watch.

The one advantage the Packers have is that their sucky stadium has to suffice, the team can't threaten to move.

(And the stadium has a lot of character, and much to love, but there are millions to be made in club seats, box seats, restaurants, etc., but the old stadiums like Lambeau don't have what they need).

Okay, but again, what are the fans supposed to do about any of that?

✡✡ JOSHUA ✡✡
01-25-2011, 04:48 PM
In 1996, Denver (#1) ranked just ahead of Green Bay (#2) when it came to NFL's best football town. The Broncos are still a religion here, but it seems like connection between the players and fans is not what it used to be.

✡✡ JOSHUA ✡✡
01-25-2011, 04:49 PM
they can't do anything accept cowtow to the owners.

They are exempt from Sherman Anti-Trust legislation. They are The Club. They run the ****ing world.

Pontius Pirate
01-25-2011, 04:49 PM
It's a cinderalla story of one small-market team (that likes to sexually harass women) going up against a goliath (that likes to sexually harass women).

Vegas_Bronco
01-25-2011, 04:49 PM
I did the math once for us all to buy the broncos...it was based off of the active.posters and the forbes 2008 pricetag for the broncos...ended up being like $60k or $160k each...but due to many of your wives it lost moment at TJs last board meeting.

$907 million divided by 1200 OMane users = $755,000 for you all to ante up.

Tombstone RJ
01-25-2011, 04:52 PM
The fans of the Denver Broncos and the community of Denver made Pat Bowlen and even richer man when they agreed to build a new stadium with tax payers money. Bowlen never threatened to move the team but he did say he would probably have to sell the team if he didn't get a new stadium. In essence that is a veiled threat to move the team because a new owner could have purchased the team and then said, adios....

I also believe, to this day, that Bowlen took the D out of the logo because he did not know if the team was gonna stay in Denver. I'm convinced of that and no one can dissuade me of that. He took a fantastic logo and screwed it all up, he basically made a generic looking logo in anticipation that the team may have to move at sometime in the future.

Majik
01-25-2011, 04:53 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2011/01/those-non-profit-packers.html

The Packers’ unique setup has created a relationship between team and community unlike any in the N.F.L. Wisconsin fans get to enjoy the team with the confidence that their owner won’t threaten to move to Los Angeles unless the team gets a new mega-dome. Volunteers work concessions, with sixty per cent of the proceeds going to local charities. Even the beer is cheaper than at a typical N.F.L. stadium. Not only has home field been sold out for two decades, but during snowstorms, the team routinely puts out calls for volunteers to help shovel and is never disappointed by the response. It doesn’t matter how beloved the Cowboys are in Dallas; if Jerry Jones ever put out a call for free labor, he’d be laughed out of town.

$8 for a large beer. I can't imagine that being much cheaper. What's the beer prices from around the league?

SonOfLe-loLang
01-25-2011, 04:55 PM
The fans of the Denver Broncos and the community of Denver made Pat Bowlen and even richer man when they agreed to build a new stadium with tax payers money. Bowlen never threatened to move the team but he did say he would probably have to sell the team if he didn't get a new stadium. In essence that is a veiled threat to move the team because a new owner could have purchased the team and then said, adios....

I also believe, to this day, that Bowlen tood the D out of the logo because he did not know if the team was gonna stay in Denver. I'm convinced of that and no one can dissuade me of that. He took a fantastic logo and screwed it all up, he basically made a a generic looking logo in anticipation that the team may have to move at sometime in the future.

Perhaps, but the old Broncos logo looked pretty dated. it'd make more sense that he made a more "generic" logo to create a mass appeal with regards to merchandise. In my experience (and observation), people tend to gravitate towards sports merchandise that arent very sports/city centric (yankees excluded as that club is steeped in history)

Cmac821
01-25-2011, 05:01 PM
I did the math once for us all to buy the broncos...it was based off of the active.posters and the forbes 2008 pricetag for the broncos...ended up being like $60k or $160k each...but due to many of your wives it lost moment at TJs last board meeting.

$907 million divided by 1200 OMane users = $755,000 for you all to ante up.

No thanks

Tombstone RJ
01-25-2011, 05:02 PM
Perhaps, but the old Broncos logo looked pretty dated. it'd make more sense that he made a more "generic" logo to create a mass appeal with regards to merchandise. In my experience (and observation), people tend to gravitate towards sports merchandise that arent very sports/city centric (yankees excluded as that club is steeped in history)

It's probably a little of both. He had Nike create the new logo and they probably said "it appeals to a wider audience and if you move the team, you don't have to change anything...."

Chris
01-25-2011, 06:04 PM
All the small market teams should have the option to sell shares of the team to the community. Buffalo is a great example of a team that should be sold to the people of Buffalo.

I dunno why the owners are so opposed to this idea. Hell, all the teams share in the profits, what does it matter if a single person (or a few people) own the team or a community of people own the team? You can always generate more capital by selling more shares.

Because with more fan owned teams money would not be the first priority which goes against their interests. They collude with each other on everything to make massive amounts of profit.

El Minion
01-25-2011, 07:43 PM
I know I read that they were making major concessions on laws and regulations, are they not doing any money concessions?

This is what I remember (http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/news/125-editorial-yahoo-sports.html):


Senate Approves Environmental Exemptions for NFL Stadium. Hello, Raiders?


http://laist.com/attachments/la_zach/nfl-stadium-09.jpg

Watch out, Los Angeles. We might be having a Raider Nation soon enough (or hey, maybe even get back the Chargers).
In a legislative session yesterday, the state's senate approved a bill that "would grant the 75,000-seat stadium project an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act, the environmental law that governs development," according to the San Gabriel Valley Tribune (http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_13564122). It next goes to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk and if approved, it will nullify a pending lawsuit (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2009/10/senate_oks_environmental_exemption_for_nfl_stadium .php#more) brought forth by a citizens group.

The project in the city of Industry is expected to create "18,000 jobs, generate over $762 million in economic output and over $320 million in salaries for residents throughout Los Angeles County and surrounding communities," according to a news release from Assemblyman Isadore Hall II, D-Compton, the bill's author.
This puts stadium developers in the position to vie for a team for the 2010 season. Raiders, Chargers, Vikings, Bills, Rams, 49ers and Jaguars are among the list to be considered.
Previously
- Raiders Fast Track to LA? (http://laist.com/2009/10/12/raiders_fast_track_to_la.php)
- Beware of the NFL (http://laist.com/2009/10/12/beware_of_the_nfl.php)
- NFL Stadium Developer Loses $1 Billion in Personal Wealth (http://laist.com/2009/10/06/nfl_stadium_developer_loses_1_billi.php)

<!-- google_ad_section_end --> Contact the author of this article (http://laist.com/staff.php) or email tips@laist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

http://laist.com/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-569-100x100.png (http://laist.com/profile/la_zach)
By Zach Behrens (http://laist.com/profile/la_zach) in News (http://laist.com/news) on <abbr class="published" title="2009-10-15T08:47:26-08:00">October 15, 2009 8:47 AM</abbr>

gyldenlove
01-25-2011, 08:16 PM
All the small market teams should have the option to sell shares of the team to the community. Buffalo is a great example of a team that should be sold to the people of Buffalo.

I dunno why the owners are so opposed to this idea. Hell, all the teams share in the profits, what does it matter if a single person (or a few people) own the team or a community of people own the team? You can always generate more capital by selling more shares.

Community owned teams would have public records (like the Packers) and the owners do not want anybody looking over their shoulders.

footstepsfrom#27
01-25-2011, 08:23 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2011/01/those-non-profit-packers.html

In a season where N.F.L. owners have steadily threatened to lock out the players next year unless they secure more profits in the next collective bargaining agreement, it’s poetic justice to see the Green Bay Packers, the team without an owner, make the Super Bowl. Actually, it’s not quite accurate to say the Packers are without an owner. They have a hundred and twelve thousand of them. The Packers are owned by the fans, making them the only publicly owned, not-for-profit, major professional team in the United States. The Pack have been a fan-owned operation since the primitive pro football days of the nineteen-twenties, when N.F.L. teams could be won in card games and no one foresaw the awesome power this sport would hold over both the American imagination and the American wallet.
Something doesn't make sense. Non profit corporations can not sell stock because they have none to sell. By definition, if you're selling stock, you're granting equity. There is no such thing as equity in a non profit and nobody "owns" any portion of a non profit because there is nothing to own...no equity. No equity, no stock...no stockholders. These are IRS guidelines...federal not state.

Wikipedia: As of June 8, 2005, 112,015 people (representing 4,750,934 shares) can lay claim to a franchise ownership interest. Shares of stock include voting rights, but the redemption price is minimal, no dividends are ever paid, the stock cannot appreciate in value (though private sales often exceed the face value of the stock), and stock ownership brings no season ticket privileges. No shareholder may own over 200,000 shares, a safeguard to ensure that no individual can assume control of the club. To run the corporation, a board of directors is elected by the stockholders.

The packers sound more like a cooperative utility than a non profit. Any tax attorneys on this site? I do a lot of work with NGO/NPO clients and would be interested in how they've structured a non profit to sell stock, if it is stock. I have a hunch it's not real stock, as evidenced by the description above; "no dividends are ever paid"..."redemption price is minimal"..."stock cannot appreciate in value".

None of that sounds like real stock...anyone know how they're pulling this off?

footstepsfrom#27
01-25-2011, 08:31 PM
All the small market teams should have the option to sell shares of the team to the community. Buffalo is a great example of a team that should be sold to the people of Buffalo.

I dunno why the owners are so opposed to this idea. Hell, all the teams share in the profits, what does it matter if a single person (or a few people) own the team or a community of people own the team? You can always generate more capital by selling more shares.
The owners are opposed because they want to make money...duh.
"Non profits" can't sell shares because it's illegal, as they have no equity to sell. There are numerous non profit entities outside of the familiar 501(c3) organizations we all know about, but I'm unaware of any form of non profit that is allowed to sell stock. As a non profit, would they be tax exempt? If they are, this would be a major competitive advantage.

Bronco Boy
01-25-2011, 10:09 PM
The owners are opposed because they want to make money...duh.
"Non profits" can't sell shares because it's illegal, as they have no equity to sell. There are numerous non profit entities outside of the familiar 501(c3) organizations we all know about, but I'm unaware of any form of non profit that is allowed to sell stock. As a non profit, would they be tax exempt? If they are, this would be a major competitive advantage.

Well the Packers call it "selling stock" when they do an offering, but its really more of a donation. And yes they are tax exempt as far as I know. I don't know about "competitive advantage" since their profits go into a charitable fund.

Bronco Boy
02-09-2011, 03:55 PM
Another good writeup on the Packers owners:

The Packers and Pride of Ownership (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/02/09/the-packers-and-pride-of-ownership.aspx?source=ihpsitth0000001)

footstepsfrom#27
02-09-2011, 04:16 PM
Well the Packers call it "selling stock" when they do an offering, but its really more of a donation. And yes they are tax exempt as far as I know. I don't know about "competitive advantage" since their profits go into a charitable fund.
I'm pretty sure their profits go towards what other teams profits go towards...making more profits and paying overhead. I'm unaware of any "charity" that is covered under IRS rules that looks like a football team in mission. There's something we don't know here. I'm not sure what, but there has to be something. "Stock" isn't just a word we use because we like the sound of it. Stock is a legally defined concept, and you either have "stock" or you don't. You have it when you have equity to sell, which is what stock is. Non-profits have NO equity, to sell or otherwise. Nobody can "own" a non-profit enterprise since ownership requires the existence of equity. Non-profits cannot be valued financially by the IRS, nor by individuals. In terms of value as we speak of it, they have none of that either. You can found or manage a non profit, but you can't OWN one and you certainly can't sell one. So if there's a tax attorney out there who can explain this I'm all ears. Offering a piece of the team (that's what sales of stock do) for ownership isn't possible unless you're offering something that can be legally "owned".

CPA's....tax lawyers...anybody do that?

Bronco Boy
02-09-2011, 04:41 PM
I'm pretty sure their profits go towards what other teams profits go towards...making more profits and paying overhead. I'm unaware of any "charity" that is covered under IRS rules that looks like a football team in mission. There's something we don't know here. I'm not sure what, but there has to be something. "Stock" isn't just a word we use because we like the sound of it. Stock is a legally defined concept, and you either have "stock" or you don't. You have it when you have equity to sell, which is what stock is. Non-profits have NO equity, to sell or otherwise. Nobody can "own" a non-profit enterprise since ownership requires the existence of equity. Non-profits cannot be valued financially by the IRS, nor by individuals. In terms of value as we speak of it, they have none of that either. You can found or manage a non profit, but you can't OWN one and you certainly can't sell one. So if there's a tax attorney out there who can explain this I'm all ears. Offering a piece of the team (that's what sales of stock do) for ownership isn't possible unless you're offering something that can be legally "owned".

CPA's....tax lawyers...anybody do that?

I'm not sure why you care so much about the legal/tax status of the organization, but I believe they are organized as a nonprofit corporation and/or a "non-stock corporation." Hopefully that helps you.

UboBronco
02-09-2011, 07:20 PM
WOW... Have you been to Lambeau? We have season tickets on the 42 yard line, right below the Fox Broadcast booth. It has been remodeled so it does have Restaurants, indoor and outdoor club seats, Boxes... A Pro Shop that puts the one at Invesco to shame.

As far as owning stock, my wife has some, it is essential a $200 donation to the team. This community is ALWAYS overly stoked for the team, all year round.

The biggest revenue difference that effects the Packes is the lack of people in the direct area that can visit all of these venues. Everyday they host Weddings, receptions, business meetings, social groups... The community does all it can to support the team, but there is only so much that the locals can do with the small population.

The stadium expansion was funded with a tax. So the politicians put it to a vote, and the public of the one county (Brown) did approve it.

So, if you were here, you would not agree, that it is a "sucky" stadium..

For one thing, teams threaten to move if the local government doesn't pay to build them a lavish stadium. (Which is baloney -- I think the revenues should pay for the stadium). And politicians don't want to be the ones who "lose" the hometown team on their watch.

The one advantage the Packers have is that their sucky stadium has to suffice, the team can't threaten to move.

(And the stadium has a lot of character, and much to love, but there are millions to be made in club seats, box seats, restaurants, etc., but the old stadiums like Lambeau don't have what they need).

UboBronco
02-09-2011, 07:24 PM
Well the Packers call it "selling stock" when they do an offering, but its really more of a donation. And yes they are tax exempt as far as I know. I don't know about "competitive advantage" since their profits go into a charitable fund.

The stock is not tax deductable... It is just the community showing support for their team...

Bronco Boy
02-09-2011, 08:48 PM
The stock is not tax deductable... It is just the community showing support for their team...

I wasn't saying the stock is tax deductible, but I believe the team itself is exempt from tax. I could be wrong about that though.

fdf
02-09-2011, 09:04 PM
Well the Packers call it "selling stock" when they do an offering, but its really more of a donation. And yes they are tax exempt as far as I know. I don't know about "competitive advantage" since their profits go into a charitable fund.

Interesting. Is there a board of directors to supervise management? Do the shareholders have a say in who sits on the board?

If not, this is an arrangement that could go south really quickly. There's often nothing worse than entrenched management that cannot be fired. They get to like their salaries and perks a lot and start acting like a public utility.

And for those who say it could never happen in a non-profit because of purer motives, I assure them it can and does often happen in non-profit--Bono's non-profit that doesn't actually spend any money doing good is an example.

Bronco Boy
02-10-2011, 08:34 AM
Interesting. Is there a board of directors to supervise management? Do the shareholders have a say in who sits on the board?



The answer is yes to both of these. I think they have a big shareholders meeting every year at lambeau to vote on the board and other important stuff.

GSRelyea
02-10-2011, 10:32 AM
The packers sound more like a cooperative utility than a non profit. Any tax attorneys on this site? I do a lot of work with NGO/NPO clients and would be interested in how they've structured a non profit to sell stock, if it is stock. I have a hunch it's not real stock, as evidenced by the description above; "no dividends are ever paid"..."redemption price is minimal"..."stock cannot appreciate in value".

None of that sounds like real stock...anyone know how they're pulling this off?

If they have stock certificates, they are set at "no par value" When you set up a corporation(for Profit in NY) there is always stock, but most small companies have stocks set this way for tax purposes,and with no intention of being traded on the
open market. I don't know the Wisconsin SOS filing requirements but in New York you add peoples names to the board of directors list- in lue of actual stock certificates.

They must be a 501(c)3 tax exempt, which is a fairly easy process to set up. It cost me 700$ to get tax exempt, and that was a higher amount for those companies that will annualy raise more that 10,000 for charities. But if you are under that 10,000 mark you would only pay 300 for the application.

footstepsfrom#27
02-10-2011, 10:23 PM
They must be a 501(c)3 tax exempt, which is a fairly easy process to set up. It cost me 700$ to get tax exempt, and that was a higher amount for those companies that will annualy raise more that 10,000 for charities. But if you are under that 10,000 mark you would only pay 300 for the application.
It's not a question of being east to set up, but rather whether they qualify by mission for non profit status. Here is how the IRS defines the qualifications for recognition as a 501(c)3 organiztion:
In order to qualify for 501(c)(3) status, an entity must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals..
Obviously none of the above apply to the Packers. There are 28 separate "C" class subdivisions of IRS Chapter 501, of which the "3" organizations are only the best known, and often the 501(c)3 title is applied generically to all non profit entitites eroneously by the public.

I'm still not sure how they are able to place a professional sports mission within the context of a non profit venture that qualifies, but I'm thinking I'll look into this more since it's a bit of a puzzle.

gunns
02-10-2011, 10:54 PM
I did the math once for us all to buy the broncos...it was based off of the active.posters and the forbes 2008 pricetag for the broncos...ended up being like $60k or $160k each...but due to many of your wives it lost moment at TJs last board meeting.

$907 million divided by 1200 OMane users = $755,000 for you all to ante up.

Damn, I need to get another job

Bronco Boy
02-11-2011, 11:00 AM
It's not a question of being east to set up, but rather whether they qualify by mission for non profit status. Here is how the IRS defines the qualifications for recognition as a 501(c)3 organiztion:
.
Obviously none of the above apply to the Packers. There are 28 separate "C" class subdivisions of IRS Chapter 501, of which the "3" organizations are only the best known, and often the 501(c)3 title is applied generically to all non profit entitites eroneously by the public.

I'm still not sure how they are able to place a professional sports mission within the context of a non profit venture that qualifies, but I'm thinking I'll look into this more since it's a bit of a puzzle.

They would qualify as operating exclusively for charitable purposes, since the profits of the team go into a charitable branch of the corporation. The operations of the team would be classified as unrelated business income, but would not affect their status as a non-profit.

bendog
02-11-2011, 01:10 PM
I did the math once for us all to buy the broncos...it was based off of the active.posters and the forbes 2008 pricetag for the broncos...ended up being like $60k or $160k each...but due to many of your wives it lost moment at TJs last board meeting.

$907 million divided by 1200 OMane users = $755,000 for you all to ante up.

Well, we could just nationalize the team and offer Bowlen 10% of fair value in exchange for letting him and his family leave alive.