Community Owned Sports Teams

[Grish]

Living in Seattle Area and watching the NBA/NHL issues here. What are people's thoughts towards the "Green Bay Model" of ownership.  Should communities have ownership stakes in teams if public funding or bonds are used to build stadiums or should communities be given a stake in or whole ownership?  

 

Personally, I think it is a crime that cities and fans are asked to commit to teams, stadiums and other resources then a team can move without having to expose themselves to local ownership first.  I am not an NBA fan, but seems that other cities are facing the Sonics issue of, "It happened there, so give us what we want or it will happen to you."  St. Louis, Atlanta and others are experiencing their version of this ideal.

 

Thoughts.

[dont care]

there is a reason why Green Bay is the team in North America owned by there town. They were created decades ago when sports were still small and not the close to billion dollars it takes now to operate a franchise. It wouldn't work to try to get public support for it today. Hell Seattle just denied a completely privately funded arena because of some corrupt spineless politicians and a port authority that just wanted to push its weight around. No way a team could ever get public support for it with the increased taxes that come with them for a completely publicly funded team. Green Bay even has to have stock holders now outside of the public owners to cover expenses. 

[Sec19Row53]

1 hour ago, dont care said:

Green Bay even has to have stock holders now outside of the public owners to cover expenses. 

That is false.  New stock holders were recruited/enticed as a way to make money that was earmarked for Lambeau Field expansion.  Any stockholder, of whatever vintage, has no voice in the franchise, nor any financial obligation or chance of monetary gain.

[clonewars2008]

Various CFL teams are Community owned: Saskatchewan, Winnipeg, and Edmonton  

[Gothamite]

On May 4, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Sec19Row53 said:

That is false.  New stock holders were recruited/enticed as a way to make money that was earmarked for Lambeau Field expansion.  Any stockholder, of whatever vintage, has no voice in the franchise, nor any financial obligation or chance of monetary gain.

 

Not the only false statement in that rant. 

[Magnus]

I want to see it more often. But then again, I am loony pinko-commie Magnus around here...

[Gothamite]

I do too.   But no league will allow it - it really rankles the NFL that they have to publicly release their financial information every year.  We always learn a lot about the real state of the league from the Packers' shareholder meetings. 

[sc49erfan15]

$40 and a dream...

[DustDevil61]

I like the idea and wished community-owned sports teams were more common, provided that the teams are well-supported and there are certain special municipal votes on the more business-related side of team management (president, CEO, etc. and those who would determine the GM). Other decisions that could be voted on would be stadiums and arenas, and ultimately whether to keep the team public or sell to a private party if enough people in the municipality are against it.

 

That said, I can understand why leagues don't like the idea, as far as potentially bog down personnel changes.

[Gothamite]

You forgot letting the public vote on plays.

 

[IceCap]

The Kitchener Rangers of the OHL are publicly owned.

[MadmanLA]

Speaking of the Packers and Lambeau Field, I came across a video last night about the team doing a feasibility study on putting a roof on top of Lambeau.  According to the date of the study, it looked like it would have been included in the renovations that were finished prior to the 1985 season (when the first set of luxury suites were built).

 

It just would have been hard to imagine seeing Lambeau as a domed stadium.

[The_Admiral]

Would have been cool if the Winnipeg Jets could have managed some public/community model with Spirit of Manitoba when the team was on the ropes.

[Sec19Row53]

36 minutes ago, MadmanLA said:

Speaking of the Packers and Lambeau Field, I came across a video last night about the team doing a feasibility study on putting a roof on top of Lambeau.  According to the date of the study, it looked like it would have been included in the renovations that were finished prior to the 1985 season (when the first set of luxury suites were built).

 

It just would have been hard to imagine seeing Lambeau as a domed stadium.

The fans would never have accepted it. No chance.

[The_Admiral]

Sure, them's was different times, but interesting that the so-called great football fans of Chicago were totally fine with the Bears' playing surface basically being the same as that of the Astrodome for all those years. Of course, now their playing surface is your neighbors' front yard after the kids were playing in the sprinkler all afternoon. It's tough out there.